Health Care Town Hall Lee's Summit, MO 8-8-09 Cleaver Coffee

[VoxLesPaul]

Pull-ease!!! Buy a tripod for your camera. I'm gonna lose my lunch.

[JDStephenz]

Great video. I liked the part where Alta said, "I'm talking" which meant shutr up, I;m talking.

[0o0o0oh]

Are these people more like 1984's prols or Brave New World's -7's? -7's I think. Although they do seem to like being whipped up by their 5 minutes hate.

[ZiggyZen]

Who is most people? Your view of the constitution is a minority view, even you must know that.

One scandal means the FDA doesn't do a good job? Would be better off without an oversite on food and drugs?

[guyjohn59]

Unfortunately it might be a minority view, it is in Washington anyways, but if you read Madison and Mason, it is true regardless.

Well everything the FDA does is a scandal; it raises drug costs (by 80%), it prevents useful medications and approves deadly ones. I've literally read so many articles on it, I'm just going to suggest one: "Playing God at the FDA" by Dale Steinreich. You don't need to read the whole thing, just read the "History" section if you want the important details.

[ZiggyZen]

No more government programs...like public schools....the military....the FDA. Was there one intelligent point expressed?

[guyjohn59]

Those are the three strongest arguments against government.

[ZiggyZen]

So you think the military and the FDA do a bad job?

[guyjohn59]

yes...I noticed you left out education. How'd that slip in there in the first place. Regarding the military, there are proper functions for military according to the Constitution, such as defense, but they're obviously not adhered to. And I'm not a Constitutional scholar (well if Obama is then I guess I am) but most people agree that the majority of unconstitutional actions taken in the last several decades have involved the military industrial complex. And the FDA? look up the Vioxx scandal.

[muffman11111]

if you look at specialty procedures where the gov. is not in it like enhancements of any sort prices go down. but when the docs.and ins.know that the gov. has a printing press behind them then there going to keep raising the price of visits medicine everything

[A1dan0Neill]

those blue yard signs you see at 2:44 sprouted like mushrooms at the protest. I think it wound up about 80-20 opposed, with 250-300 at the protest.

[RabidQuestions]

Love the liberals fancy signs. Where they get those?

[chaserehn]

LOL that old lady thinks it wonderful i pay for her medicare.

[ZiggyZen]

You're gonna think its wonderful when ur kids pay for your medicare. Grow up.

[chaserehn]

Im against medicare

[ZiggyZen]

We'll see about that when your 65. Are you against public schools too?

[chaserehn]

Yes i am against public schools. If you where not such an intellectual pygmy you would see that government cannot provide any service or product efficiently or productively. If we could keep are tax dollars we would be able to pay for services and people would once again be responsible for actions they take. If you would like i can recommend some good books on economics.

[ZiggyZen]

Intellectual pygmy LOL. So you don't think we have a good military then? You think Blackwater does a better job then our fighting men and women?

Do you honestly think these screaming idiots at these town halls are the best representation of your views? With all they're hyperbolic hysteria that we are approaching Stalinist Russia?

[chaserehn]

Ya got me. 4 things Government can do better then the privet sector is rob, enslave, murder and then lie so well they can convince you its for your own good. No i don't think the screaming idiots represent me very well. I would go about it very differently and would bring up much better talking points. For one... the constitution does not give the fed the power to start such a program in the 1st place.

i apologize for the "intellectual pygmy" thing. that was uncalled for.

[ZiggyZen]

Accepted.

So in your world, all the roads would be private too? Would their be private fire brigades? Private police?

Ultimately we are talking about is it wrong to ask the wealthiest to subsidize the public good.

The preamble does mention the general welfare. And the Supreme Court has rejected such a limited view of legislative powers.

[guyjohn59]

Well the 'general welfare' is in regards to what Article 1 allows. Otherwise, what would be the point of even making a constitution if it could be bypassed by its own clause. If you want to read a good book on privatizing the roads, read Walter Block's book. It makes you think anyways. For privatizing the police, read Molinari's famous essay, or Rothbards, or anyone else's. I mean there's so many free books and essays if you really think it's worth it.

[ZiggyZen]

Then why has the Supreme Court consistently disagreed with that view?

[guyjohn59]

...because they're part of the government. It's the people's job to the control the government, not the government's job to control the government.

