Given all the debates and comments, I thought some basic economics ought to be covered, specifically:
- The Theory of the Second Best
- Free markets and free information
- Capture (it occurs)
- Capture (it really occurs)
The Theory of the Second Best
–or why economic rules don’t mean that you can count on economics to be right.
If you know what perfection is (e.g. no monopolies) and you know where you are (e.g. a situation with two monopolies), the second best situation is not necessarily the one in a straight line between where you are and perfection (e.g. if you can only get rid of one monopoly you might be better off to have two — think of a coal mining town with one employer and with one union — getting rid of just one might make things worse for everyone).
The result is that it makes the application of economic principals much more complicated.
Free markets are not free
To have a market system requires that there be a free flow of accurate and trustworthy information. Every historical market system failure has involved information shortages or inaccuracies. The sub-prime mortgage meltdown? Toxic assets — bad (and fraudulent) information at the core.
The reason for regulations and regulatory systems is to ensure accurate and evenly distributed information (the opposite of insider trading). Without that, you don’t have free markets, you have free for all theft.
Capture occurs
Capture is when a regulatory entity is taken over by the groups it regulates. Because regulated groups have the most interest, contact and sustained focus, they tend to capture regulators over time.
There are partial solutions. (a) When possible, align interests. The insurance guarantee funds are aligned with the long term interests of the industry. With a guarantee fund, every pressure to do the wrong thing to benefit part of the industry in the short run gets push back from other parts who take the longer view. (b) Build in contrary oversight. Public members, anti-industry groups, etc. all fit into this section. (c) Conduct reviews and challenges to the agency by those whose interests are counter to the industry. (d) Make rule making and other activities public, open and of record. (e) Be very aware of the principal of capture.
Capture really occurs
That is, legislatures get captured by special interests all the time. A charity that wants a tax break will always have more focused pressure than the general desire of the public to oppose the break. Most capture looks good in isolation. It is only as part of a giant ball of messy goo that it looks bad. But the essence of all legislation is capture. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes a mix. Invariably it leads to exploitation.
Cures include sunset provisions (if all tax breaks automatically expire after five years, then the buggy whip tax break at some point gets attention). Zero sum (if you allow “x” amount of breaks, then every time one group gets a break, another has to lose it). Pro ratas (e.g. if each program gets not $x.xx but instead gets %.xx of the budget). Balanced budget amendments.
However, in a world of second best situations, imperfect information and constant capture, the economics are not a simple as often assumed. Too often we act as if the second best was obvious, information was free and trustworthy and total, and no capture would ever occur.
Bonus: The subtexts in political debates.
“Social security will become broken by the year …” The year is 2011, regardless of what anyone says. 2011 the deficit for social security (where payout exceeds pay-in) will be 158 billion dollars. Since there is no trust fund (the money was not saved, it was just spent as free revenue for politicians), as of 2011 Social Security started to eat the rest of the budget alive from the inside.
“Medicare …” There is a flood, a deluge, of health expenses that are building, all circling around non-compliant diabetics and their health issues. If there were no expenditures on non-compliant diabetics and all seniors walked at least two miles a day and did weight bearing exercises, medicare would be less than half of what it currently is. Instead, it is rapidly headed towards 110% of the total federal budget.
“Energy, the magic bullet missed.” In the late 1960s nuclear fusion was seen as the magic bullet. Sea water goes in, industrial chemicals, energy, fresh water and helium come out. By the early 70s (and I read thousands of pages of congressional reports on the topic) the debate was over how long it would take. Would we have fusion by 1990? By 2000? Would we have to wait until 2010? Well, it is 2011 and we still do not have it, and it does not seem likely to be coming on line soon.
Had we gotten plentiful, free energy (and water) in 2000, the economic boost would have been transformative, and it would have gutted the economic threat of our enemies. Too many people in politics spent, planned and acted as if that was going to happen, some time, eventually, pretty soon. If it had, the world would be a much different place (imagine gasoline at 50 cents a gallon — basically transport and tax costs).
“Tax the rich …” Well, you can only tax the rich for about 25% of their income before they start to avoid you and you lose the tax revenue. The good news is that from the historical levels of 20 to 25% we are currently down to 17%. The bad news is that just taxing the rich is not (and has never been) enough to solve the tax problems.
“Governmental borrowing is almost always a matter of spending the future” — usually it means a net long term economic loss. It does allow the current politicians to have all the benefits and passes all the burdens on to someone else. Consider, we went from pretty much in balance under Bill Clinton to looking at 14 trillion dollars in debt (that we have to pay off). It was fun for someone.
… and the most insidious truthful sub-text …
Good government is what makes markets and wealth as we know it possible. You can trust your currency to be currency (barter creates incredible amounts of economic drag and loss). You can trust your debit card to work. You can buy stock and sell it. You can buy milk or gas and trust it to be safe and as labeled.
There are places where a driver has a gasoline testing kit to use when they buy gasoline. Milk used to be a major cause of infant and child mortality. In the anarchist paradises of Somalia and Albania looking across the straits at the kleptomancies of Zimbabwe and … there are not reliable banks or currencies. Without those, there is no real wealth (consider those who destroyed the banking system by seizing all the farms that were the collateral for the banks loans in Zimbabwe — they are now net importers of food. That land has no real value now that they’ve stolen it and can’t effectively farm it or resell it).
Bad government destroys wealth, but good government is a tremendous competitive advantage that creates wealth — if you don’t let kelptocracies capture it all. Without government you can be a pretty successful subsistence farmer. But trade, competitive advantage, and all the benefits of a large and robust economic and educational system? Those come from good government.
Anyway, that is an initial economic primer on the economics relevant to political discussions.
What the free market really is:
http://mises.org/daily/1973
The fallacies of regulation:
http://mises.org/daily/3613/The-Real-Right-to-Medical-Care-versus-Socialized-Medicine
We are talking different types of regulation.
Suffice it to say, until we had regulation of milk it was the number one cause of infant and children dieing in the United States.
Regulation:
Stephen,
Could you provide a source on your milk regulation?
Either way the principles hold true, people have their self interest in mind, if milk were killing babies why not do a public announcement on it and let people decide for themselves?
I agree with most of your observations, but I think you are off base on Medicare. I assume you are exagerrating when you attribute all of its problem to noncompliant diabetics, but your basic argument boils down to preventing disease to lower costs. That may work in the short term, but ultimately preventing disease lengthens life, and longer lives mean more medical expenses. A disproprortionate share of expenses occur in the last year of life, and everybody goes through that last year (and, if they are over 65, receive Medicare benefits during it).
If economic inequality keeps going the way it’s going, pretty soon the only people left who will be able to afford to pay taxes will be the rich. We’re already at a point where we’ve decided that if you don’t make a certain minimum amount of income, you don’t have to pay taxes. 50% of us are already there. Not taxing the rich? It’s what we’re already doing.
excellent post steve.
jon, stay on topic and please don’t post long quotes from mises. that website is crap.
Last Lemming. Part of the hideous expense of the last year/six months of life is the expense that is associated with end stage diabetic/renal failure deaths.
I was actually understating the savings that would occur and the expense. People who are not deconditioned, who get the exercise noted and who are not non-compliant diabetics, for the most part have dramatically reduced medical care costs.
Consider my dad who died from end stage Parkinsons. Total expense was less than one frequent flier’s visit to the ICU.
I’m not attributing all of the problems to non-compliant diabetics, just pointing out their contribution to the expense.
@mh,
Your economic ideas are crapped and not grounded on logic nor the gospel. You should read more mises.
Can we finally get a single payer universal health care system set up here in America? I don’t get why we’re so stupid on this issue.
Don’t feed the mises troll.
Let’s say you want to start up an health insurance business. And you have a really good charitable heart, so you want to insure those over 55 who are really going to need it. Why would you insure anyone over 55 with preexisting conditions? Their needs are going to be far more than what they could possibly pay. Where would you, as a private insurer, get the money to pay for all the services someone over 55 with preexisting conditions will need? Will you not raise your prices on healthy people under 55 to cover your expenses for sick people over 55? What is the difference between a private company increasing its costs on healthy people to cover sick people and a government program that taxes all to pay for sick people?
What’s the question? Freedoms the answer.
We already live under socialized health care, you want more of it? You want prices to go even higher? Or do you want services to go even lower? That’s what you get when you get even more socialism.
http://mises.org/daily/3613/The-Real-Right-to-Medical-Care-versus-Socialized-Medicine
Jon,
we don’t give a damn on what mises says. you anarchists are truly stupid. Freedom? There’s no better freedom than not having to worry about whether or not a stupid kidney stone will cause you to file for bankruptcy.
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/06/05/medical_bankruptcy
2/3rds of all personal bankruptcies were caused by health care costs. That’s Mises freedom for ya.
@Dan,
And why is it so expensive to get that operation? It’s addressed in the article I put down. It’s because of people like you, statists, that take away our freedoms and make medical costs go sky rocketing high. Learn some economics.
Stephan,
I like the idea of simple lessons on Economics. When I took Econ in college the prof spend 4 weeks of a 10 week class on Robinson Crusoe’s need for food, clothing and shelter and the requisite tradeoffs associated with those three items.
Then you can get into the minutiae of regulation, manipulation, and the like’s effect on our economy.
Please keep it up. I like what I reading except for the comments which are jumping the shark.
Jon,
You say to mh, “Your economic ideas are crapped” and then say to Dan “learn some economics.”
Um…seriously? I read the first few sections of the mises article you posted, and if that is economics to you, then I think you’re missing a few things, like, say the last hundred years of economic theory. The mises article (from the limited amount I read at least) presents its positions from the perspective solely concerned with microeconomics, and ignores macroeconomics. Individual rights are all well and good, but we have to account for systems and systemic rights in order to formulate a theory that doesn’t ignore the last hundred years of economics. This is where Ayn Rand misses the boat on logic (which you seem to think you are the sole possessor of), because she and others in her tradition assume that all rights can be traced to the individual, but that is not true.
The act of social punishment (prison, fines, physical violence, etc) are not rooted in the individual, but in the group. A person has no “right” by your very logic to punish another because s/he would be removing the other’s rights. It is only through the logic of the group that a transgressor can be punished without it becoming a problem of two conflicting yet equally valid wills.
You might want to get out of the 18th century and read some Keynes before you start insulting people for their ignorance of economics.
@James,
The insults started from them, I just returned them. I know I shouldn’t but sometimes it is frustrating that people attack the person rather than confront the ideas and have a logical debate on the ideas. MH doesn’t usually confront the ideas, he just attacks the institution or people, but doesn’t have the wherewithal to actually talk economics, even when he does he refuses to see what even his side says on the matter. Dan also attacks the individual but will at least talk about the actual issues, unlike MH.
