RE: Bill of NON-Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 10:23:14 AM)

Sorry to interrupt the ongoing debate regarding the Green Party, to bring you an update on the other argument - National Health Coverage.

One of the lightning rods for the argument for US national coverage is Canada's National Health program. The argument rarely acknowledges the fact that Canada's population is 25 Million, roughly the population of California; but instead focuses on the concept that everyone is entitled to equal medical coverage regardless of ones ability to pay. If that argument was applied consistently everyone would be living in the same type of housing, wok for the same income, drive the same car, etc. To point out that conceptually that is communism which has been proven in the real world not to work again is a matter for other debates. But I digress.

Today at the "Sign on San Diego" news site was a more pragmatic argument against national health care, at least as it's reported in the article:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20050609-1528-medicareruling.html

The man noted in the article, George Zeliotis, wanted to pay for his hip replacement surgery versus waiting in pain for the anticipated year long wait in Canada's system. Consider this quote from the article; "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health-care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

"Patients DIE"! Imagine you or your significant other feel a lump in your breast, you go to your doctor and he says come back in a year and we'll get you in for a mammogram. Yet this is the system of envy?

Another interesting comment; "Canadians support the system despite the high taxes needed to finance health care, seeing it as a marker of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health insurance." Interesting on tow levels. One, why do Canadians support the system, because it make them "not-American". Wow - talk about a confidence problem huh?! The second is the 45 Million number. Taken on it's surface as absolute this is 18% of the population, much lower than I would have guessed. Of course 0% would be better but do the majority of the US want to double their taxes to for the 18%? And of the 18% how many have access but just don't want to pay for it? For instance, as bad as Wal-Mart is held to be, they offer coverage to their employees and their families at a cost. I happen to be an employer who pays 100% of the individual's health coverage for my employees, but I do not pay for family coverage, yet it is available if they want to pay the difference.

I found the article very enlightening. It even provides fodder for the other side of the argument. The #1 health system in the world is the French system. I guess there is something to be said for a governmental attitude of surrender and capitulation.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 10:37:51 AM)

quote:

Actually, the Supreme Court merely affirmed the right of the federal government to prosecute marijuana users. It was the Congress that criminalized marijuana usage, and you do get to vote for them.


True - After closer analysis the ruling focused more on State's Rights than the medicinal usage of marijuana. It explained why the more conservative Jurists were on the minority side of the ruling. I think the case was presented with the wrong focus, and allowed the court to pick a tangent aspect and rule as they did.

For those interested in history and polities, consider this question. Which national publisher was the catalyst to ban hemp growing in the US and why? Extra points if you can identify his political affiliation and/or social agenda.



onceburned -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 11:20:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
The argument <snip> focuses on the concept that everyone is entitled to equal medical coverage regardless of ones ability to pay. If that argument was applied consistently everyone would be living in the same type of housing, wok for the same income, drive the same car, etc.


Certainly that is Paul Martin's position. But as your article pointed out, it is not the position of France or of the Canadian Supreme Court which struck down Quebec's single tier monopoly. Its also not the position of the UK and probably other countries around the world.

I am not sure that allowing doctors to opt out of a National Health Insurance program is a bad idea. Certainly the United States does that today with Medicaid (and probably Medicare).

quote:

"Patients DIE"! Imagine you or your significant other feel a lump in your breast, you go to your doctor and he says come back in a year and we'll get you in for a mammogram.


Now, now... the article did say "in some serious cases" people die while waiting. But it didn't say which ones. I really doubt that simple diagnostic tests such as a mammogram are delayed.

In reference to the 45 million uninsured Americans...

quote:

Taken on it's surface as absolute this is 18% of the population, much lower than I would have guessed. Of course 0% would be better but do the majority of the US want to double their taxes to for the 18%?


Quite obviously no. Jimmy Carter suggested NHI in his 1976 campaign and it's popularity has only declined since. Not that JC did anything wrong... its just that Americans have been in an anti-tax mood for the past 25 or 30 years.