[ZiggyZen]

Well then that's not the constitution. The says final word on interpreting the constitution goes to the judicial branch. If you think the SCOTUS is rogue then you must think a revolution is necessary.

[guyjohn59]

...like it's so confusing that it needs to be interpreted. At the federal level it's simple; whereas the states have the flexibility. But when everything the state does is in return for government money, then of course the laws are going to be from the very top. But in order to stop it, you wouldn't kill anyone, you'd just tell your state representatives to say no to illegal extortion.

[ZiggyZen]

Since people a lot smarted then you and I are debating its meaning then its not that simple. 

What illegal extortion?

[guyjohn59]

It is reasonable to think that, but it's not really the case, because people like Alan Greenspan are considered geniuses, and maybe they are, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is correct. Greenspan has repeatedly stated that his actions were responsible for the 'economic crisis' (but then says doing the same thing will get us out). Throughout history, there were divine rulers, then aristocracy, and now 'geniuses'. The government needs 'experts' to push an agenda, and that's academia.

[guyjohn59]

The federal government routinely threatens to withhold state funds if the state doesn't pass what the government wants it to. That's how we end up with weird laws and regulations like the seat belt and helmet nonsense which aims at getting more people fined and in jail. And it's extortion because it's a threat to the property of others, by withholding their money, and it's clearly a violation of the 10th amendment and the whole constitution in general.

[ZiggyZen]

You can argue thats wrong, I might agree with you. But I don't think its a constitutional issue. The Federal Gov't doesn't have to give the states that money.

Congress has the right to levy taxes and the Constitution allows direct taxation under the 16th amendment.

[guyjohn59]

Extortion, from my understanding, is a threat to use force, even if it is 'legal' force like withholding states funds. That was the concern of the bail-out audits. Audits are legal, but threatening to perform an audit, if the banks didn't accept TARP money, is extortion and illegal. Also the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional to start; it contradicts everything in the Constitution and if you look at its origins you can see the nefarious connections.

[ZiggyZen]

Extortion is a legal term. Your argument sort of relies on our current legal system and civil code being disregarded. If I bought into your argument, the only reasonable remedy I would see, if the government is indeed as rogue as you claim, is a revolution.

How is auditing force?

If its an amendment and it contradicts other parts of the Constiution then the amendment supersedes. Thats not controversial. The Constitution permits amending, even if you believe it never intended such a change.

[guyjohn59]

Auditing is legal,but it is force; because it is done by the government and it costs billions of dollars for the company. When the government says "we're going to audit you, if you don't..." (and only government can) then businesses bend over because they don't have any other choice, because even though audits are legal, they are very forceful.

[ZiggyZen]

Billions of dollars for auditing?  Thats hard to believe.

So you think any and all forms of over- site are force? Don't even uber-libertarians believe one of the few things a government should do is protect against fraud?

Why are so concerned with the rights of those that are very powerful already? Try to win an election on the platform that corporations need more rights. If you wanna talk about mistakes the Supreme Court has made, lets talk about the right of corporate person-hood.

[guyjohn59]

Yea, fraud and force are wrong, and that's why there are courts. What the government calls 'oversight' is force and fraud at its highest levels, especially when you look into the historical examples, so therefore you can't try to reduce force by employing it. If force doesn't work, and it doesn't, then why give an institution monopoly power over it so that all of the corporate elite can flock to that institution and benefit themselves under its shield of 'public interest' and 'general welfare'.

[ZiggyZen]

So you think we would be better without any oversight, regulatory or watchdog agencies?

[guyjohn59]

...as long as they are not Monopolies on oversight, because if that is the case, which it Is now, the question becomes (which it's always been): who will watch the watchers? And the answer then has to be the people--the individuals and groups that don't automatically befriend the government, but study its errors (as JFK said), and look into its corrupt agencies and corporate alliances. Because of government power, it's often a lost fight, but at least it's a noble one (as Gorge Washington said).

[ZiggyZen]

Monopoly on oversight? So you think corporations should make they're own watchdogs?

We have a whole bunch of government watchdog organizations.

[guyjohn59]

But unfortunately, the watchdog groups aren't able to watch anything except the expansion of government power, not for any fault of their own, but simply because the government is so incredibly centralized that individual concerns simply do not affect it one way or the other. For these same reasons, corporations also require public scrutiny, but not because the government 'oversight' is inadequate, but because of the government 'oversight' in the first place which disables market regulations.