Keynes isn’t exactly working out. It’s just leading to higher and higher debt until default, or one world currency which will rule us as a tyrant. The last hundred years has led us closer and closer to a despotic government, if that is what you like, well, I don’t know what to say to you. Personally, I am for freedom and for the rights of the individual, what good is it if we have no agency? Is that not what the war in heaven was about?
I never said, neither the Mises Institute, that order and groups aren’t needed. The premise is that it is not OK to use violence as a means to an end.
Read this if you are truly interested in understanding voluntaryism and what it entails, otherwise don’t there is no debate.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
Stephen: Great post.
All: an occasional short quote helps prove a point. I pretty much ignore these long block clips from other places, and haven’t read any of them. Maybe they’re pertinent, maybe not. It doesn’t really matter as I’m not going to read them anyway.
OK, let me defend my quotes now because apparently I can’t do anything quite right.
The long quotes are because the OP makes many fallacious arguments. Economics is a pretty complex topic. In order to thoroughly refute the fallacies offered in the OP I need much space to do so. I could write my own words, but I know there are better writers out there that can explain how the world works much better than I can. So why read their stuff and regurgitate it in my own words when they say it so much better and it would take me twice the space to say it?
Forgive me if you don’t have any intellectual curiosity for things that don’t jive with your world view. If you don’t then don’t bother reading. I read the OP, even though it doesn’t jive with my world view, and offered up a logical and pertinent argument to the contrary. If there was no reason for debate on the topic then why open comments?
It’s obvious from most comments on this post that most people have no desire to look outside their boxes but would rather belittle those with different views. Sorry, if I’m not a socialist and never will be. Sorry, that I’m not a conservative and never will be. Sorry, that I believe in freedom of the individual and believe that liberty is important.
Jon — welcome to discussions online. There’s only so much that can be done with a few words here and there in a blog’s comment section.
Regarding the issue of “socialized” vs “free-market” healthcare – that’s NOT actually the issue, although it IS what is bankrupting us.
Our fundamental issue is the social contract of America. We are different than other countries. In England, for example, there are more rigid class boundaries, and everyone accepts their roles. In Norway, things are egalitarian enough that they publish EVERYONE’S tax returns online for everyone else to see. In India, there are caste systems which people accept. In many, many countries, people are willing to accept what might NOT be best for themselves individually in return for what might be best for the society.
If you translate this into medicine, socialized medicine makes sense. Someone over 60 with kidney failure doesn’t get dialysis, as FOR SOCIETY it doesn’t make economic sense. A premature baby with less than a 5% chance of survival doesn’t get $500,000 in medical care. A mother with breast cancer doesn’t get $50,000 in drugs that increase survival, on average, 1 month. A grandfather with Alzheimer’s doesn’t get a $30,000 hip operation but gets morphine for comfort and dies in 2 weeks.
In other countries, these are all accepted by individuals as a part of the social contract they have with each other.
In the United States, however, for better or for worse we are an individualist and capitalistic society. If someone comes up with a great idea, then they can “hit the jackpot”. We want everything for ourselves.
People like the “government pays for everyone’s healthcare” part of socialized medicine, but no one likes the flip side. Imagine being the first politician proposing no kidney dialysis for the elderly. Imagine proposing no breast cancer drugs for the mom of 3. Etc.
Our social contract is DIFFERENT. Until the people in the United States are willing to accept the mentality of a socialized medicine country, socialized medicine WON’T WORK. Instead, we want everything that our current system can give us – just with someone else footing the bill.
Unfortunately, that “someone else” is also us. The money doesn’t grow on trees.
Jon,
The reason I, at least, am so derisive against you and your mises idiots is found in your very last sentence of comment #21:
I doubt anyone here doesn’t believe in the freedom of the individual and believe that liberty is important. You saying this implies that you believe I don’t; that you believe Mormon Heretic doesn’t; that anyone who disagrees with your position must not believe in the freedom of the individual or believe that liberty is important. The reason why at least I find your position so annoying is that you come across very self-righteous, as if only you and the idiots at mises know what freedom is and what liberty is. That’s a bunch of bullcrap. And I am mean to you to prove a point: I am free in this country to insult whoever I want. I have the liberty to be crude and rude and annoying. Just as you do. Under the system you consider tyrannical.
Jon:
No one is against your ideas. In fact, I probably share many of your sentiments. While I personally give hundreds of thousands of dollars in free care to patients a year, and help lots of people around me in many ways, I’ve actually read Atlas Shrugged at least three times and it’s one of my favorite books.
I am against the unbridled capitalism that has hurt our country, but I’m also against the Robin Hood mentality of the current proposals to take even more of my money away.
Perhaps I’m just a big contradiction, but that’s just what it is.
Regarding your comments, feel free to say what you think, but actually include what you think. Look at comment #1. All it says is “What the free market really is” followed by a huge clipped quote. No analysis. No commentary. No integration of that into any discussion. Just a big mass quote.
The same with comment #4. Your entire commentary – “Regulation”. That tells nothing about what YOU think or how it relates to anything.
When someone discounts one of your sources (ie. mises), to be honest, I don’t care. If they have some of the same viewpoints as you, great. Expound that for us. Help us understand. But don’t just block quote from their website.
I am guilty of long comments. I admit it. I disagree with many people on here at times. But my comments are MY thoughts. And they tend to be a direct response to either the OP or else someone else’s comments.
I think that’s all that anyone expects.
@Mike S,
The blockquotes I provided are directly related to the OP and refute many of the assumptions by the author of the OP. I cut much of the original content out of the quotes so they would be shorter. I could rehash them in my own words, but why? I agree with what was written in them and they illustrate, in better form than I could write, what I would like to say. So I still don’t see why it is bad to put the quotes down.
If people don’t bother reading the quotes then there isn’t much reason for me to discuss anything with them since we’ll end up not being on common ground. I noticed it isn’t until I put the long quotes or link to articles and when people read them that people actually understand my viewpoint and then we can have a logical discussion. Until then people typically just make fun, criticize side comments I make, or make accusations that aren’t true. I’ve tried in the past to just write my opinion, it doesn’t work for the reasons previously stated, they don’t know where I’m coming from, so I offer quotes and then I can see who truly wants to have a realistic and logical discussion.
It’s obvious that the author of the OP is directing the post, or at least part of it to me, e.g., In the anarchist paradises of Somalia, I cannot write my own posts so I have to defend my ideas in the comments, which takes a lot of space. If the author wants to understand anarcho-capitalism then let him read the full articles I’ve presented, let him give sources for his thoughts so I can read them.
With assumptions like these:
Who needs government for that? We can do that without government. It wasn’t government that invented money, it is they who hijacked it. Take the current fiat currency, do you know how many people are stressed over it because they don’t know if the value of it today will be the value of it tomorrow? In fact, they know that it will be devalued and they have to factor that into their savings and hope pray the government/private federal reserve don’t screw it up, but history has shown that it will always lead to disaster, and the elite will be the ones that prosper from this stolen wealth.
The whole idea supposes that businesses don’t have an interest in providing quality to their customers, the idea is insane that businesses don’t want to offer quality, if they don’t they’ll go out of business. Look at Jack-in-the-Box, they sold some bad meat and how long did it take them to recover? Sure there will be bad apples, but sane people won’t hire them, they’ll ask their friends who to go to.
The FDA doesn’t protect the food, they protect the big businesses and create monopolies.
That’s why I put down quotes and articles, they can explain it quite well, especially the medical one on health care, it has shown that the government created the whole expensive mess to begin with, then want to fix the problem with more government, how is that even logical? Government creates socialized health care, then it doesn’t work so they want to monopolize it entirely and have complete socialized health care, it’s insane.
Jon, I wasn’t thinking of you, though I will, perhaps, in the future.
When I took the GRE advanced test on Econ, I had finished one upper division class. I was sick, so I had to leave early. I got an 800 (out of 220 to 880). I was an applied econ major, graduated with the departmental honor.
Greek government invented coinage and currency.
I’ll have to go into trust, economics, utopias and the delivery of milk (with citations even) next time.
Maybe explain comparative advantage.
Anyone have a specific topic?
At least Jon does recognize that capture occurs and is a problem.
Dan caught that sometimes people consider a monopoly better than life without one (e.g. single payor health systems) though I thought he would rise more to “sometimes unions are good/necessary” … ah well, no predicting sometimes.
As for anarchist paradises, there are a number of places that have decended into Anarchy. I’d be interested in hearing of any of them that became paradises.
@Jon #19,
“Keynes isn’t exactly working out. It’s just leading to higher and higher debt”
That’s a false narrative of causation. Since the 70’s, there has been a tug-o-war between those who espoused policies influenced by Keynes, and those who (best typified by Reagan) implemented theories that simply don’t work in a Keynesian framework. Yes, some argue that Reagan and others can be reconciled to a Keynesian perspective, but that is quite the stretch considering the fact that Keynes thought Say’s Law was bogus. My point is if we want to oversimplify, we could say that Keynesian economics are the source of our current problem, but we could with equal credibility argue that it is supply-side economics which have spawned our current problems.
Also, your conclusion that increasing debt will lead to the predominance of a particular currency is problematic because I don’t see how you’re making the connection between debt and your pessimistic view of a currency tyrant. That idea is too simplistic because it downplays the systemic contingencies and dependencies of global economies.
Also, when you say “The last hundred years has led us closer and closer to a despotic government, if that is what you like, well, I don’t know what to say to you” there is a real problem with your logic. First of all, the term “despotic” is used hyperbolically here so that anything other than a laissez faire capitalism would fall fit into the rubric of “despotic.” Furthermore, you are stating a speculative claim as if it were absolute (I mean your claim about the trajectory towards despotism). And the most problematic part of your statement is your framing a speculative statement as absolute and then claiming that anyone who would disagree with you must obviously be in favor of despotism. If you’re as bright as you claim to be, then you’ll recognize the problem here. Do you see what my last sentence did? I made a claim about your intelligence and then equated it with conformity to my perspective. Who am I to make such a claim about your intelligence and to claim that only if you fit into my perspective can you then be intelligent. What I should have said, is simply: As far as I understand your statement, I am unsure that it contains a logical coherence. Then I’m not creating an “us/them” dichotomy.
It is overly reductive to say that a government (made up of citizens) is an abolishment of freedom. You would be wise to recognize that an abstract term like “freedom” should not be used as a weapon against those who disagree with you because even those who disagree with some of your methods may agree with your ends (such as having a just and peaceful world).
You get manipulative again when you say “Read this if you are truly interested in understanding voluntaryism and what it entails, otherwise don’t there is no debate.” So basically you are saying that unless I’m willing to talk about these issues within your perspective, then we can’t have a debate. That’s called “stacking the deck,” my friend. If I take a contrary or oppositional view to voluntaryism than the one you espouse, then why is it that we can’t have debate?