Another marker of this anti-tax sentiment is regarding drug coverage for Medicare (the senior citizen government health program). In 2000 everyone seemed in favor of doing something to help seniors pay for their medications... but when it came down to brass tacks, no one wanted to raise taxes to do it.

quote:

The #1 health system in the world is the French system. I guess there is something to be said for a governmental attitude of surrender and capitulation.


Oh, now you are just being evil again! [:D]



Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 11:48:55 AM)

quote:

"in some serious cases" people die while waiting. But it didn't say which ones. I really doubt that simple diagnostic tests such as a mammogram are delayed.


Once,
But the point is, that some people do die waiting for tests. Whether it's a breast lump, a prostrate problem, or an old looking mole on the skin; in EVERY case time is essential. The point from the article is that having a national health care system without options will mean this will be common. If it takes a year in a 25 million population how long will it take in a population of 250 Million.

And I didn't bring this aspect into the mix, but I found out something else interesting about this Utopian medical society of Canada. ALL, 100%, of the medical school cost is paid by the Canadian government. WOW - everyone should want to become a doctor in Canada if they have the smarts. Just think - NO student loans!! The catch is, a doctor's salary is CAPPED by the government. Result - Currently 35% of Canadian doctors have employment applications pending with US hospitals. Another socialism "success story"!



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 1:27:31 PM)

Oh, and NO ONE ever suffers from neglect under the system we have in place now. Are you forgetting how many millions of Americans don't have health insurance of any kind?

Besides, who ever said "a national health-care system WITHOUT OPTIONS"? That would be asinine. Merc, you're above this kind of reductionism: take someone's idea, turn it into something stupid, and then attack at will. I expect that from Karl Rove.

I'm talking about a national health-care system WITH OPTIONS. I don't expect Donald Trump to wait in line at the same clinic as a laid-off GM employee.

Anyway, what I really don't understand about the health-insurance debate is what the right wing has in mind for the future. The status quo is not sustainable. Aside from the fact that it's grossly unfair, it's ruining companies like GM. And premiums are only going to get higher. So SOMETHING is going to have to be done. Any ideas?

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

But the point is, that some people do die waiting for tests. Whether it's a breast lump, a prostrate problem, or an old looking mole on the skin; in EVERY case time is essential. The point from the article is that having a national health care system without options will mean this will be common. If it takes a year in a 25 million population how long will it take in a population of 250 Million.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 3:32:10 PM)

quote:

Oh, and NO ONE ever suffers from neglect under the system we have in place now. Are you forgetting how many millions of Americans don't have health insurance of any kind?


L&M,
Not saying that at all or even inferring that. The article pointed out that a national health care program in general, and Canada's specifically is NOT the panacea that many think it is. Although the thought of Donald Trump waiting in line for his annual physical may be a source of amusement or at least a subject for yet another "reality" show; I don't see it in the foreseeable future either.

But the "WITH OPTIONS" option needs a little fleshing out. What is the difference of the current "option" of no insurance?

Consider this. Historically auto insurance was an "option" you weren't required to have it as part of owning a car. If you had a car of value you got insurance, if you worried about someone else injuring you or your car, you bought that coverage. Within coverages there were other coverage options, called deductibles. Then mandatory car insurance became the standard, and "no-fault" became the collision standard for repairs. In theory with more people buying insurance, cost would go down. REALITY: Insurance cost has gone up exponentially, and the poorest portion of society pays more for insurance, in some states, then they do for the car they are driving. There was only one beneficiary of mandatory car insurance - attorneys, but that's another thread!

Why would mandatory health coverage, requiring a minimum but having options, work differently? If the government through our tax dollars or businesses who will pass on the cost to us consumers, took on the "basic" coverage and options were at our expense it will create the same condition for bureaucratic mismanagement, ultimately delivering an inferior overall product costing much more than now.