[guyjohn59]

Just look at the industries that are corrupt--oil, finance, insurance, health--in other words, all of the industries that involve government 'regulation'. But is the government involved because these industries are inherently corrupt, or are the industries corrupt because the government is involved. Of course it is the latter, because these industries aren't susceptible to corruption until they are manipulated by the government into agents of power.

[guyjohn59]

Think about it. There wasn't health care corruption in the 1800s. Not until the government slowly had its way with it through thousands and thousands of regulations, did it start to become an issue.

[ZiggyZen]

That is just horrible logic. By that same logic I could claim they are corrupt by virtue of them being profit seeking entities. Profit-making entities will always be ripe for corruption. The government just adds a different dimension to it.

[guyjohn59]

Well 'corruption' in that sense then means two different things. Obviously anyone can break the law, but this offense is punishable in the court of law and whatnot so it's not defined as corruption. Real corruption deals with the institutions that are above the law, ie government, which because of their institutionalized power can severely violate the rights of everyone else. And of course these actions either go unnoticed or unmentioned because the criminals are at the top.

[ZiggyZen]

It sounds to me like you are making a good argument for the incapability of capitalism and democracy. Albert Einstein had a great essay called Why Socialism that deals with this very issue.

[guyjohn59]

The first part of the essay is okay, but by the time I finished, it was obvious that he had clearly been influenced by Marx, and most likely had never read the real economists of his time, such as Menger and Mises. Most of his points are generalizations and therefore misleading and inaccurate, despite probably being well intentioned. One thing he kept mentioning is the labor theory of value, which is the basis of Marxism. Check out the article : "THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE" by Donald Ernsberger.

[ZiggyZen]

Do seriously believe that Albert Einstein did not read contemporary economics?

You speak as if Marxist economic theory has been thoroughly discredited, which has never been the case. Its a debate that continues to this day.

The point I was most interested in was how capitalism is bad for democracy.

[guyjohn59]

Well the debate is between the politicians and the people. The government wants Marxism or any other kind of big-government scheme, and the people don't want anything but to be left alone. Did you read the article? And it's not that capitalism is bad for democracy; it's that democracy is bad for capitalism. 'Capitalism' is based on the idea that you keep what you make, so when 51% of the politicians take 90% of the peoples wealth, you can't really call it capitalism.

[ZiggyZen]

The polls say that people do want a public health care system. They don't like how Obama is handling it, but they have long favored it.

I agree 100%. Capitalism can't exist in a truly democratic system. I believe in democracy, first and foremost. All non-democratic institutions should be dismantled unless there is an extraordinary case for its existence.

[guyjohn59]

Then you don't believe in America? I guess you haven't heard the common sound bite (true nonetheless) that America isn't a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I think it was Franklin who said that Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner. I mean obviously majority rule is practical in some cases, but theoretically, if 99% want to steal from 1%, that doesn't make it okay. Also Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. were elected. A good book is Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed".

[ZiggyZen]

I think America is a step on the way to true democracy. I know that America isn't suppose to be a democracy. The constitution was designed to be the people very little power. They didn't have direct elections for anything except the House

Mao and Stalin were elected by the party elite. They weren't democratic elections.

The problem is you are concerned with the rights of those who are the most powerful. Taxing the ultra rich isn't a travesty of justice. They voted for Obama after all.

[guyjohn59]

Okay, but the majority of the people thought they were legitimate elections and went along with them (before they were mass exterminated), so it might be possible that maybe the U.S. might not be all that radically different. Also, democracy isn't a form of government, so it doesn't say anything about how authoritarian the government will be. If you're talking about direct democracy, Greece had that, but it was still totalitarian.

[ZiggyZen]

Thats is a ridiculious slippery slope argument. You're comparing Obama's attempt to get universal health care through a very bourgeois method to Hitler and the Holocaust?

The most obvious refutation of that is every other Industrialized nation has universal health care and do not have totalitarianism, much less mass exterminations.

Even the conservatives in Canada and Britain won't call for abolishing their socialized health care systems. This logically speaks to their success as institutions

[guyjohn59]

No, I'm saying the people in Germany thought they elected Hitler, similar to how people today think they elected Obama. And also totalitarianism doesn't mean concentration camps and thugs, as explained in Brave New World. Because by way of control, it is clear that Europe, as with the rest of the world, is 100x more totalitarian. Just because billions of people died, it doesn't mean that the Hitlers aren't around anymore, it's just now they wear suits.