I may have misunderstood you here, so please let me know if I missed something. I’m not really trying to change your mind here on your libertarian perspective, I’m simply trying to convince you that demonizing and dismissing those who disagree with you is oversimplified, arrogant, and elitist.
@James,
I say read the articles first because of comments like these:
Of course, I don’t believe that. So I ask that you read then the discussion can be productive rather than throwing accusations at one another.
I do get a bit defensive because of comments made in the past by MH, Jeff Spector, and Dan. There don’t seem to be many that take my side on the issues then with people throwing unwarranted accusations, make fun of the person, and not taking the time to try and understand the issues I’m talking about but rather ridiculing them for small and petty reasons. So I hope that helps you understand why I get defensive and why I become even more adamant about my point of view.
As you illustrated in your post, my words come out differently than what I would like them to, that is why I write the quotes, they are well thought out and are coherent. So read the quotes and we can discuss them and add your own quotes and thoughts. But I won’t pretend that I am good at writing and portraying ideas.
@Stephen M (Ethesis),
I thought you were thinking of me because of the Somalia comment. I seem to never hear the end of it. But no one brings up the Quakers.
3 different groups that had blessed anarchy for short periods:
http://mises.org/daily/2014
@Stephen M (Ethesis),
For anarchy you also have to remember that when you look at it, compare the states next to it and its externalities. So when you look at Somalia, take those into account.
Great post. I didn’t realize that there was actually a name for ‘Capture’ as it’s defined here. I’ve always thought of it as just ‘messed up’.
Stephen,
Are you saying that Type II diabetes, or at least most of the expenses associated with it, is preventable or easily manageable? Few doctors seem to publicize this. Are they and other medical associations captured by some lobby or part of the capture themselves?
I guess the death panels would be sharpening the knives for the elderly Type II patients if we went to single payer. Of course anarchy would get them quickly too.
#33 – I never understood why people got so upset about death panels. Put me on a death panel; I’ll cut spending.
I think mises.org has a lot of interesting articles. Some of them aren’t too great and stretch credulity, but most are pretty good I think. I also think it’s important to have multiple viewpoints to consider. I sincerely do appreciate the Keynesian viewpoint, especially reasoned comments such as those from James. So Jon, Justin, James, please continue to comment even if it appears unwelcome. I certainly welcome it.
Re Stephen
I’m not sure I’m convinced that without gov’t regulation of milk that babies would still be dying from drinking it. I do, however, think that occasionally gov’t regulation spurs innovation and causes industries to “re-evaluate” what’s they’re doing. The downside is that it inevitably ends up increasing cost, but most importantly regulations are rarely, if ever, rescinded, even long after they’ve outgrown their usefulness. This often leaves industries in a bind to the point of breaking. Additionally, the law of unintended consequences ALWAYS rears its ugly head. Hopefully regulation causes less damage than good, but that isn’t always the case.
Re James
I’m no economist, so I’m unprepared to debate the details, but my take on Keynesian economics is that much of modern economics would be a stretch even for Keynes. Nevertheless, in general, I actually think modern economics has gotten a number of things just plain wrong. It appears to be built upon the notion that the economy can be controlled by twiddling a few knobs, usually related to the price of credit and otherwise controlling the fiat money supply. And the concept of going into debt to spur an economy seems reasonable initially (I was taught this in my Econ class), but inevitably the debt is never repaid. Hayek and Von Mises in contrast emphasize the importance of building wealth on savings. This makes a lot more intuitive sense to me. What’s your take on the Keynes vs. Hayek debate?
el oso:
The facts related to Type II diabetes are NOT as sinister as you may think – it has nothing to do with capture.
If someone has a normal weight, good physical activity, a healthy diet including moderate use of alcohol, and avoids tobacco, their incidence of Type II diabetes is almost 90% lower than if they do those things. So it is NOT a “capture” mechanism, but basically lifestyle choices of our population.
As a doctor, I continually remind people of losing weight, eating well, getting exercise, etc. If people would actually listen to me, it would reduce my workload. For example, I replace knees. The need for knee replacement is going up almost 500% in the next decade – almost entirely the result of increased rates of obesity. And it’s not just orthopedics. Obesity and lifestyle choices relate to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure, strokes, etc. In fact, obesity is estimated to cost this country around $150 BILLION EXTRA annually. To put this in perspective, the $1 TRILLION cost of Obama’s plan over 10 years is $100 billion a year, or LESS than the cost of obesity.
So, doctors have job security. This is NOT because of a sinister mechanism (although there is waste in the medical system). Much of this is directly related to the lifestyle choices of the American people.
jmb,
actually the debt IS repaid. The United States paid most of its Great Depression and WWII debt in the following thirty or so years. This was due to several factors. 1) high taxes on everyone, but particularly on the ultra wealthy. 2) amazing economic growth over those thirty years. By the time Ronald Reagan came to power, America’s debt was $900 billion, a small amount as it would turn out. These next thirty years, since Reagan, we’ve lived under a ridiculous idea that lowering the tax on the ultra wealthy somehow trickles down the wealth to everyone else. Instead, the wealth continues to get amassed in the top 1% (who currently hold 40% of America’s wealth). And then we’re surprised that we’re running massive deficits and thinking they cannot be paid off. Well, duh. If we listen to conservatives, then we’re in deep crap. We didn’t have to go through 30 years (and counting) of this silly ideology to see what we could have seen plainly on paper. If the rich are not taxed progressively at higher rates, then the country faces a wealth imbalance which will eventually topple over. But don’t blame it on the poor.
Thou shalt not covet.
I’m confused with with the post itself. I don’t come here for a lesson in economics. Did I miss something?
Jon,
Self-righteous.
In addition, if they are compliant, rather than non-compliant, their health problems from diabetes are dramatically less and less troublesome.
Non-compliant diabetics have renal failure, end up on dialysis and have other terrible and terribly expensive problems.
Joshua, you may have a point, what would you prefer I write on?
If a person is taxed 90% of his income, how does that person pay tithing? For that matter how do they pay charitable contributions?
@Dan,
It is a valid concern. If it is not covetousness than what is it?
Jon,
I reject your whole framework here. Taxation is not a matter of theft. Taxation is not a matter of coveting. Taxation is a matter of a social contract that ensures all programs desired by the citizens of said nation are paid for. It is one thing to argue that a private system works better than a public system. It is wholly another to claim that a social contract is theft. You say you want a more balanced acceptance of alternate views, but your views are highly radical, extreme, and if actually put into practice will create a hellish world. You’ve already noted that your paradise is Somalia. No one ought to take you seriously.
And in terms of coveting, I think it is utterly laughable that that is thrown at the poor of the world when it is the rich who covet the wealth of the poor. You want to throw that commandment at the right people? Come to New York, walk down to Wall Street, step right up to the first banker, and whisper that in their ear. They are the masters of covetousness. There is no individual who covets wealth (particularly the wealth of others) more than a Wall Street banker. They are your enemy, Jon. They are the enemy of righteousness.
As for tithing, I don’t care how someone making $10,000,000 a year handles paying tithing on a $1,000,000 income after tax.
Dan,
I consider it quite radical that the government owns all a persons wealth. That there is not limit to what the government can take. That is radical, my friend.
I agree the rich covet the poor also, but that is no excuse to covet the rich, two wrongs do not make a right.
$10M – $9M to taxes. $1M to tithing, hmmm, that makes the person a popper living on the street. I don’t see how that works out, I guess he could cheat the Lord and not pay a full tithe.
BTW, the old anarchist Quakers are the ones that I admire and think of as a paradise.
Depends if you tithe on gross or net.
The government doesn’t own all a person’s wealth. That’s what’s bullcrap Jon. There is a limit to what the government can take. Again, your point is bullcrap. And I am not your friend.
And again, taxing the rich is not a matter of coveting. I do not covet the rich. I, however, see a time in America’s history where we had amazing economic growth that affected all sectors, all classes. During this time, the wealth of the top 1% equaled only 10% of all America’s wealth. This was a time when ALL Americans grew together. The worth of a CEO is not 330% more than his average worker, and the more we lean toward thinking someone earning $10,000,000 or more a year is actually worth that, the worse off we will be in this nation. If the economy is too top heavy, any slight variance will cause the whole economy to collapse. This is what happened in 2008. This is also what happened in 1928. In both instances, Americans allowed their wealth to shift to the top 1% in ridiculous numbers. And the top 1% in all their greed, thought they could get more. And when their risky ventures collapsed, the whole economy collapsed around them. It makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER that we allow the rich of this nation to collapse our economy once again. The top 1% earners in this nation (those making over $450,000 annually—so don’t worry Mike S., this does not include you) are not worth the value of the money they are getting. A baseball player is not worth the money he gets. His owner is DEFINITELY not worth the money he gets. A greedy banker from Goldman Sachs is definitely not worth the money he gets. Capitalism as we know it has been corrupted by Ayn Rand-led selfish greed. And that poison will destroy us.
oh, and btw, those old anarchist Quakers…methinks there were no millionaires among them…just fyi.
@Mike S,
Yes, your not left much of a choice if your taxed at 90%, like they used to be.
@Dan,
Love ya Dan.
So what is the upper limit that government can take? What is the principle that this is judged on? Give me some answers to this. I would like to know.
I have no doubt that the rich are greedy. But according to you if the poor vote to give to the rich is it not OK, because that is what they voted for? Do not voters vote to build big expensive sport arenas so they can watch hockey, football, basketball, etc.? I say this is bad, from a principled stand point, but according to your principles it is OK because of the social contract.
I also doubt they all made the same amount of money.
If free societies under the free market where property rights are respected the equalization among the rich and poor is greatly diminished. Is socialist societies it is greatly increased. Got that from one of John Stossel’s shows. Don’t remember which one though.
You see, theft from the rich only creates more desires from them to lobby the government for special privileges. The poor have a harder time about it. John Stossel’s recent program titled “Nation of Freeloaders” (or something like that) actually talks about this same subject in the second half of the program, the first half focuses on the poor, the second on the rich (including himself).
Jon,
The Constitution gives wide latitude to Congress on the issue of taxation. Congress can conceivably tax its citizens 100% if it so feels like it. But the “upper limit” depends on political will. The reason why taxes were so high on practically everyone from the 1940s to the 1970s is because the people accepted that, being in a deep financial hole, they had to make a sacrifice in order to pay down their debts. Amazingly, they were able to do this while also getting social services that increased their life spans. Who would’ve thunk it…Suddenly, today, we can’t even get politicians to expire highly costly tax cuts passed by Bush that did NOT stimulate the economy well.
Big expensive arenas have nothing to do with player salaries and owner profiteering. That citizens are dumb enough to fork over hundreds of millions of dollars for stadiums AND pay such high priced tickets is one strong indication of how corrupted our system has become.