My parents, father worked 30+ years at GM, should be the poster couple for the cost of health coverage. I would guess that between them at least $1 Million of medical cost since they retired. I'm sure if they had to wait for treatment or tests under the Canadian system, they would be long gone, so I am grateful for the UAW's fight for their benefits. Yet, as a consumer, I never consider a GM product because I know, based upon documentation my father's union provides, that 47.9% of the cost of a GM product goes to cover the cost of the employee, and retiree benefits; the largest by far is the health plan. So, what has greater transportation "value" a $20,000 Toyota or a $20,000 Chevy? Last week GM announced 17,000 people will be fired (laid-off is too mild a word) because GM can not support the massive obligation of it's pension and health program. Don't be surprised if bankruptcy, using the United Airlines model which greatly reduced the company's pension benefits, isn't next down the road. If a US national health program was in place the health care portion of this obligation goes away. The right wing futurist should be at the forefront of the national health care campaign, assuming that "corporate greed" is a right wing attribute.

L&M, I really don't think the "right wing" or any "wing" at all has anything in mind for the future. Why - Because there really is NO solution that won't either bankrupt companies, bankrupt individuals, or make the tax rate intolerable and counter productive to general society. Like it or not, the US IS a capitalist society. Unless you want to change this fundamental facet of the US, there is no cost effective solution. As you point out, people die in both scenarios.

A while back, I came up with the idea of a pseudo national health coverage program staffed by governmental practitioners educated and paid through the government. An equivalent of the "Assigned Risk" mandatory coverage from the auto insurance industry previously referenced. But after reading the problems in the Canadian system, not only with the coverage, but with the doctors, I don't think it is a realistic solution. When in reality a government program with 100% participation, and unlimited resources has these problems with a population base of 25 million I don't know how a country with 250 Million can consider changing to it.



WarVet -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 4:26:10 PM)

Okay.......I have to admit... the "NON_BILL OF RIGHTS" this is pretty funny....some of it SHOULD REALLY be implimented but hey that's only my opinion...



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 8:26:00 PM)

It's funny that we agree completely on some issues and disagree completely on others.

Of course there's no "solution" to the problem: people are going to die no matter what kind of health-insurance system you choose. So we can't be looking for "solutions." We have to try to devise a system that works better than the one we have--because if there's one thing we agree on, it's that the current system is catastrophic. (We also seem to agree that the current system doesn't cover all Americans, but we don't seem to agree on the consequences of that defect.)

Now what exactly is wrong with providing some basic health coverage to all Americans, and financing the scheme in the same way that every other federal agency is financed? Pointing to delays in Canada really doesn't answer that question, because I don't envision a system in which the only available health care will be the health care provided by the government. (Pantera on the other thread doesn't seem to appreciate this point either.) Fabulously wealthy people will still be able to pay for anything they want, and private health-insurance companies would still be attractive to people who don't want to go to the government clinic.

What you'd have, then, is a system pretty much like what we have, with two major differences. First, all American citizens would be able to go to a doctor when they need to--instead of crashing Emergency Rooms if they're sick and don't have health insurance. (Who pays for that now, by the way? WE do.) Second, large employers like GM would be relieved of a massive financial burden--and would compete more successfully with manufacturers from other countries that already have a national health-insurance system in place. Your $20,000 Chevy would start to pull a lot closer to that $20,000 Toyota.

Anyway, as with the environment, globalization, the supply of energy, and every other serious problem our country faces in the 21st century, this one is merely a matter of time. Eventually the current sytem will HAVE to be replaced, and whoever survives the coming mess will look back on our times and wonder why the hell we didn't make any changes sooner.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Why would mandatory health coverage, requiring a minimum but having options, work differently? If the government through our tax dollars or businesses who will pass on the cost to us consumers, took on the "basic" coverage and options were at our expense it will create the same condition for bureaucratic mismanagement, ultimately delivering an inferior overall product costing much more than now.