[ZiggyZen]

Thought? They did. But he didn't get a majority, he just got a large enough share to become Chancellor. You also have to take into account a false flag Reichstag fire that he blamed on the Communists.

Totalitarian societies are not in Western Europe. Thats just silly. It demeans the term totalitarian.

[guyjohn59]

'Totalitarian' doesn't mean bad government, it means big government; but the 'bad' association necessarily follows, not because some governments are good and some are bad (as governments want you to believe so to mold public opinion), but because all governments, just like everyone else, are acting in their self interest--not yours! No surprise then that governments have never gotten smaller. It wouldn't make since for them to. Constitutions try to chain them down, but it requires the people.

[ZiggyZen]

Its mean total control. The governments in Europe don't have total control. There is still private enterprise, free speech, free elections, a multi-party system, civil rights ect.. So you are very wrong about that.

You put your faith in corporations. They have FAR more incentive to act in their own self-interest because they are designed as profit making entities. At least government has some (however small) accountability. However, corporations are completely authoritarian institutions.

[guyjohn59]

Well yea, there's private enterprise (that's regulated and controlled by government), free speech (as long as you don't know anything), free elections (if you think so), a multi-party system (owned by the same people), civil rights (ie affirmative action, so women and minorities can work two jobs, get taxed, and go into debt as well), etc.

[ZiggyZen]

Evidence? LOL. I'm little tired of these wild unsupported claims.  You are equating Great Britain to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

Like, name me 3 fraudulent national elections in Europe. You should have no problem with this if you are correct.

You must think America and every other first world nation is also totalitarian, because they all have taxes and regulated industry. You want unregulated markets, just look at the third world and you'll find them.

[guyjohn59]

I couldn't name 3 that I felt weren't a scam. But regardless, it's not like people get to 'select' the candidates they 'elect' anyways, so what does it even matter if tweedledee wins instead of tweedledum, they're both owned by the same people. As Chodorov put it, "The way to get rid of communists in government is to abolish the jobs." So instead of 'electing' a new smiley face to push the same agenda, why not eliminate those positions altogether, thereby destroying that outlet for control.

[ZiggyZen]

Wow, all of Europe is totalitarian state and you can't even name 3 fraudulent elections? That kinda diminishes your argument. There must be hundreds you could have picked from.

So your saying the US is totalitarian too? That really cheapens the term totalitarian if every nation is totalitarian.

[guyjohn59]

Governments are governments no matter what you call them. They may have done things differently 50 years ago, but their intent obviously hasn't changed. In most countries (when referring to political action) they say "they" (meaning government), but in this country, for some reason we say "we" as if we have a say in how we are controlled. For example: "WE [government] should bomb the middle east." And in every other country they say: "THEY [government] shouldn't bomb anyone!"

[ZiggyZen]

So you are against all forms of government or just the ones that make you pay taxes?

We should always fight for governments that are more representative of the people. But this isn't what you want. You don't want a society where ordinary people are in control, you want a society where corporations are in control. There is nothing more authoritarian then a corporation. This is why I have trouble buying your supposed anti-authoritarian stance.

[guyjohn59]

Well all governments tax. But if they didn't, then why couldn't we just consider them non-profit organizations--why would they still be distinguished as a "governments". And the answer is in what a government is, which is "a monopoly on retaliatory force"; meaning that if somebody else wanted to participate in providing protection services, he couldn't, because in order to maintain its monopoly, the government would have to initiate force on that person, which is immoral (just like taxation).

[guyjohn59]

Of course nobody would really mind paying a couple dollars to government, or depending on them for protection, as long as they were small and decentralized. But again, it is still wrong at a conceptual level, and it also isn't very practical if nobody understands it. Nevertheless, It is worth fighting for, because to give in to Authority leads to state-communism/socialism/capi­talism and the likes.

[guyjohn59]

Of course nobody would really mind being forced to pay a couple dollars to government for inefficient protection, as long as the government was small and decentralized. But again, it would still be wrong at a conceptual level, and it also wouldn't be very practical, unless people woke up to responsibility. Nevertheless, it is worth fighting for, because to further give in to Authority, would further lead to State-socialism/communism/capi­talism/etc.

[ZiggyZen]

That implies people have a problem with the system of a progressive income tax and a welfare state. In most of the industrialized world they don't. Proof? Well even the conservative parties there favor that system. If there is dissatisfaction it is a very small minority.