I don’t want people to be paid the same amount of money (though, technically, if we go literally by the bible, Jesus paid all his workers the same, whether they worked one hour or twelve hours…just fyi…), as clearly some labor is more valuable than others. 330% difference between the top and the middle is extreme and unsustainable.
Oh, and stop linking to other people. I’m not going to read or watch someone else. Use your own words, or I may think you’re simply an automaton who is incapable of being his own free thinking individual and who has to rely, as a crutch, upon others to do his thinking for him.
Oh, I guess I’ll learning from other people, I should just spontaneously come up with my own ideas about everything in the universe, don’t know why I ever went to school, read scriptures, go to church, read technical books.
Oh wait, I know why I read, maybe because I can learn a bunch more and understand other people’s ideas. I suppose you wouldn’t want to do that since you already know everything.
Love ya Dan.
Doh!
Jon,
Pretty much.
And no you did not catch me in some error. The government does not own all a person’s wealth, and there is a limit to what the government can take. The Constitution allows Congress to tax fairly liberally, but the limit a government has (even a dictatorship) is directly related to how much its people are willing to have taken away. The people could conceivably allow Congress to tax them at 100%. But that is a near impossibility.
Think for yourself, Jon. Don’t be an acolyte with no free mind of his own.
I do think for myself. That’s how I determined that taxation is theft according to principles. Your principles says government is god. Mine says God is God. Mine says God owns everything and has given the individual the right to property. Yours says that the government is the owner of all land, therefore, is god. That no man truly owns anything, that it is all the government’s. Sounds like a false god to me. Trust in government to solve all problems, to fix people’s health and make it so there is no more suffering or wars, etc. Forget that, there’s no way I’ll put my trust in the arm of flesh.
Dan, why do you treat people so poorly on this blog?
Even if you are right, I just don’t understand why you choose to be so harsh. I’m sure you have reasons for the way talk to various people you disagree with, but that doesn’t mean you are right to be mean-spirited. I wish you would be more civil so your solid thinking and argumentation could come to the surface more clearly. You have great ideas, but your delivery could be improved.
Oops!
The second line is missing a word. It should read: …for the way YOU talk to…
It seems we all need some work on our delivery!
I always like to point out that life expectancy in Western Europe is significantly higher than in the U.S. (for men the worst in Western Europe is Portugal which has same life expectancy as the U.S.) These kinds of posts always degenerate into arguments about wealth allocation and never really focus on health and preserving life on average within a nation.
it is certain that access to health care explains a significant part of this difference. Overall, the net result of our various systems in the U.S. is that we trade life for money.
Stephen M., It was a post to remember. It is too bad that the standard argument broke out when the post was well above average.
Here is a link to a recent journal article that shows Stephen’s good government argument has huge effects on human life and summarizes life expectancy vs. time for various countries.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/16/ije.dyr061.full.pdf+html
@Paul 2,
Health care doesn’t equal medical, according to Thomas Sowell. Universal health care in European countries means to weight months to get operations (in the US we can get them much quicker), you can’t buy medicine with your own money because that would break the equality and the bureaucrats are the ones that decide those things.
People in the US live much more unhealthy lives than the European do. There is not too much doctors can do to change our lifestyles. They can suggest we change but it’s the persons choice. People in the US won’t achieve better life expectancy until they start eating more healthy. There’s no amount of medical attention that will make a difference.
Also, remember that cancer survival rates and longevity after getting treated for cancer is much higher in the US than in Europe.
Universal health care won’t do anything. We already have socialized health care and we see where that has gotten us, why would we want to completely monopolize it? Maybe we should just give people their freedoms back, then we could have cheaper care, with higher quality and care that even the poor could afford.
James,
As Paul2 noted, we’re all essentially continuing the same argument in the comments. Here’s what I’ll do from now on. I will completely ignore Jon, because he is a one track record with nothing worthy of my response.
Hi Jon, I didn’t really make my point clear. My basic point is that our society isn’t designed around producing long life and good health across the population. Every society gets to choose what it’s focus is and that is not the focus of ours.
No one is really discussing the difference between wealth that comes from making things, wealth that comes from being a social lubricant (imposing transactional costs on others) and wealth that is a function of the size of a market (the money earned by the best entertainers in different cultures varies by the size of the culture and the audience more than the skill of the entertainer, for example).
Ah, Stephen,
You’ve hit one of my long time buttons!
I’d like to see a tax rate that is progressive toward this exact thing.
Businesses that do real production, especially in this country should be taxed at a lower rate. Businesses that solely make money from money should be taxed at a much higher rate. And Businesses that offer no intrinsic value to society other than distraction, like entertainment, sports, etc should be taxed at the highest rates.
Rule of law dictates that there is equality before the law.
Stephen, Where do you classify wealth that comes from passive investments? Is that in the social lubricant category, or is it another?
Mike S. #36
I do not think that many individual doctors are captured and not trying to improve the health of their patients. I have seen and heard plenty of no smoking and MADD ads, but very few, if any anti-obesity or anti-diabetes ads. Having lived in West Virginia, I know many of the plagues of the elderly in this country.
Maybe it is because I am not overweight and do not go to the doctor frequently that I do not hear much of the messages that you and Stephan seem to be preaching vigorously here.
el oso:
The “no smoking” ads are paid for as a part of the settlement against Big Tobacco. MADD is put together by a bunch of people who are passionate about drunk drivers, having had their children and/or family members killed. There are also strict regulations on tobacco and alcohol ads.
Contrast this with food. Any “obesity” ad would have to be paid for by someone – who? And it would get drowned in the billions and billions of dollars in ads for McDonalds, Wendys, Arbys, Coca-Cola, etc.
And, just like smoking, who in this country DOESN’T know that obesity is bad. There are billions spent on “diet” products as well.
And finally, talking against obesity is NOT politically correct. Look at the outcry against making someone who spills into two seats on an airplane actually pay for those two seats, for example. People cry “discrimination” against fat people. It’s not their fault. They just have fat genes. They’re just big boned.
Having replaced hundreds and hundreds of knees in morbidly obese patients, their bones are the same size. They are just well padded.
Stephen, Where do you classify wealth that comes from passive investments? Is that in the social lubricant category, or is it another?
That is wealth, not income. An entire new kettle of fish is inheritance (including inheriting the results of your own work) vs. production.
You’ve hit one of my long time buttons
You would be a big fan of taxing economic rents. That is a huge area of discussion, usually difficult to apply, though you have found a nice way to do it.
Mike S.
There were just as many anti-smoking ads before the tobacco settlement as there are now. They were paid for by the heart and lung associations.
I agree that a diet of primarily fast food is very unhealthy, but there are many fat people who rarely or never eat fast food.
I do see your main point about advertisements. There are legit reasons for eating some fast food and the causes of obesity are varied. It is not just put down the twinkies and the french fries and eat apples and carrots, although this will definitely help.
“Rhode Island” — it used to be at our house you could use that phrase by itself for a punch line.
I’m familiar with much of the history there.
I am afraid that the appeal against “socialized medicine” and for “free market” health care does not work in the real world. Let me give you one key example.
There are two types of dialysis for End Stage Renal Disease, hemo and peritoneal. Hemo is the three visits a week to a hemodialysis center and being hooked up to a machine for three hours. Perotoneal is a process that a patient does at home nightly.
The difference? Let me use my wife and I as examples. On peritoneal I never missed a day of work. My diabetes was controlled the best it ever was. My wife worked two jobs part time and rowed in whale boat racing competitions. My wife had to go on hemo before her transplant. The best way to describe the experience is that after dialysis she was to tired to even rock in her chair, she described hemo as like being hit by a 2X4 every other day.
It costs about 43,000$ per year more for hemo patients than peretoneal. In Europe about 70% of dialysis patients are peritoneal in the U.S. about 20-25%.
Why? On Peritoneal you live a better life and its cheaper. It doesn’t make sense. Well, the people who decide which type you go on have a great proclivity to also own dialysis centers. Medicare and/or private insurance generally pay for it. Guess which type is more profitable?
The point is, that in our present capitalist
medical system, people try to game it and make a bigger profit. In Canada, under socialized medicine, people pay on average 40% less for drugs as the government uses its purchasing power to get lowere costs. Of course in the U.S. Medicare is forbidden from purchasing drugs. The Free Market at work.
As Stan has elucidated, parts of our government health system are captured by the powerful health care providers. Of course, many of the reasons for a patient to be contemplating dialysis tend to be correlated to not getting the doctor to give you the preferred care. They did not live a minimally healthy lifestyle and were non-compliant with other orders. It is not a stretch for the good doctor to insist on more regimented institutional care, since they are not very good at taking care of themselves. Peritoneal dialysis involves the patient changing their own transfer fluid and requires a little more care of the tubes on the abdomen instead of your arm.
Stan Beale — your wife sounds about perfect. If every patient was like her …
A real issue is that non-compliant patients do not manage peritoneal. One proposed change is that peritoneal becomes the only type available, absent special facts.
Hmm. I always seem to get into these discussions too late. I would be curious, Jon, to hear your solution to the problem of people whose health is so poor that that they cannot “make free contracts for those services [meaning their potential to labor].” (Asking in genuine curiosity, as I have never really gotten a clear response from libertarians I have asked about this issue.)
It is one thing to be independent when one has good health, a strong back, and the ability to work hard. It is another thing entirely when one has medical conditions that necessitate dependence.
Dan,
I enjoy reading your posts but have to disagree. The liberals in this country have enshrined “Thou Shalt Covet” into their all their tax policies. ~1/2 of American’s don’t contribute to federal income taxes, yet they hammer away at the rich “to pay their fair share”. This victim mentality ( I work with minority groups and liberals)is dehabilitating and becomes worse with each generation. Can we call them ‘deadbeat’ citizens who received a refund on taxes not paid but get $50,000 a year in services paid for by someone else (or borrowed)? This dynamic is continually fed by the tax the rich mantra. I am poor because someone else is rich. I am entitled to having government correct this injustice with punative tax policies.
@Stan Beale,
Sorry to hear about your situation. Let me tell you though, we do not currently live under a free market in the medical industry, far from it actually. The article I put down outlines the reasons health care is so incredibly expensive right now. I can touch some points for you.
First, insurance is when you pay into a policy that covers catastrophic accidents. Insurance currently doesn’t do that (unless you have a high deductible plan, which you cannot even buy very high, ours, I believe is 10k, we wanted higher but that was as high as it gets). The current system is socialized health insurance with a ton of regulations. That is why the cost is so high.