My parents, father worked 30+ years at GM, should be the poster couple for the cost of health coverage. I would guess that between them at least $1 Million of medical cost since they retired. I'm sure if they had to wait for treatment or tests under the Canadian system, they would be long gone, so I am grateful for the UAW's fight for their benefits. Yet, as a consumer, I never consider a GM product because I know, based upon documentation my father's union provides, that 47.9% of the cost of a GM product goes to cover the cost of the employee, and retiree benefits; the largest by far is the health plan. So, what has greater transportation "value" a $20,000 Toyota or a $20,000 Chevy? Last week GM announced 17,000 people will be fired (laid-off is too mild a word) because GM can not support the massive obligation of it's pension and health program. Don't be surprised if bankruptcy, using the United Airlines model which greatly reduced the company's pension benefits, isn't next down the road. If a US national health program was in place the health care portion of this obligation goes away. The right wing futurist should be at the forefront of the national health care campaign, assuming that "corporate greed" is a right wing attribute.

L&M, I really don't think the "right wing" or any "wing" at all has anything in mind for the future. Why - Because there really is NO solution that won't either bankrupt companies, bankrupt individuals, or make the tax rate intolerable and counter productive to general society. Like it or not, the US IS a capitalist society. Unless you want to change this fundamental facet of the US, there is no cost effective solution. As you point out, people die in both scenarios.



Youtalkingtome -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 9:33:09 PM)

Mercnbeth,
As I have said before in another thread I live about 140 miles from the Canadian boarder. I have witnessed many times first hand and some second hand the effects of the Canadian health care system.The Canadian system works very good for Americans. Because of the long wait that they have over there they offten come over here and pay out of their own pocket in order to get any service.And many Canadian doctors come over here for better pay.
The other side of the coin is that the state of Maine liberal Democrats have used the Canadian system to get lower price drugs for senior citizens by taking them by the bus loads over the boarder to buy drugs.And it is illegal to bring them back accross the boarder.Dems. breaking the law in order to further their agenda.So now we have our own health care system called Maine care.It is supposed to be like the Canadian system.How much like the Canadian system I am not sure.I haven't paid a lot of attention to it because the Liberals get away with what ever they want up here because it has turned into a welfare state.But I can tell you this.Most Doctors won't accept anyone that has Maine health care because it takes for ever to get paid just as it would if it was the Federal gov..
I am sure that some Canadians like it because they don't have to pay each time.
But over all it isn't great.
And their are two big problems with our system.Greed and fraud.We would still have those same problems if it was controled by the feds..



quietkitten -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/10/2005 10:48:33 PM)

As a canadian and a health care professional, I can tell you that our system has many flaws.
There are long waiting lists for surgery and some diagnostic tests (MRI).. some people die waiting for medical care.
But, I can also tell you that it could be a lot worse, and frankly short of having a Utopian society, I really doubt that there is such thing as a perfect health care system anywhere.
The people I work with generally try to do our best for our patients and their families, and it is rare for someone to lose their home because of medical bills. I do wish that there were more options for people who are willing to pay out of pocket, or get private insurance to speed up their wait times... but it looks like it may be a long time off.



kisshou -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 10:33:36 AM)

From Lordandmaster's post, who decides what is considered "basic" health coverage?

After reading both threads closely and spending some time looking up stuff and reading I have concluded that HR 676 looks really interesting , I am going to mull it over some more before deciding to support it.

I looked up the Green party since I had never heard of it before, my beliefs don't match up with theirs so I am sticking as Independant.


Out of all the problems mentioned throughout the threads the one I feel needs the most attention and could benefit from innovative ideas is the public education system in the U.S.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 10:48:52 AM)

I agree that's a serious question, but it's better than what we have now, namely NO coverage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

From Lordandmaster's post, who decides what is considered "basic" health coverage?




onceburned -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 11:42:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
This was sent me over the weekend. I thought it would be an interesting to share. It's attributed to Michell Kaye, State Representative from Georgia. If anyone from Georgia could confirm or disclaim the association I'd appreciated knowing it's accuracy. Who knows I may want to vote for this guy for president some day.


I finally got around to checking Snopes.com about this Bill of Non-Rights. Apparently, Mitchell Kaye did not author it but did forward it to friends. It was orginally written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian.