Who has this harmed? The only negative consequences you point out to the Euro-socialist system are so-called moral ones. I find the idea that taking 5% more from the wealthiest 2% is a great moral injustice ridiculous.

[guyjohn59]

Well everyone is dissatisfied. It's just they don't know who to blame. If you want to listen to conservatives (or liberals) you're not going to get 'government' as an answer simply because they're part of it. Obviously stealing in some cases is moral, but that's for private judicial systems to decide. To have institutionalized, unchallengeable theft through taxes, inflation, debt, control, wars, murder, red tape, corporatism, manipulation, etc., that's completely different and actually harmful.

[ZiggyZen]

When talking about power, you are always talking about the state. You are not anti-statist. You rely on the state to protect wealth. If there was no state, the workers would take over the means of production and run it themselves without private or government ownership.

Its not theft, its a social contract. They want their wealth protected, that come at a price. And since they voted for Obama I think they are fine with this system. Again, all you have is abstract moral arguments.

[guyjohn59]

How can a 'State' protect ("steal") property without a government. It would be like having an organization, but with no workers. Also, nobody consents to being controlled by the State, so the idea of a "social contract" is about as abstract and ridiculous as it gets, especially since the one supposed reason for government is security, when obviously that is the worst aspect of it all.

[ZiggyZen]

So you are against all forms of government. You are an anarcho-capitalist. You support the state but not government.

You support because that is what protects property. That means the state is really the coercive institutions, because they are the ones with the guns.

[guyjohn59]

Well the state is government, and anarcho-capitalists are anti-state and pro-markets, meaning anarchy but with private property. And yes I read them (Friedman, Hoppe, Rothbard, etc.) but to say I am one doesn't mean anything because it's not like they agree on a single ideology, which is fine though because there are only two types of people regardless: those who favor more government, and those who don't. So of course I still read minarchists and libertarians.

[ZiggyZen]

No, state and government are two different things. For instance Great Britain's head of state is the Queen. Head of Gov't is the Prime Minister. In Israel, the head of state is the President, and the head of Gov't is Prime Minister. If there was no state then what would protect private property?

Mo

[guyjohn59]

States/governments are, and have always been, the biggest violators of property rights by far. Just consider the destruction of war. Theoretically, it doesn't work either, because taken to its height, the logic of a single judicial system supports world government. For example, what happens when two people (from two different governments) are in conflict? World Government? But then who settles disputes between citizens and this World Government?

[guyjohn59]

If you read Molinari's essay "The Production of Security" (free online), you will see that market dynamics do not stop at defense. Why would they? Competing law might seem scary, but not when you consider the regulations of the market. Why would private protection agencies want to start conflicts?...conflicts cost money. Also, other industries would probably get involved like insurance and technology. No one can say for sure obviously, but David Friedman has a good essay about it.

[ZiggyZen]

States and governments aren't the same thing. Its basic political science.

Haven't you heard of a social contract?

[guyjohn59]

I know that they don't have the exact same definition, but in most instances they can be used interchangeably. Because what defines a State is that it has a government. Otherwise there would be nothing to differentiate States with, and therefore the word would lose its meaning. Also, I've obviously heard of the 'social contract' theory to justify government, and I've read Hobbes work on it (to some extent), but no intelligent person would really take it seriously..

[guyjohn59]

Obviously profits are a necessary condition for ensuring that resources aren't wasted; so when government triples in size, but doesn't make a profit but loses trillions in every one of it's agencies, imagine the damage it does to actual wealth producing markets; actually though, you don't have to imagine, because you can just look around at the 'economy' and see how centralized and controlled it is by that "collusion" (according to Wikipedia).

[ZiggyZen]

By your logic we should be beating France by miles in our economic data, but we are not. They have a large public sector.

[guyjohn59]

If I wanted to prove that Zimbabwe has a better economy than France, I could find an article saying that. Point is: it doesn't make any difference, because logic says that having a bigger parasite sucking at economic growth is worse than having minimal to no government where people keep what they earn, buy what they want, sell what they want, work where they want, etc; (obviously I'm not describing the U.S.)

[ZiggyZen]

Uh...You said a state-run economy damage the economy. If that is the case, why is France, with a larger public sector then us matching or beating us in most economic indicators? Its a direct contradiction to your contention. 

Is there any countries that operate in the moral manner you describe? To me you sound more idealistic then any Utopian leftists I've met.