Imagine you and your friends want to go out for lunch every Monday. Let’s say some of them you don’t know very well. Now, in order to go to lunch everyone has to pay in the same amount, you cannot opt out of this group or you don’t get to eat lunch. Now, at first, some in the group restrain how much they get for lunch because they don’t want to burden the others. But then some of them get a bunch because they figure their cost is spread out amongst the group. Well, now everyone wants to get more since they don’t want to pay for the “freeloaders” so everyone’s cost goes up. Now, let’s say that when you order your lunch, you don’t even know how much it costs since the true cost isn’t printed on the menu, only part of the cost is printed, and now you have to pay in for lunch ahead of time, if the group goes over then your rate goes up. But the restaurant likes what is going on with your group and gives discounts on their most expensive items so the price is even more masked, because, also, the waiter won’t tell you the cost but just gives you the coupon (the waiter himself doesn’t even know the true cost), and the restaurant starts charging higher and higher prices for “higher quality” food. This is the current system that we live under, it is called socialism, mixed with mercantilism. This is NOT the free market.
In a free market system the prices would go down (normally) and the quality of service will go up. You know you are not in a free market system when prices start to sky rocket, you know something else is going on, like the cost of college tuition.
I encourage you to read the article, it’s long but really gets into the meat of what is going on. In a free market even the poor would be able to afford care.
http://mises.org/daily/3613/The-Real-Right-to-Medical-Care-versus-Socialized-Medicine
@el oso,
Remember too, that the current system in a product of government intervention. It is highly regulated and the government is mainly responsible (of course, not entirely) for the current high cost system.
Just to throw something else into the mix – I still see Medicaid patients, even though I lose money for each one I see. I suppose I just feel it’s a way to “give back”. Many specialists won’t see Medicaid any more.
That being said, I have other people in the large group with which I am associated who do NOT want to see Medicaid either. And these are doctors who are ON SALARY for whom it makes NO DIFFERENCE which (if any) insurance someone has.
Why? These are just generalizations, but they are true the vast majority of the time:
– Medicaid patients are very demanding. They expect you to do everything for them because “they are covered”
– Medicaid patients want an MRI even when it won’t change what you recommend, as “it’s ok, it won’t cost me anything”
– Medicaid patients are extremely non-compliant. You can do all you want, but at the end of the day unless they are willing to take care of themselves, what do you do?
– Medicaid has tremendous amounts of paperwork and regulations. It is twice as much work to see a Medicaid patient as a “normal” patient, for the same amount of care.
There is an entirely different mentality in Medicaid patients. If you ask any doctor, they will say the same thing. It is a needy mentality where the world owes them everything. It is maddening as a physician.
And the system is being revamped to make even more of this. More people are being added to the Medicaid roles (even though this doesn’t mean they’ll actually get someone to see them). There is an attitude of dependency that is absolutely generated by these programs. I see it every day.
@prometheus
Fascinating that your libertarian friends can’t give an adequate answer. I think it’s a pretty easy one myself.
First off. The cost of medical services would be much less expensive than it currently is. In a free market doctors wouldn’t be licensed and so, wouldn’t need so many years of schooling (except for the ones that are highly specialized) and we would most likely see an internship program for general doctors with schooling, but more emphasis on actual experience. We would probably see organizations with standards set for the purpose of certifying doctors. This would greatly reduce the cost of medical care (of course, you would need to get rid of all the government regulations also). It would also make the quality of care go higher, since there would be more competition instead of the government sponsored monopolistic system we currently live under.
Since cost would be greatly reduced many poor that can’t afford it would be able to pay the cost after it becomes a free market.
So what about the others that cannot even work because of debilitating illness, injury, et. al.?
Well, since people wouldn’t be paying the government, health insurance companies, etc. So much money they would be able to care for the sick and infirm out of their own free will and choice. First, families would pitch in, then if they couldn’t cover it, the local community, then, under this day and age with the internet the rest of the world also would be able to help. People are very caring. When people are given liberty and live through hard times they are more likely to help one another (compared to the entitlement mentality people feel now – granted even with this mentality there are a great many people that still care and give).
An illustration of this is people, in the old days, when they would get out of jail other people that were in jail before set up private organizations to help them get back on their feet.
Another example. A friend of my wife’s from college had an eye problem that made her blind when she was young. Now days there is a treatment for that problem. So what did this person that had this same problem do to help a little girl that had the same problem but the parents couldn’t afford the care? She made a music program and got a bunch of people involved to help raise money for this little girl so she could continue to have her eye sight when she got older.
These are true examples of charity. Government cannot give charity because the money is not freely given but confiscated with the threat of violence (jail or even in rare circumstances – where the person tries to defend their wealth – death).
@Mike S,
I have friend who is a pharmacist who always complains about those very same points that you mentioned. Of course, he doesn’t have a choice of whether to work with them or not (well, I suppose he could quit his job).
@prometheus,
I forgot one other thing. Doctors volunteering and/or giving discounts.
This is evidenced with organizations like Doctors w/o Borders (one of the more famous organizations).
My wife and I were lucky, we got transplants, mine 16 years ago after a nine month wait and my wife”s 4 years ago after an 8 year wait. We are ardent campaigners for Peritoneal Dialysis. What we find is the HMO’s are beginning to go more into it, The Blue Cross types v ery little. The latter tends to contract out to Nephrology groups that have ties to Hemo Dialysis Centers.
My second job after teaching was as a financial analyst and bargainer for the teacher’s union. Contrary to myth, we wanted quality care at the lowest price possible. Lower medical costs could result in higher salaries. The thing that I discovered early on was that almost everyone tries to job the system, what ever it was.
Fee for service plans are haunted by too much medicine. For example one medical plan we turned down had 3X the normal rate for hysterectomies and tonsilectomies. People were over tested (doctors often times had ownership in the labs that ran the tests.
For profit HMO’s often use the gatekeeper system, that is have the GP not send people on to specialists, often by giving them a bonus for not doing it. The result was that people who needed help did not get it.
Redlining. Many insurance programs will not touch certain areas or groups. Too many people in that area or group do not fit their profit model, so do not offer it.
Recision. In some states it is still legal to drop someone from a plan because they now fit into a category that might be too expensive.
Genetic Testing. Currently genetic testing to determine eligibility for inurance is illegal (GINA). However some “free market” groups are against such a ban and would like to see that changed.
The point is that “free market” proposals are generally not beneficial to a large number of people, especially those who are denied insurance or can’t afford it.
We, as a society have to answer the question are we going to have a system that benefits insurance companies or one that benefits all individuals?
One commentator on Fox News game his answer. Handicapped people are costing us too much. Let them go out and “get eaten on the Serengeti plain of life”. That will happen if we choose a truly “free market” approach to medicine.
Indeed. Homeopathy would return even stronger.
True story. When my brother was with UP, they had a very obnoxious member who was giving them a great deal of strife. When she pushed for alternative medicine for her ills, they gave in, immediately.
Sure enough, she died quickly and cheaply.
He did not know whether to be appalled or shocked when he realized they had intended the result.
@Stan Beale,
It’s obvious that you are for socialized medicine and want to use violence to make it so everyone pays for the poor. It is true that the free market truly requires a free market to work, otherwise it wouldn’t be the free market. It is true that the free market would help the greatest amount of people, whereas government forced monopoly will help the least amount of people and cost the most.
Read the article that I gave you otherwise there is not much common ground that we will be able to find. I guess the common ground we do have is that we both wish to help the poor and needy. It is true that there are heartless people out there that don’t wish well on others, like those that wish the poor to die, or those that wish to steal from others for their own benefit.
I gave the example of why the current system of socialized/mercantilist system does not work. Can you refute it? Remember this what the government created (not the free market, this current system would never exist in a free market).
We need true fact based policies based on current science but not force everyone into the same system. Take Head Start for example. Studies show it does not work. Yet the government is putting billions more dollars into it. Obama promised science based policies. Instead he has chosen the route of the elite and given the people more bread and circuses so they can continue their wars of plunder and dominance over the people, just like Bush’s regime.
@Stephen Marsh,
So even in this system of highly regulated medicine and licensing people can still kill themselves by making poor decisions. But it is their decision, it is not for us to decide.
Personally I like eating healthy foods to avoid disease and illness, then herbal medicine, then mainstream medicine. As of now, I have never needed mainstream medicine. Except for vaccines for going out of the country. But that is my choice and not anyone else’s. God has given me jurisdiction over my body, it is no one else’s to control.
As for your example I can give a counter example. There was this statin drug that was actually killing people rather than helping them. A doctor figured it out after reading the studies. He told the other doctors but they wouldn’t believe him since the FDA approved it and the drug companies pushed it very hard. So it took a few years before the FDA finally admitted that it was killing people and took it off the shelves. This is what happens when people put blind faith in modern medicine and blind faith in their doctors. People should, when confronting illness that could kill them become experts on the subject. They should consult with their doctor(s) and discuss what they are learning and use critical analysis to determine what they should do. Nobody should put blind faith into anything.
BTW the statin drug story is written by a doctor in the book called “Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine” by John Abramson.
“Except for vaccines for going out of the country. But that is my choice and not anyone else’s.”
Ouch. Vaccine avoidance has serious social costs.
Though Jon, on medical miss-steps, you would probably enjoy reading many of the posts at http://blog.sethroberts.net/
I rather like Seth Roberts.
Thanks for the reply Jon. I am not sure that I agree with all your assumptions, but I find your basic faith in humanity to be refreshing. 🙂
Independent organizations certifying doctors – I could live with that, I think. I am not entirely sold on deregulation lowering prices, though. My experience has been the opposite – everything the government pulled out of became much more expensive immediately. Blame it on price fixing and cartels, if you like (I do), but the price increases were real.
As far as people caring for the poor I would say this – it is one thing to do a fund raiser for an operation. It is another to provide continual support that lasts for decades, especially when one’s illness is invisible (mental illness, fibromyalgia, among others). The stigmas surrounding mental illness, in particular, are powerful and deeply ingrained, and I think that before effective support could be given, that problem would need to be addressed.
As far as the coercive nature of taxation, I have to disagree. I pay my taxes voluntarily because I see it as everyone chipping in so that all of us are taken care of. One can see inefficiencies and flaws in using government as a delivery system, but its uniformity and ubiquity has some advantages as well.
In any case, I do see where you are coming from.
Wyoming,
#73,
I speak as one in the top 10%. I’m not coveting anyone’s wealth. I have health insurance. I have a nice home. I have a wonderful family. I get to go on trips to essentially where I want to go. I don’t want for much. I’m speaking here solely on a macro basis. If the top 40% of America’s wealth continues to be in the hands of 1%, we’re in for serious trouble in the future. If capitalism refuses to fix that problem, then it is in the hands of government to tax the hell out of the top 1%. If people in the top 1% choose to leave the country, fine by me. My guess is that there are plenty of people in the next 9% who are perfectly fine with taking over their spots.