Ann Landers published a version of it in 2000, attributing it to Kaye. Her version differed from the original which you can view here: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

Interestingly, the current version circulating on the internet leaves out the part about not fighting foreign wars.



Raphael -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 1:03:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

It's funny that we agree completely on some issues and disagree completely on others.

Of course there's no "solution" to the problem: people are going to die no matter what kind of health-insurance system you choose. So we can't be looking for "solutions." We have to try to devise a system that works better than the one we have--because if there's one thing we agree on, it's that the current system is catastrophic.


Agreed that the current system is catastrophic. Agree that the idea of a 'solution' is wrong. Disagree with the fuzzy-thinking here that 'we' (whatever that means) have to therefore construct a new system - that suffers from the same problems that the idea there is a 'solution' does.

Top down constructs like this don't work. What's wrong with the current 'system' in the US is that there is a system.

quote:

Now what exactly is wrong with providing some basic health coverage to all Americans, and financing the scheme in the same way that every other federal agency is financed?


The same things that're wrong with every other federal agency, naturally.

quote:

Pointing to delays in Canada really doesn't answer that question, because I don't envision a system in which the only available health care will be the health care provided by the government.


But whether or not that's the intention, the actual results will be very close to that. For the same reason that 'bad money drives out good.'

quote:

(Pantera on the other thread doesn't seem to appreciate this point either.) Fabulously wealthy people will still be able to pay for anything they want, and private health-insurance companies would still be attractive to people who don't want to go to the government clinic.


The fabulously wealthy will get whatever they want, but the rest of us will have to suffer through the socialised system. Which means we'll be even worse off than we are now.

Private insurance companies won't exist - in fact in actuality they've already been driven from the market. What pose as private insurance companies now are no more private than our 'private schools' are.

The real fallacy of the position of most so-called conservatives on this issue is that they assume we have a private health care system in this country. We don't, we haven't since the 30s. What we have is just as socialist a system as any other country - only ours has been socialised piecemeal, instead of in one or two big moves, and the implementation details lean more toward corporate welfare.

As long as so-called conservatives keep pretending what we have now is a free market system, the free-market is going to continue to appear to fail, and further socialisation is inevitable.

On the other hand, a return to an actual free-market in health care would expose the costs of socialism starkly, and serve as an excellent example to the rest of the world.

Of course our corporate welfare whores aren't going to let that happen, and the politicians and policy-wonks, left or right, are too far in their pockets to ever propose it.

Real shame people have to die to keep the profit margins up, but what's new?



Raphael -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 1:07:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
I finally got around to checking Snopes.com about this Bill of Non-Rights. Apparently, Mitchell Kaye did not author it but did forward it to friends. It was orginally written in 1993 by Lewis Napper, a self-described amateur philosopher from Mississippi who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in 2000 as a Libertarian.

Ann Landers published a version of it in 2000, attributing it to Kaye. Her version differed from the original which you can view here: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/norights.htm

Interestingly, the current version circulating on the internet leaves out the part about not fighting foreign wars.


Thanks for this information.

I have to say I like the original much better.





onceburned -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 1:35:58 PM)

quote:

I have to say I like the original much better.


Yes, the original doesn't have the highly offensive "go back to where you came from" line. And it doesn't claim that the U.S. was founded on belief in "One, True God".



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 2:12:40 PM)

Not all of this holds water, Raphael. If top-down constructs don't work, what's YOUR idea? You propose doing away with the system we have now and allowing a so-called free market to take its place. That's not a top-down construct? That's more "top-down" than anything I've said. How exactly do you propose to get rid of Blue Cross? You can't do that without some serious top-down intervention.

A couple of other things you've said don't make sense either. What exactly does this mean: "The same things that're wrong with every other federal agency, naturally"? OK, what's your alternative to federal agencies? Are we supposed to do away with the FBI? NSA? Department of State? I know "small government" sounds warm and fuzzy, but small-government proponents always get real quiet when they're asked who is supposed to take over the functions of government that make our society possible. No nation can survive today without a strong government. One of the reasons why we have been so vulnerable to terrorism is that our quasi-privatized airport-security system is atrocious. Most other self-respecting nations make airport security the direct responsibility of the government.