[guyjohn59]

A year ago, most houses in the US were worth more than those in France, but does that mean that the government was right to enact such policies as easy credit and industry standards? In other words, Big government/corporatism doesn't necessarily equal bad short-term effects, but it does inevitably result in bad effects somewhere down the road (Inflation-->Boom-->Bust). But by that time it usually gets blamed on something else, like greedy businessmen (which results in even more control).

[ZiggyZen]

But it was corporations that set the deceptively low interest rates. The government didn't force them to do that, thats flat out false!

You wanna talk about someone in gov't thats responsible, lets talk about Alan Greenspan. He's no socialist. His conservative credentials should go without question. Appointed by Reagan, mentored by Ayn Rand. If anyone caused a housing bubble it was him and the Feds artificially low interest rates.

[guyjohn59]

Yea the government-sanctioned Fed, which prints money for the government. And it prints so much money, that interests rates fall (target interest rate), but fall lower than what? Lower than the market value of course. It's arbitrary in other words. But could the Fed do what they do if there were competing currencies instead of the government monopoly dollar? Of course not; it would be like someone printing monopoly money...

[guyjohn59]

"Non-profit organizations [like government] are sovereign unto themselves. They are, within the limits drawn by the amount of capital at their disposal, in a position to defy the wishes of the public."...because they don't have to satisfy the public because dissatisfaction actually equals more money in funding.

"In the eyes of the laymen, the stockholders, promoters, and speculators, are merely idle parasites who pocket the dividends."

From "Profit and Loss" by Mises; the book is free online.

[ZiggyZen]

That's great in theory but it has no bearing in fact. Medicare patients are very satisfied with their service.

Or take another countries health care, like England. If the system was bad, people would be dissatisfied. If people are dissatisfied then any intelligent political party would take on the issue. However, the Conservative party of England, the party of Thatcher, unequivocal support the NHS. It must be because overall people are satisfied. So that doesn't hold water.

[guyjohn59]

And again, even if the majority thinks that a 'public ''option''' is good for them, they still can't impose it on everyone else (not like they have any say anyways, considering it will pass if it was meant to pass...and it's meant to pass--you can just tell by looking at whose jumped aboard). Also we already have a government health care system; if we didn't, the market wouldn't be so screwed up (if you can even call it a market).

[ZiggyZen]

The public option is an option, it would not force people to accept it. Even in single-payer countries like England people still can buy private care.

[guyjohn59]

If you shoot somebody in the arm, you don't physically force them to go to the hospital, but they obviously don't have any choice but to go, unless they're willing to die. Of course they could try to treat it themselves or whatever, but the point is he's going to be handicapped. So the force isn't necessarily in what the effect of cause is because the cause is force by itself.

[guyjohn59]

That's why 95% of students go to public schools, not because they are 'forced' to, but because they were forced to accept the public "option".

[ZiggyZen]

That doesn't make any sense. No one is forcing anyone to accept a public option. Are you saying the private insurers couldn't compete with the government? That would assume the government is far more efficient and effective then you give it credit for.

[guyjohn59]

I know, that would be the effect part. No one forced the man to go to the hospital. The force was done when he was shot. The same thing with this bill, because when it is passed, it will literally shoot every tax payer in the arm, every uninsured citizen in the arm, every business in the arm, every government-manipulated insurance company in the arm, and so on. So therefore government will appear to be the savior, even though it caused the problem in the first place (like school option).

[ZiggyZen]

You don't lay any evidence for that what so ever.

[guyjohn59]

People don't voluntarily get shot in the arm. If somebody walks up to you with a gun, and says I'm going to shoot you (just in the arm though), you can say "No, that's not allowed, I'm calling the police!" But if that man is wearing a cop uniform, you don't have a choice. And that is why the "option" has to be passed through government, and not as a true free market option.

[ZiggyZen]

But people WANT a public option. Comparing to being shot in the arm is simply fallacious.

In a true free market people would have the right to choose a public healthcare option. To you a free market is one in which the gov't is barred from competing. That doesn't sound free to me

[guyjohn59]

Some people might want to be shot in the arm (and good for them if they do), but the majority of people don't, so that's why you can't 'speak for them' by enacting this kind of legislation, and that's why there's such a backlash. Because if you want to shoot yourself in the arm, nobody's stopping you, but if I don't want to shoot myself in the arm, unfortunately I don't get the same respect. Also, it's not that hard to trick people into wanting to get shot. What do you think war is about?