This is why I attack Jon so strongly:
Com’on guys, you want to continue being insulted like this? This is why you have to hit back so hard against someone like this.
I don’t see it as an insult, Dan. Violence is inherent in social contracts – laws must have consequences for violation.
A libertarian might argue that taxation is a form of theft (violence against property rights). That isn’t so far off when individual control of wealth/resources is a driving principle.
One could also easily argue the other way (as I often do) and say that the entire idea of “ownership” is one of violent denial of access to resources that ought to be shared.
In any case, hitting back hard is also a violent act: using verbal violence to silence dissenting views.
Surely, we can all disagree without being disagreeable … 🙂
prometheus,
It’s not the issue of whether or not the state has the monopoly on violence to ensure enforcement of social contracts. It’s the “i’m better than you because you obviously are a violent socialist” that comes across in his comments. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is something nice, but methinks you need to direct that at him as well.
Fair enough, Dan. I just didn’t find the quote you provided to be insulting.
On that note, though, I figure all of us, myself included, could use improvement in the area of agreeable disagreement, especially on topics that tend to bring out deeply held opinions. Apologies if you felt unfairly singled out.
prometheus,
guys like the ones over at mises use words like “thieves” and “socialist” and “violence” and “statist” not to be agreeable with those they disagree with. They use those words because they actually believe anyone who supports taxation, particularly a progressive tax, as a thief who uses the violence of the state against otherwise “good” rich people. How could someone reply agreeably to comments like that? Should I be looking for some middle ground? Hmmm, what’s the middle ground between being called a thief and not being a thief? A part time thief? My replies calling them stupid is mild when comparing the implication of their comments calling someone like me a thief. In the grand scheme of things, which is worse? A thief or a stupid person?
@prometheus,
It’s refreshing to blogversate with someone that at least understands where I’m coming from and can agreeably disagree. Some of the people just like to attack the individual rather than discuss the ideas and why they disagree. In college I always thought that liberals were supposed to be all inclusive, etc. Once I grew up I realized that they’re just like conservatives in that respect (with a few exceptions). A lot of them have a lot of anger issues.
Yes, it’s a difficult transition and I bet most of those instances it wasn’t a true deregulation and that there were government backed monopoly policies that made it difficult for competition to come in and compete. So when you come from a position of high regulation to a free market you can’t expect it to change over night. Also, you have to consider if there were government stimuluses given to these companies when they were regulated.
A perfect example of true competition is Wal-mart (in the early days) when they truly brought the consumer less expensive products on a massive scale, what a joy for the poor to be able to afford things they couldn’t afford before. Of course, now they are involved in government monopoly practices just like everyone else.
We also must remember that a free market isn’t a perfect system, I just believe it is the best system.
Yes, it would be difficult and we might expect families to pick up a lot of the slack but I have confidence that there would be individuals out there that would want to give sustained support. When I lived in UT there was an organization that helped the mentally handicap and put them to work also, filling boxes with stuff. Talk about sustainable.
Well what about people like my cousin that are pretty much just vegetables that can only interact through blinking and smiling. He currently lives in a home with others like him but my aunt (who is a pretty hard core, Obama-can-do-nothing-wrong liberal) constantly complains about the poor care he receives.
That’s fine for you, but what about the people that feel differently? Is it OK to force a system on another person that disagrees with that system? I don’t think so.
Sometimes people will say, “Well you can move to a different country.” Can’t the person that disagrees have equal validation in saying the same thing to the person that wants to use violence to achieve their ends?
I actually don’t have any problems with monopoly of violence as long as it is very localized (and not burdensome), although I don’t believe it is pure I do think it can work OK. It’s when everything starts to become centralized as it is now. It seems be a ridiculous proposition that some central bureaucratic planner can understand the system well enough to make choices for 10s of thousands or millions of people.
When things are centralized higher and higher up the system needs to use more and more violence against its minions to achieve its ends. Also, the opportunity for corruption becomes a much higher incentive.
This is why we are seeing the US become more and more of a police state and kingly as time passes. Police receive so much of their monies from the federal and state governments now that their loyalty belongs more to the federal and state governments rather than the people they are supposed to serve. The presidency is turning more and more into a kingship position, where the king can say who lives and dies, can start wars at his own whim, etc. Quite sad.
@prometheus & Dan,
I think on the blogs the extremist part comes out more in most people, since in real life, if you even get people to talk politics, it usually stops short of a full conversation since people will just walk out or lose their cool shortly into the conversation.
I was talking once on how WWII was a bad war and how we should be peaceful people. Well, there happened to be a WWII person there (I didn’t know) and boy did he get upset. The setting was a group that was going over the constitution (Skousen’s program – I know, liberals don’t like him – but you have to admit his war stance is awesome – I don’t agree with a lot of his ideals but the war one just can’t be ignored) and we decided not to “talk politics”, I don’t know how you don’t talk politics when the subject matter is a highly political document.
People like going where others already agree with them. When they don’t hear that agreement they start attacking the individual rather than discussing the ideas. I have to admit that I have been and will continue to be guilty of this (it would be nice if I were better at containing myself – something to work on).
As for calling people thieves, I don’t know if I actually call people thieves, I just call the system violent and grounded in theft, covetousness, etc. Which, I suppose does imply the person is a thief also, well the scriptures do say we shouldn’t steal, even for food. So, it is a valid point that we need to consider if our actions lead to theft against other people and, if they do, stop that action. The Lord said we should not be respecters of persons and when we put a pedestal up for certain people and say they can do actions that an individual cannot I think that is treaty actions differently than what is done for the individual. Why is it OK for government to steal but not the mob? Do they both not say that their actions lead to peace and safety for the business/individual? I believe they do and that both act in the same manner and both are immoral.
All you constitutional Skousenites must be aware that the founding fathers were for progressive taxation and even more drastic wealth-sharing methods. A sample:
“In a letter to James Madison in 1785, for instance, Thomas Jefferson suggested that taxes could be used to reduce “the enormous inequality” between rich and poor. He wrote that one way of “silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison later spoke in favor of using laws to “reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity (meaning the middle) and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/business/calbreath/20081026-9999-1b26dean.html
djinn,
don’t forget Thomas Paine:
and
Riddle me this. Why is it not OK for the individual to covet and steal but it is OK for individuals to get together and covet and steal and create a monopoly on violence?
No, it is not OK to create a monopoly of violence, neither is it OK to steal and covet. It doesn’t matter if the founders believed it or not, it still, is not OK.
Remember why was there this disparity in property and money? Because of the state, not the lack thereof!
Give me principles to live that is no respecter of man, and those I will abide.
BTW, just because 51% of the people vote and say it is OK (the only principle Dan lives by), doesn’t make it OK. Just because 51% of the people vote for Obama and his cronies (repubs and dems) doesn’t make it OK that he slaughters families in the middle east, but according to Dan that is OK and just and right. No, there are moral principles, that apply to everyone, if they are not adhered to, God and the earth will damn such souls.
http://mises.org/daily/2014
djinn,
by the way, the other quote from Thomas Jefferson in your link is also highly instructive:
That darn tootin’ Marxist!
Just for amusement, from Forbes.
How things have changed, or have they?
Taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have nots” or what Jon is calling “covet[ing] and steal[ing] is required by God. The Bible itself, God himself, speaking in Deuteronomy 15:1 says: “At the end of every seventh year you must cancel the debts of everyone who owes you money.” (New Living Translation.” The KJV says:
1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD’s release.”
@Dijinn–Testify!!!!
@Jon– “Remember why was there this disparity in property and money? Because of the state, not the lack thereof!” That is hilarious. It is the government’s fault that their is such an unprecedented gap between the rich and the poor? Only in that the rich have loophole after loophole for being utterly greedy.
@djinn,
Not quite:
http://kad.biblecommenter.com/deuteronomy/15.htm
Scriptures on not stealing, even for bread for sustenance:
@Joshua,
Isn’t this what I said? The government favors the rich. In a free market, the market favors those who produce useful things. Stop producing and the market will go to that which is better. Thanks for proving my point Joshua.
Look the free market is based on love. Socialism is based on hate and envy.
the whole irony here is that the Founding Fathers taxed solely the wealthy to fund the country. There was no tax on the poor. Only over time did we go toward the whole “everyone should be taxed” and thus now everyone in America is taxed in one way or another. Gas tax hits the poor more than the rich. Cigarette tax hits the poor more than the rich. But we think it’s okay. Frankly, if we’re going to hearken to the days of the Founding Fathers, we ought then to also consider their position on not ever taxing the poor, but placing the sole burden of the funding of the government of the United States on the backs of the rich, as they wanted, and as they did.
@Dan,
No problem, just decrease the government substantially and get rid of the income tax. It doesn’t work with a central government that has gotten out of control.
Jon,
“Socialism is based on hate and envy.’
Really, Jon? The 10 happiest countries in the world;
1. Norway
2. Denmark
3. Finland
4. Australia
5. New Zealand
6. Sweden
7. Canada
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. United States
http://www.forbes.com/2011/01/19/norway-denmark-finland-business-washington-world-happiest-countries.html
It appears that the countries where the people are the happiest have socialist governments and universal healthcare.
Oops, so much for hate and envy……
@Jeff Spector,
The study itself said that it is subjective. Also, it said they have “economic liberty”. We could go through the article point by point if you really want to. What are the biases of the people doing the study? What does GDP really mean and is it meaningful? And on and on. Wasn’t it me that was saying the US has serious problems?
Either way, you can’t change the principles that taxation is theft. Should we go back and and have slaves again? When you don’t have control over your own property doesn’t that make you nothing more than a slave? Weren’t the people in “A Brave New World” happy? If that is your idea of happiness, you can have it. Happiness for me is liberty. Happiest place on earth? Home. Where is home? Wherever my family is.
“the whole irony here is that the Founding Fathers taxed solely the wealthy to fund the country”
I’m for that as long as the other significant part of that is included: ‘only those that own land can vote’. It was put in place to stop people from voting themselves entitlements from the government. If this is what you are saying Dan, I’m with you.
Jon just cannot simply admit he is wrong. He cannot admit that people are happier in socialist countries than in America (even though America is currently socialist under Jon’s worldview). Only when we get to Somalia type freedom will people truly be happy for Jon. That’s his ideal home. Hey Jon, why don’t you take your family there? You can’t take them back in time to old Quakerism. All you’ve got is Somalia.
People are happy in Western European countries because they’ve built themselves a system that works for them, where they don’t have to stress out over whether or not they could possibly afford going to the doctor. They have thriving businesses, small ones too! They vote (some countries even make voting compulsory! Gasp!). They have control over their own destinies and are actually happy. They’re not afraid of their government. Their government is afraid of them. Under your ideal world, we are to live in constant fear. No wonder we’re not happy here, at least not as happy as they are. We’re constantly in fear of a boggeyman that doesn’t exist. We’re damn fools for listening to idiots like Rand, Mises, and so on.