Also, you've misapplied the principle that bad money drives out good. Private schools haven't disappeared just because we have a public-school system. (And sorry, private schools ARE private--I don't know what you're talking about.) So why would a national health-insurance scheme necessarily drive out private health insurance? Your point makes about as much sense as arguing that Social Security drives out private investment firms. Obviously, that's not what happens in the real world.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raphael

Agreed that the current system is catastrophic. Agree that the idea of a 'solution' is wrong. Disagree with the fuzzy-thinking here that 'we' (whatever that means) have to therefore construct a new system - that suffers from the same problems that the idea there is a 'solution' does.

Top down constructs like this don't work. What's wrong with the current 'system' in the US is that there is a system.

quote:

Now what exactly is wrong with providing some basic health coverage to all Americans, and financing the scheme in the same way that every other federal agency is financed?


The same things that're wrong with every other federal agency, naturally.

quote:

Pointing to delays in Canada really doesn't answer that question, because I don't envision a system in which the only available health care will be the health care provided by the government.


But whether or not that's the intention, the actual results will be very close to that. For the same reason that 'bad money drives out good.'

quote:

(Pantera on the other thread doesn't seem to appreciate this point either.) Fabulously wealthy people will still be able to pay for anything they want, and private health-insurance companies would still be attractive to people who don't want to go to the government clinic.


The fabulously wealthy will get whatever they want, but the rest of us will have to suffer through the socialised system. Which means we'll be even worse off than we are now.

Private insurance companies won't exist - in fact in actuality they've already been driven from the market. What pose as private insurance companies now are no more private than our 'private schools' are.

The real fallacy of the position of most so-called conservatives on this issue is that they assume we have a private health care system in this country. We don't, we haven't since the 30s. What we have is just as socialist a system as any other country - only ours has been socialised piecemeal, instead of in one or two big moves, and the implementation details lean more toward corporate welfare.

As long as so-called conservatives keep pretending what we have now is a free market system, the free-market is going to continue to appear to fail, and further socialisation is inevitable.

On the other hand, a return to an actual free-market in health care would expose the costs of socialism starkly, and serve as an excellent example to the rest of the world.


Edited because Raphael's original quote was very long.



Raphael -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 2:52:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Not all of this holds water, Raphael. If top-down constructs don't work, what's YOUR idea? You propose doing away with the system we have now and allowing a so-called free market to take its place. That's not a top-down construct? That's more "top-down" than anything I've said. How exactly do you propose to get rid of Blue Cross? You can't do that without some serious top-down intervention.


Not at all. A free-market works from the bottom-up. The 'bottom' in this case would be the individual medical-care providers and consumers. They're more than capable of pursuing their own interests, if simply allowed to do so. This produces a 'chaotic' or organic system, not a cartesian one where someone sitting in an ivory tower decides what should be best for all based on some a priori dogma, but rather one where multiple systems come into being, expand, contract, evolve, and even when necessary die in response to the actual needs of the people, rather than the preconceptions of corporate an state beaureacrats.

Organic systems routinely and efficiently deal with complexity at a level that no hierarchical system can begin to cope with.

quote:

A couple of other things you've said don't make sense either. What exactly does this mean: "The same things that're wrong with every other federal agency, naturally"? OK, what's your alternative to federal agencies?


In the same way that, as you pointed out, looking for 'a solution' is wrong thinking, so is looking for 'an alternative.'

There are many alternatives. And in many cases, the best alternative is nothing.

quote:

Are we supposed to do away with the FBI? NSA? Department of State?


All three could certainly at least be downsized drastically, to fit once more inside the limits of constitutional government.

quote:

I know "small government" sounds warm and fuzzy,


I'll assume that's sarcasm.

quote:

but small-government proponents always get real quiet when they're asked who is supposed to take over the functions of government that make our society possible.


No real small-government advocate would have a problem answering that question. Of course many that like to pretend to that title are really quite the opposite.