[guyjohn59]

Fee markets aren't enhanced because of government, but (by definition) are the complete opposite of government. To quote wikipedia, this "state-capitalism" (which you see as 'free markets' with government) is a "collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market." So it can't subvert the free market and be a free market all at once. There is not one similarity between what the government calls one of its agencies, and how real businesses operate.

[ZiggyZen]

I actually agree with the term state capitalism, which by the way is a term used more often then not by leftists to describe the Soviet Union, because it was not a true communist state.

A public option is the opposite of collusion as it competes against the private companies. The only way this could hurt private companies is if the government can do a better job for cheaper. That's why the insurance companies are fighting tooth and nail against it, they're afraid people will want it.

[guyjohn59]

It's like people nowadays can't imagine what society would be like without public schools, even though it wasn't that long ago when they weren't around (and not coincidentally everyone was smarter). "It saves the inner-city kids" they say. But of course the opposite it true. It hurts inner-city kids the most, and the more money they spend, the worst it gets.

[guyjohn59]

It's like Bastiat's quote that if the government started providing bread 100 years ago, it would be taught today that it was because we ourselves were unable to, and still are, and that's why we still need them to. Same thing will happen with health care, as it did with education, and countless other public "options".

[guyjohn59]

If the Constitution is contradictory as a whole, which it is, then it is worthless, or at least its original intent is destroyed. Because government basically amended it (which originally was for clarifying, not destroying) so that it had no restrictions. But now government doesn't even bother with the Constitution because obviously 99% of what they do defies it, so they just write executive orders or don't even bother. They're real deterrent is the people, though, never really a sheet of paper.

[guyjohn59]

In other words, if they think they can get away with going to war or further nationalizing health care then they're going to do it, regardless of the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits such actions for good reason; it's not like the founding fathers were trying to burden the American people by limiting the government, it was for our benefit, but even they probably gave it too much power, which was like 1/10000000 of what the government does now.

[ZiggyZen]

Constituion doesn't explicitly say we can't have national health care. What you are saying is that that it mentions specific things that the government can do, and health care isn't one of them. Thats not explicit.

But even at the beginning of our nations history we had this debate. This isn't anything new. The Constitution didn't say that government has a right to set up a national bank, but they did it anyways. What about the alien and sedition acts? Your argument lost a long time ago.

[guyjohn59]

Might doesn't equal right, so just because those things happened, doesn't mean they should have happened. Of course the general idea of freedom (it's not mine) lost a long time ago, it's been absent from almost all of human history; America is considered the rare exception for that reason. But you can't say that because America went totalitarian, it should have, because by that token Hitler and Stalin were more than justified in killing millions, simply because it happened.

[ZiggyZen]

I don't think you find in the Constitution justification for absolutist kinda freedom your seeking. You are pretty much denying any semblance of a social contract, which the concept the Constitution is based on.

[ZiggyZen]

Like I said, you are calling for a revolution. What other remedy is there?

[guyjohn59]

The easiest thing is to just say no, because once everybody does that they will see that they don't have any say, because the government will still be operating as usual and passing the same kinds of bills despite the universal opposition. So then government would start to lose its awe, be seen for what it is, and people would either just disregard it or start trying to dissemble it at the local and individual level.

[guyjohn59]

Because ultimately deductive reasoning and history indicates world government, so if you think you don't have the ability to say no now, wait until the argument comes for 'less wars', 'universal understanding', and 'global governance'.

[ZiggyZen]

Who says no? No to what? No to receiving social security or medicare? No receiving unemployment? I think you are more of an idealist then any utopian leftist I know.

[guyjohn59]

Not 'no' to receiving welfare (unless you can help it), but 'no' to the idea of welfare. You don't have to be defiant to agree with logic and history that welfarism doesn't work and has never worked in the history of the world. If 2+2=4, but someone tells you it's 5, then it might be idealistic to think that he's going to change his mind, but the answer is still 4. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to compromise in the right direction--you just have to know what the right direction is.

[ZiggyZen]

Never worked in the history of the world? France has more employment then us right now. A lot of the Europeans are doing better then us in this crisis because of the social safety net. If they lose their job, they don't lose their health care and they can still go out and by essentials, which keeps consumer spending up relative to what it would be.