You must have never gone to Europe, Jon. You must have never seen Europeans free and at liberty to do what they want with their lives. What a joke you are. That is my final word to you.
Will,
Let’s continue with what Thomas Jefferson said:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
Sounds like a great idea to me. Get almost everyone to own a piece of land, and let all the landowners vote? No problem.
oh and i think we should make voting compulsory. If you own land in America, you MUST vote, or you lose your land…what do you think?
Jon, capitalism only exists with all of the trappings you wish to rid it of. Please name a working state with the rules you espouse. And the guy who wrote that Deuteronomy passage explication gave an astonishingly uncharitable reading–his point was “those words don’t mean what they clearly mean.” Not convinced.
A little more Deuteronomy 15, NIV:
7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9
Dan,
Well, maybe they could be happier, but correlation doesn’t imply causation. You know that. Also, what is the bias of the study? Is being socialist a requirement to be high up in the study?
I think you already said you were not going to address me.
So, I admitted that they could be happy. Will you now admit that just because 51% of the people vote for something doesn’t make it morally OK? Will you admit that just because someone is part of an entity that says it’s OK to steal doesn’t make it OK to steal, that they must use the same rules as the rest of us?
Also, remember the article said the countries were smaller. So does that mean for us to have the same happiness they do we need to make the federal government much less intrusive into state issues? So that states once more can dictate their own laws and run their own programs? Will it finally be OK for the federal government to stop giving “handouts” so that the states can rule themselves?
djinn,
I’m all on board with that. You keep coming back with stuff that we both agree with. I’m glad your an anarcho-capitalist too.
“Sounds like a great idea to me. Get almost everyone to own a piece of land, and let all the landowners vote? No problem.”
We agree. I like it because they have skin in the game or a vested interest. Those that leech of the government in any way (Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, welfare) should lose that right. Absolutely, those that have a vested interest should have the right to vote- similar to voting rights in a corporation.
When you have replicable results, correlation is a big red arrow pointing to causation. Plus, you seem to have misread the physical size of a country– “a small country” –to mean the size of their federal governments; the “size” of a governmental entity has nothing to do with that country’s square footage.
Plus, you are veering off in a frightening direction: you’re not down with the UNITED states? You want to repeal the 14th amendment? Do tell.
So what you are saying is that if you lived in a world where slavery existed, and it was never known to exist without it, you would say a world like that cannot exist without slavery? You wouldn’t be an abolitionist but a slave owner? No, I would be an abolitionist, I can tell when something is wrong even if it is difficult to know exactly what the world would look like without slaves. The slaves of today are those that live under the heavy hand of the state. It’s main source of revenue is taxes. The slave masters have gotten smart, instead of us working on plantations they give us the “freedom” to pursue the careers we want and let us keep a certain portion to ourselves. They give others some money and other goods to pacify them and make the ones that are taxed feel good about themselves. It is time to tell our slave masters that we no longer wish to be slaves but wish to rule our on lives and have liberty, to answer for our own sins.
djinn,
I took small country meaning “few” people.
14th amendment should be abolished. It has changed the meaning of the other amendments. What part of the government making no law regarding speech do people not understand, that was supposed to be left to the individual states to decide. Now the federal government is making laws about these things since the states are now hamstrung and cannot make their own laws about it. You see, if a state overstepped it’s bounds you were supposed to be able to vote with your feet (I like to call it opting out), but when the federal government gets into everything there is no place to go unless you leave the country, which isn’t an real or desirable option for most (especially for the wealthy since they’ll lose half their wealth, talk about building an invisible wall).
Of course, you know that I would be all for anarcho-capitalism, of course, I don’t think the people are ready for that, I would go for changing slowly to get their. Would probably have to wait for a lot of the gray hairs to die off first. Maybe my grandkids will get to see a day when there are no more slaves.
Jon, there have been plenty of rough aggregations of land with few rules. They all end up winner-take-all, or most. Look at, I dunno, England pre Magna-Carta, for starters. How do your non-rules differ from failed states like Somalia? What just happened to Iceland?
djinn,
There has to be rules understood by all the people. Most of the people need to live by those rules for society to function. The rules are called natural rights, which includes property rights, etc.
From what I understand Somalia was better off without it’s previous rulers even in a chaotic situation. It may not be nice to liver their still, but if it’s better for the people then good for them. You must remember also that violence in Somalia and the like is propped up by external countries supplying them with guns, training, etc. So would it look much better without those external pressures?
What just happened to Iceland? I don’t know if we are thinking of the same thing. I know they’ve been voting down the nationalizing of the banks debt and other countries have been putting on a lot of pressure on their leaders to subject the people to the rule of the banks.
Look, it’s not incumbent for me to fear what a world without the state would look like. All I know is the principle is the same, people need to be given freedom and liberty. Maybe I wouldn’t have known if the slaves would have died because they were set free or I wouldn’t know if people would die of starvation since the slaves wouldn’t be producing food anymore, etc. I don’t know all the answers, I do know that people were not meant to be enslaved by one another.
Iceland went libertarian for about 3 years. It crashed their economy. What are these “natural rights”, and where do they come from? An incredibly selective reading of the Bible that leaves out all the bits you don’t like?
They went libertarian with a huge fiat central bank? Yeah, don’t believe that one. Libertarian and fiat currencies is an oxymoron.
Oh, here’s something on that. Just like I thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
Likewise. I don’t claim to have a complete understanding. Do you? Why do you selectively disregard theft? Why do you associate the need to care for the poor with the state yet all mandates were given to the individual?
Everyone’s ideas of “Natural Law” is different, as attested both by that Wikipedia article and this thread.
Will,
We may agree on the land ownership and voting (as long as land ownership is provided to as many people as possible), but stop infusing selfish Randian Objectivism into what the Founding Fathers taught and believed. They would have spit on Rand’s idiotic crap. Read that letter that Jefferson wrote that I linked to earlier
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
Read it carefully. It is not anything close to Rand’s idiocy. Her ideas are poisoning the meaning of America. She is evil. Her ideas are evil. And they should have no place among a Christian society.
Dan,
I have no idea who Rand is, nor do I care. There is nothing evil about the Law of the Harvest. In fact, it was taught by Jesus Christ. You should read his material, it is rather good.
Hmm. Two comments to add briefly here. Firstly, Will, I find your use of the term leeching to be offensive. It is dehumanizing and insulting to a large number of people in desperate straits. Are there abusers of the system? Of course. Painting every user as an abuser, however, is not cool.
Secondly, Jon, I disagree that property rights are natural rights, particularly when it comes to land ownership. It is a social convention that many societies have done without.
Thirdly, I am curious as to what percentage you would accept as a majority vote (in favor of taxes, government, etc). 51% is ambiguous, I agree, but what about 80%? Should your desire for a certain form of independence outweigh a clear majority’s desire for a different form of independence?
Interesting discussion. 🙂
Regarding Rand, I actually saw the new movie, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1,this weekend (and have read the book 3 times).
While Rand taken to the extreme may be “idiocy”, so do a lot of other ideas. Anarchy or socialism taken to the extreme are also “idiocy”. I can’t think of a major state that was ever able to flourish under “anarchy”. Communism ultimately failed under it’s own dead weight. The more socialistic countries in the world have HAD to incorporate capitalism to survive – even China.
So, at the end of the day, it is a question of degrees. The economies that have most flourished in the history of the world have been the more capitalistic ones. There do need to be some constraints (which goes AGAINST what Rand was about), but those can stifle growth.
In this country, there is NO WAY that taxing anyone higher will help with our broken entitlement programs. There is NO WAY that cutting “extra” programs will ultimately help either, as the entitlement programs will grow too big. There are only 2 possible ultimate solutions:
1) Cut benefits: The more liberal wing will decry this as “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor”. There is a real political cost to doing this. A dismantling of social safety nets, even to the slightest degree, it met with huge outcries.
2) Grow the economy: Government revenue has always collected a fairly fixed percentage of the GDP. And the best way to grow the economy is to let people make money. Period. There are inequalities associated with this. There will be greed. Unprofitable jobs will be cut. But, at the end of the day, this is the ONLY way to preserve the social benefits people want. Period. Anarchy won’t do it. Socialism won’t do it. More regulations won’t do it. Raising taxes may help in the short term, but also won’t do it.
So, at the end of the day, however much you hate Rand, any viable solution MUST include a fair amount of her ideals – even to pay for the social programs she was against.
@djinn,
That is right. Natural law should be uniform and be derived through sound logic. Many people don’t understand logic though.
@prometheus,
The societies that I know of that don’t have property rights haven’t prospered but stay in the same stagnant place. Which is OK, if that is what they want. I know the Blackfeet Indians (Montana area) were quite ruthless to members of their tribe is they took more than their share.
But we also see what happens when their are no property rights, it’s called the tragedy of the commons. Example, the destruction of the buffalo. Or you could just say that the government didn’t respect the property rights of the Indians.
Also, I’m sure you could agree with this. That a person owns their own body and can do what they wish with it. I think there are natural consequences to defiling your body but it is not me to say they can’t do what they want, as long as it doesn’t directly harm someone else. As a society I also see no problem with there being societal pressures put on people to conform.
There is a lot of theory that goes behind property rights that uses logic (like mathematics) to derive the theories. The basic argument goes, that you own your body, and everyone else owns theirs, therefore you cannot harm someone else, unless they harm you first or you are defending your property (yourself). Therefore, when you mix your labor with the land, you also own that property since you mixed your labor with it, which extends to trading for goods with what you have created for other goods, which extends to goods that are sold using a monetary system that is in place.
There is not amount of people that can take your rights from you. You are the only person that can sell your rights (even into slavery). Now, people can use peacefully means to “change” your mind. I like to call this the shaming principle I derived from what happened between Cain and Abel.
In other words, it was the people that “shamed” him to leave their people because of his wickedness.
Once you vote away the rights of the individual there is no individuality any more. See:
http://mises.org/daily/4723/No-Treason-no-1
Also, if a majority want to live a certain way they can, they just can force others to do the same. What they can do is purchase land and create contracts that say this is what rules need to abide by in order to live in the area, break the rules you are out or punished. They can also allow people into the society that don’t abide by the rules (see panarchy).
So you could have your utopia and I could have mine. But property rights are very important for this to work. Also, the land needs to be cultivated or used in order for someone to lay claim on it. Otherwise it is not rightfully that persons.
@Mike S,
I like anarcho-capitalism (not to be confused with chaotic anarchy) in theory and think it is the most pure form of governance. But think the compromise is very local government with confederations for larger governments. I think that is the compromise, which we are well beyond. When the central government is controlling even the states there is no control by the people anymore, they can’t vote with their feet any more. It may appear that people “have a choice” but, just like we have now, a party system with “two wings of the same bird of prey.” There is no choice.