The problem here is primarily in your misconception that government 'make(s) our society possible.' In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Our society makes government possible, not the other way around.

quote:

No nation can survive today without a strong government.


Perhaps, depending on how you define 'nation.' Of course neither a fascist nor a socialist 'nation' can exist without a strong government. A free nation, however, cannot survive with a strong government.

quote:

One of the reasons why we have been so vulnerable to terrorism is that our quasi-privatized airport-security system is atrocious. Most other self-respecting nations make airport security the direct responsibility of the government.


It is, indeed, the 'quasi-privatised' structure of airport security which is a problem here, and I'm glad you realise that. All too often what we had until recently is painted as 'private' when it was in fact nothing of the sort. A truly private system is, of course, no panacea - it doesn't guarantee nothing can go wrong. It does allow for multiple systems to be tried and for the best system to triumph, however, where a cartesian top-down system eliminates the possibility for experimentation and learning.

And, of course, it would be silly of me to let this mention go by without pointing out that the reason we have such a need for security in our airports in the first place is because of the past activities of that very big government you are so fond of. It's a very old game - those at the top create problems, then demand more power in order to 'fix' what they, themselves, have broken.

quote:

Also, you've misapplied the principle that bad money drives out good. Private schools haven't disappeared just because we have a public-school system. (And sorry, private schools ARE private--I don't know what you're talking about.)


You're absolutely wrong. What we call private schools in this country today are absolutely not private (with a single arguable exception.) They depend on state moneys and state licensing to operate, and they are subject to every sort of regulation as a result. Truly private schools were driven to practical extinction many years ago, unable to compete against both the explicitly public schools, and the nominally private schools that accepted state funds and mandates, for rather obvious reasons.

quote:

Edited because Raphael's original quote was very long.


Frankly I don't see the point in 'quoting' me at all when you simply include the text of my comment after your message like that. The entire text of my message is still available directly above your reply, there's no need to duplicate unless you wish to refer to a specific quote and reply to it, which you did not do.

-R



Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 8:30:43 PM)

You know, I'm a capitalist too. The problem is that it's just simplistic to believe that laissez-faire capitalism "routinely and efficiently deals with complexity." Businesses do one thing and one thing well: they earn a profit. It some contexts, competing businesses out to earn profits do a very good job of keeping prices and productivity in line.

In other contexts, competing businesses absolutely fuck everything up. How about the environment? Businesses have almost no incentive to avoid pollution. On the contrary, they have every incentive to use the environment in the most immediately cost-effective way to THEM, regardless of whether that's beneficial to society as a whole. The only way to motivate businesses to give two shits about the environment is to regulate them. They've had decades to show that they regulate themselves, and all they've proven is that they can't or won't. Instead, they'll spend billions on lobbyists to try to sway Congress--and under Bush II, that approach is working for them.

Besides, even if you believe that your laissez-faire vision is more efficient (and it's not--the destruction to infrastructure would be fatal), that doesn't mean it's fair. I believe all American citizens should have a right to certain basic services, and health care is one of them. Schooling is another.

And that reminds me: you're completely wrong about private schools. Really, do you know anything about how private schools are funded? Education happens to be something I know a thing or two about. You seem to think a school isn't fully private as long as it has to maintain certain government-mandated minimum standards. That's about as silly as saying a doctor isn't really free to practice medicine as long as he has to be licensed. (Yeah, and there's another good example of how the economy needs more than just laissez-faire capitalism: would YOU go to an unlicensed doctor?) Any private school that DIDN'T live up to those standards would fail anyway, because none of its graduates would ever be accepted into professional schools.

Lam



Raphael -> RE: Bill of NON-Rights (6/11/2005 9:39:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

You know, I'm a capitalist too.


Too? Excuse me?

quote:

The problem is that it's just simplistic to believe that laissez-faire capitalism "routinely and efficiently deals with complexity."


Quit putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about capitalism.

quote:

Businesses do one thing and one thing well: they earn a profit.