[guyjohn59]

Everyone in the USSR had a job; and they weren't short of the desire for food either (or other 'consumer' goods). But the problem was that they didn't have an economy; there were no markets, no useful production, and therefore no goods. The system collapsed as predicted, but the ideology behind it certainly did not (also not surprising). That is why you cannot compare the US to France in that regard. It would be like saying one apple tastes better than another apple because they are both apples.

[ZiggyZen]

Are you sure everyone in the USSR had a job?

France does not compare to the USSR. France does have an economy. There is enough food to go around in France, its a rich country.

I wasn't comparing the US to France. You said a welfare state doesn't work. France shows it does. By your logic France's economy should be in shambles do to their massive welfare state.

Lenin overthrew the socialist government. Read about the October revolution. It was a coup. He established totalitarianism.

[guyjohn59]

France, as with every other country with a socialist/totalitarian regime (doesn't much matter) IS in shambles due to their welfare state, and it's only going to get worse. If you asked a homeowner a year ago whether his house was going to lose its value, most of them would have said 'absolutely not'; so even if conditions were good, it doesn't mean that they're going to stay good; and also, how can you pinpoint socialism as the source of this 'prosperity'?

[chaserehn]

Yes private roads. but i would have most of the choices made by the county government then the state and the fed would have only the powers the constitution gives them. So if Oregon wanted public roads good for them and if Idaho didn't good for them. You would have healthy competition and people would get to pic the state they want to live in. For example... California is bat shit crazy and its government has been proven to be unsustainable. That's why i don't live in California.

[ZiggyZen]

Bat shit crazy because of far-right republicans making it impossible to pass a budget thanks to a 2/3 rules. We are the only the state with 2/3 rules on both budget and taxes.

[chaserehn]

Far-right would be extremely limited government. I don't know if the reps in California call themselves republican or not but republican does not mean right winged. On the far left you have 100% government power and on the far right you have anarchy. I think we can both agree that Bush was not right winged. Many republicans disagree with democrats about what kind of big government they want. Most republicans are left wing but in a more fascist way then the socialism of the dem party.

[ZiggyZen]

We have far-right groups like the Club for Growth and the Chamber of Commerce that sponsor voter initiatives that make it really hard to pass a budget.

The far-left is not necessarily 100% government power. See Chomsky. There are whats called libertarian socialism where the workers control they're own means of production. Don't be confused by the seemingly contradictory label. Libertarian actually historically has more to do with anarchism then capitalism.

[chaserehn]

Any form of government control over property is wrong in the eyes of a libertarian. Its hard sometimes to discuss things like this because the definition of political terms has change so drastically over the years. I will look into this " libertarian socialism" but by name alone it sound bad (to me). The far left end of the political spectrum would be 100% government power im not saying you support this. Cali has excepted a poor role for its government that is the problem

[ZiggyZen]

Which why libertarian socialist favor workers control over means of productions, not government. Those that work at the factories would own them.

So your saying anarchist aren't in the far left?

[chaserehn]

No anarchist would be extreme right but it is the most unsustainable form of government and almost always leads to an oligarchy. You can only have a free market republic or a communist oligarchy. Every other form of government or economy is unsustainable. Some more then others. I would ask you to / watch ?v=RTQQJOEn9yI . thank you

[ZiggyZen]

I had no idea that left vs right had anything to do with sustainability. We don't have a free market republic, no country does. Furthermore, I had no idea that communist oligarchy's were sustainable. Name one.

No serious scholar puts anarchism on the right. Its an ideology concerned with class conflict, so it has to be considered under Leftism.

[chaserehn]

No! Anarchism would be extreme right because no government means no government power. Communist oligarchy's are the most common form of government today.

[ZiggyZen]

Anarchism is not extreme right. Anarchism is typically associated with class struggle and anti-capitalism, not right wing values.

What are examples of countries that are communist oligarchies? Cause that's a ridiculous assertion.

[chaserehn]

OK man. Your definition of Right and Left is poor at best. Class struggle has little to do with government power and is only a tool used by marx to organize his "useful idiots".

[ZiggyZen]

Oh so you only believe in one dimensional political scale instead of a 2 or 3 dimensional one? Thats pretty poor. The idea that left means total government control is convenient for your argument but has no bearing in reality.

Anyone who believes anarchism is part of the right has never met an anarchist. Anarchist are on the left.

I'm getting the sense that you think anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. You really should research anarchism. Anarchism is anti-capitalist.