Anarcho-capitalism is nice in that it teaches the principles of freedom and liberty, even if we don’t strictly adhere to the principles it is important to know what they are. They way, people, as a society can know what the ultimate goal is, even if we may never achieve it.
Jon:
I agree with your points in theory, but unfortunately, we are based with the reality of the government we have (at least in the United States).
The issue then becomes what to do with what we have. Barring an overthrow of the federal government, we are reduced to supporting or opposing candidates whose viewpoints best mirror our own. Do we support the candidate that wants to “tax the rich” and “expand/protect entitlements”? Or do we support the candidate that wants to “minimize taxes” and “cut programs”?
It is reductionist in the extreme, but it is our reality.
Mike S,
Is there a party or candidate that wants to minimize taxes and cut programs? I’ve been looking. 🙂 As far as presidents go, Reagan – no, Bush Sr. – no, Clinton – no, Bush Jr. – no, Obama – no. That’s 0 for 5 that reduced spending and cut programs.
I’m all for a more peaceful manner of getting rid/changing of the current system. Educate the masses (the internet – the new Gutenberg Press), opting out (take kids out of gunverment schools, etc.), civil disobedience (choose wisely as not to get yourself killed over this one – examples: California nullify marijuana for medical use and soon recreational use too – that ones for the liberals that read this).
Mike,
What exactly does she offer that someone else has not? The only thing that is overridingly her own idea is selfishness, which goes contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to the intent and creation of the United States of America by our Founding Fathers. There is nothing else found in Rand that you cannot find elsewhere, Mike. She is a poison that will destroy our country.
Dan:
The fundamental idea of capitalism IS selfishness. Our markets are based upon everyone looking for their OWN best gain.
Mike,
I’m gonna go with Thomas Jefferson:
Mike,
Then capitalism is NOT what this country was founded upon.
Jon, bring it. Natural Laws. Using logic.
Oops, Natural rights.
prometheus
“Firstly, Will, I find your use of the term leeching to be offensive”
Good, that was the intent.
I am offended by the 14 trillion dollars in general obligation debt stemming from these social programs; and, the 40 trillion in unfunded obligations from these short sighted programs. They have bankrupted our country and will (or already have) cause us to lose our status in the world and lower our standard of living – Especially, for those dependant on these programs.
Mike S,
#134.. Excellent analysis.
Dan,
See Mike S #134, which is and honest and intelligent analysis. The only way we are going to solve our economic problems is to understand what Mike has represented in his commentary. Your continued fight on this issue makes me conclude you are either not intelligent or honest enough to understand this issue.
Will,
Mike S’s commentary in #134 assumes that this country is not letting people make money. That’s not an intelligent analysis of the situation. Sorry Mike. That also assumes that in countries like western Europe, the same thing goes, where the various countries are somehow purposefully making it hard for people to make money, thus making it harder for governments to collect revenue. It’s pretty pathetic analysis, frankly.
Based solely on self interest, and seeing that revenue increases when the economy thrives, it obviously is the goal of any government to spur economic growth. Get people working and the government gets more money. It’s not a real shocker. Anyone who claims that a government’s main purpose is to stifle economic growth, or to stifle individual workers is plain stupid.
I’m glad voters weren’t dumb enough in 2008 to keep Republicans (who were the ones in charge when the economy collapsed) in power, though I have to wonder what the hell was going on in the minds of voters last year.
This is why Will should be derided:
Re: 147, Will, it has been my observation that a great many of your comments on this site come across as intolerant and condescending. You regularly use verbal abuse and insults to try to bully people into agreeing with you. I really have nothing more to say to you.
Thanks for the reply, Jon. The thing that really jumped out at me was this: “Also, the land needs to be cultivated or used in order for someone to lay claim on it.”
I see that as a false assumption. That was the excuse the Europeans used to displace the Native Americans. First, because one’s definition of “use” may vary – a hunter/gatherer society doesn’t “use” the land the way an agrarian society does. Secondly, land does is not used just by humans. We live on a planet with billions of other creatures, who all desire survival and continuation of species. (I am not suggesting an extremist stance here, simply pointing out that we are not alone, and our treatment of other life forms reflects our moral development.)
I will agree that ownership of one’s body is as close to natural law as it gets. I also agree that access to the means of survival is a natural right. I see the accumulation of property and resources (beyond a (fuzzy) point) as a direct attack on that right of access. Landed nobility versus small family farms. (I think that we both perhaps share an innate distrust of monopolistic practice in general, although we may differ on exactly what exceptions may be made.)
Anyway, not as clear as I wanted that, but moving on … 😀
If you guys want to live in a world with utilities (gas, water, electricity, sewer) then I suspect you want governmental utilities that charge at something closer to cost than that which the market will bear–i.e., monopolies controlled by the people. Phone would be nice too. Which is why the US has the highest phone rates in the Western world–not priced as a utililty.
Agreed, djinn. I think there are some services that simply require governmental administration and regulation.
@prometheus,
Yes, everyone needs to be on the same page. You should read this article that Rothbard talks about this and Rhode Island with the Indians. There’s a lot more theory involved.
http://mises.org/daily/2014
The reason prices are higher than they should be is because of regulations. electric companies are highly regulated. Phone companies are highly regulated. Sewer is owned by the government. So is water (except where we live, we have a well – not government medicated water for me!).
But really. I pay ~$40/month for DSL. I get any TV/movies I want off of it for free. I get conferences for work off of it. I get news/weather. I get to research from it. Socialize and talk to people about politics, even though all of us will come out still believing what we already believe (I do learn a lot from the discussions though). I get to learn classes from it from MIT et. al. for free. I get my phone for free (google voice – I did pay $44 for the OBI100 device). I have a prepaid cell phone that I use when I’m out of the house, T-Mobile, $0.10/minute – don’t go through very many of the minutes though. Really, I think I’m getting a pretty good deal. I wonder what wonderful kind of deal I would get in a truly free market!
not that it is not surprising, but it seems Jon does not understand what a free market is. it doesn’t mean products are free…but I guess if Somalia is your archetype….
@Dan,
Good job boy. You are correct, free market doesn’t mean they are free. Free market means that products will go higher in quality (if that is what the people want) and prices will go down, for most things. It’s all basic economics, more supply and low demand, means low prices and visa versa.
Can we get 200 comments by the end of the month?
Here for all you liberals, John Stossel’s march from being a liberal to being libertarian and David Boaz’s from conservative to libertarian.
wow man, you are so condescending. it’s amazing how much you think you are right and everyone else is wrong.
@Dan,
You too Dan. Love ya man. Glad you’re talking to me again.
I figured out today why there are so many statists out there.
I tried burning my burn pile today. In order to do so I have to get official permission to do so. I filled out the form. Then I have to call right before I start the fire. I called. They said no fire today, even though the wind is calmer now than it has been for over a week (really no wind at all).
What would a statist do? Well, right across from me in a the field they have a huge fire going on right now. My neighbor behind me (a city councilman), who usually supports the big government republican people (as opposed to the republicans that are for smaller government) had a fire going on when it was super windy, I thought he was going to burn down his garage.
My aunt, who is a true liberal through and through (Obama can-do-nothing-wrong type) has said the same thing as these actions show, that she will not obey a law that she doesn’t like.
So that is probably why there are statists, because they don’t believe in following and obeying the law when it applies to them. Whereas those that do believe in obeying the law when it applies to them don’t want more laws and regulations, because they will actually try and live by those laws! I know it’s not that simple but man, it sure feels like it some times.
The real problem that I have with “free market” enthusiasts is that they seem to have an ingrained belief that the unfettered market will regulate itself. Let me cite a few examples of why i find that idea highly unsound.
1. child labor in factories
2. the 60 hour work week
3. sweat shops
4. no employer liability for safety on the job
5. Bernie Madoff
6. Pittsburgh plus rate
7. Carters Litle Liver Pills (they had nothing to do with the liver or helping a person’s liver)
8. Enron manipulating the price of electricity in California
9. FDA and 4D meat (Delaware at one time allowed the sale of meat from dead, diseased, dying or destroyed animals-The FDA banned it from interstate sales)
10. Price fixing on light bulbs by Westinghouse and others
11. absolute caveat emptor: theera of unreadle small print in contracts, sawdust in the oil of used cars, misleading ads, bait and switch. etc.
.
12. anti labor blacklists, ops, finks, sluggers, and scabs and anti management folk of the same type. (a simple example of a logical regulation–union strikers cannot carry signs with handles larger than a grape stake, so it cannot be a useful weapon).
13 Laetrile
14. required car safety equipment
15. the need for anti monopoly legislation
16. Corporate manipulation of eminant domain process
17. Clean Air and Clean Water
The simple reality is that our capitalist econmy must operate with regulation and limits. There are too many people out there who will take advantage of the situation and make things much worse. Imagine the economy like the NFL without rules or referees.
@Stan Beale,
You assume there will be no rules in the free market, in a true free market there are rules because property rights need to be respected in order for a free market to exist.
Your list list things that are problems created by regulations not the free market. All or most of them have been refuted before. If you are interested in a free market perspective of the issues you listed I’ll find you articles/studies that refute your list. If you’re not interested then I won’t waste my time.
I guess it is just a matter of what you believe. Is everyone equal before the law or not? If everyone is then there is no need for regulations. Even if you accept the need for government by force there is still no need for regulations if laws are equal for everyone. Like, respect of contracts. Respect of property. No lying.
Jon,
*whips out his violin and starts playing a tragic tune…you poor boy. Life is so tragic for a pyromaniac.
Then a free market has never ever existed in this world and will never ever exist. Why pine for something that will never exist? Perhaps it is time to live in the real world, Jon.
Are you freaking stupid or what? Sweat shops are created by government regulations? Child labor was created by government regulations? Get back to school and learn something real about the real world, Jon. Your fake fantasy Mises world has warped your mind.
@Dan,
“There have always been slaves, why pine for a world without slaves.” Well, Dan, because I believe that there could be a more loving world where everything is done in the name of peace. A world where the golden rule is truly applied and everyone adheres to it. Sorry if I pine for a world without war and lyings, etc. But I believe in humanity and that one day we can achieve it, as long as people are willing to know the principles and seek after them.
If you are interested I could post an article on sweat shops, it is more complicated than “the government did it” or the “free market did it”.
you honestly think I am interested in more of your Mises crap?
I know correlation doesn’t imply causation but:
Don’t know if that means anything, but you understand why I question vaccines, or at least the overuse of them.
http://www.naturalnews.com/032306_vaccines_infant_mortality.html
poison. that’s what this is, Jon. Don’t trust anyone. Fear everyone. What a sad freaking world you live in.