Exactly. And as long as they can make a profit by cultivating legislatures easier than by serving their customers, guess which one they'll choose?

quote:

How about the environment? Businesses have almost no incentive to avoid pollution.


How about the environment indeed! I have plenty of personal experience with this. The business upstream from me is important politically, I and my family are not. For decades they've pumped sewage into our water, and they're completely shielded by the regulatory agency that goes by the orwellian title of 'Environmental Protection Agency.' Their arrogance and greed just recently cause the stream bed to rise by nearly a yard (among other things,) threatening a large portion of my land with flooding that I'm working daily to try and prevent. They are shielded from all liability in this. On the other hand if I go down there and tried to reverse the damage that was done - I'll be hauled off in handcuffs. And if I can't stop the flooding - that field will suddenly become a 'wetlands' and I won't be able to do anything with it at all, ever again.

Without the EPA and the regulation you seem to naïvely think somehow protects the environment, I could at the very least mitigate some of that damage, and very likely also get a lawyer to take the case on a commission basis and sue these sons o' beeches for every penny they have. Knowing that, they would have had a great incentive to avoid doing the harm in the first place. The regulatory agencies shield *them* - not the environment.

That, my friend, is capitalism. And I am definately not a fan of it.

quote:

The only way to motivate businesses to give two shits about the environment is to regulate them.


No, the only way is to hold them liable for their actions. Regulation is simply a way to shield them from that liability.

quote:

Besides, even if you believe that your laissez-faire vision is more efficient (and it's not--the destruction to infrastructure would be fatal), that doesn't mean it's fair. I believe all American citizens should have a right to certain basic services, and health care is one of them. Schooling is another.


Think about what you're saying here. You've just jumped from the capitalist ditch into the socialist one.

To say someone has a right to something is to say they may morally demand it, and back up their demand with force.

You have a right to health care? Really? You have a right to force doctors to treat you, to force factory workers to produce the drugs you need, etc? I don't believe you do. I think what you're suggesting violates true human rights, necessarily and intrinsically.

I think you have a right to seek health care, to pursuade doctors to treat you, to offer those factory workers an incentive to produce what you need - by paying for them for their labour. I don't believe you have a right to hold a gun to their head and demand it - nor to deputise somone else to do it for you.

And, on a strictly practical level, when you nationalise health care, or schooling, what you wind up with is health care, or schooling, that serves the purposes of those at the top of the system - not the purposes of the customers the system is supposed to serve.

quote:

And that reminds me: you're completely wrong about private schools. Really, do you know anything about how private schools are funded?


Probably more than you will ever know.

quote:

Education happens to be something I know a thing or two about.


Doesn't sound that way to me.

quote:

You seem to think a school isn't fully private as long as it has to maintain certain government-mandated minimum standards.


What I'm saying is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. A true private school is paid by the students, and serves their interests. A school which relies on politicians for it's money, serves their interests. Simple as that.

quote:

That's about as silly as saying a doctor isn't really free to practice medicine as long as he has to be licensed. (Yeah, and there's another good example of how the economy needs more than just laissez-faire capitalism: would YOU go to an unlicensed doctor?)


The unspoken assumption here is that state licensing is the only possible form. That's clearly nonsense. You're positing a system with a single, monopoly licensing agency versus one with no licensing agency whatsoever. That's a straw man. A free society can produce a number of competing licensing agencies, which have to compete and therefore have incentives to improve. A state agency, on the other hand, allows no competition, and has no incentive to do anything - except, of course, to serve the politically powerful.

quote:

Any private school that DIDN'T live up to those standards would fail anyway, because none of its graduates would ever be accepted into professional schools.


I've got an idea, why don't you go do a little research and tell us just what mandates schools in this country are required to comply with? After you read through them all (budget two or three years for this, we're talking about a pretty big stack of paper here) you could come back and tell us just how much of it has anything to do with providing a useful education. And then you could explain just why you think a free school, competing for students with other free schools, would need to be ordered to comply with that tiny subset of the regulations in effect.

Just an idea,
-RaphaEl



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875