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

PoliticalShop.com attended the Health Care Town Hall Meeting in our area. We arrived too late to get inside, so we stayed outside on the "fringes" and shot some video.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• town hall
• health care town hall
• lee's summit town hall
• cleaver coffee
• cleaver town hall
• health care teabaggers
• town hall protest
• tea party

[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.

[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]

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]

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..

[ZiggyZen]

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

Haven't you heard of a social contract?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?