Why All Public Health Options Must Fail
I find myself making the same argument repeatedly. I can not understand why any citizen of the United States of America could want the federal government to provide health insurance.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
The founding fathers transcended time with this simple statement, attributed almost directly to John Locke about a hundred years prior. It's irrelevant who stated it first; facts don't change over time. Too often Liberty is taken for granted. Great sacrifices have been made to protect liberty, and yet we're asked constantly to sacrifice that hard earned liberty "for the greater good." I ask, what good can be greater than to live one's life free?
Of course, the point of contention is the ability to live one's life free.This brings us to the notion that the state (federal government, so that there's no confusion) wants to provide the citizenry with health insurance. More appalling, the citizenry want to fall into the trap! I do not know of any greater assault on liberty; this provides the grounds for moving from a republic to an oligarchy. The perceived benefits of any federal health insurance program are easily outweighed by the assault on liberty that would take place; maybe not for ten years, maybe not twenty. It will happen slowly, eroding away at liberty like a small stream flowing over a rockbed. The sand washed out to the ocean will never return.
Taxation is an arbitrary restriction on liberty, therefore taxation must be considered heavily in a few ways: Is it constitutional? Does it promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What service is being rendered to the public that we deem it necessary to restrict liberty for? Any service can be provided by the private sector or on a state level without the burden of restricting everyone's liberty that earns above a completely arbitrary income level, what's so special about this one?
To acquire property follows naturally from laboring; to deny property from labor is slavery. If we truly believe in the prospects that liberty can offer in the fulfillment of our lives, then we must accept the truths that ones life is limited, hence their labor is limited, hence every moment spent laboring is valuable. We measure this value, in general, as wealth. Taxing wealth for the sole benefit of another is theft. All public health options will steal from those that already have health insurance and give that wealth to those that do not. If this type of theft is legal, where does it end? Is it acceptable to demand food from a restaurant, or board in your home, simply because you're in want? Both are far more essential to life than health insurance.
If the government can provide services better than the private sector simply through lack of profiteering, why stop there? Why not have the state provide us our meals? None shall go hungry. Why not have the state provide us our entertainment? Because no soul shall bear the burden of boredom. Why not have the state provide us our jobs? Nobody will have to face the threat of failure. Why not have the state provide us our news? Certainly, the people must be informed.
The federal government providing any service is a disservice to human nature. I'll end with my favorite quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security will deserve neither, and lose both.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
The founding fathers transcended time with this simple statement, attributed almost directly to John Locke about a hundred years prior. It's irrelevant who stated it first; facts don't change over time. Too often Liberty is taken for granted. Great sacrifices have been made to protect liberty, and yet we're asked constantly to sacrifice that hard earned liberty "for the greater good." I ask, what good can be greater than to live one's life free?
Of course, the point of contention is the ability to live one's life free.This brings us to the notion that the state (federal government, so that there's no confusion) wants to provide the citizenry with health insurance. More appalling, the citizenry want to fall into the trap! I do not know of any greater assault on liberty; this provides the grounds for moving from a republic to an oligarchy. The perceived benefits of any federal health insurance program are easily outweighed by the assault on liberty that would take place; maybe not for ten years, maybe not twenty. It will happen slowly, eroding away at liberty like a small stream flowing over a rockbed. The sand washed out to the ocean will never return.
Taxation is an arbitrary restriction on liberty, therefore taxation must be considered heavily in a few ways: Is it constitutional? Does it promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What service is being rendered to the public that we deem it necessary to restrict liberty for? Any service can be provided by the private sector or on a state level without the burden of restricting everyone's liberty that earns above a completely arbitrary income level, what's so special about this one?
To acquire property follows naturally from laboring; to deny property from labor is slavery. If we truly believe in the prospects that liberty can offer in the fulfillment of our lives, then we must accept the truths that ones life is limited, hence their labor is limited, hence every moment spent laboring is valuable. We measure this value, in general, as wealth. Taxing wealth for the sole benefit of another is theft. All public health options will steal from those that already have health insurance and give that wealth to those that do not. If this type of theft is legal, where does it end? Is it acceptable to demand food from a restaurant, or board in your home, simply because you're in want? Both are far more essential to life than health insurance.
If the government can provide services better than the private sector simply through lack of profiteering, why stop there? Why not have the state provide us our meals? None shall go hungry. Why not have the state provide us our entertainment? Because no soul shall bear the burden of boredom. Why not have the state provide us our jobs? Nobody will have to face the threat of failure. Why not have the state provide us our news? Certainly, the people must be informed.
The federal government providing any service is a disservice to human nature. I'll end with my favorite quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security will deserve neither, and lose both.
Advertisement
"The federal government providing any service is a disservice to human nature. I'll end with my favorite quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security will deserve neither, and lose both."
Ok, I will bite. If that is the premise then the Federal Gov't should be abolished and we should return to a Confederacy of States rather than a United group. No?
If any service is deemed a disservice then that would also mean, Firefighters and Police. No?
If that is a disservice then surely a standing Army is one as well since the application of Taxable dollars is a disservice to Liberty. This would hold true for anyone that has, have or will be a member of the Armed Forces. The whole concept according to you is a disservice to Liberty so it should be ended......
If you could clarify further your thoughts on just what you were referring to it would help in the understanding.......
July 3, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
> Ok, I will bite. If that is the premise then the Federal Gov't should be abolished and we should return to a Confederacy of States rather than a United group. No?
We should have as little federal government as possible, and only give it the power to regulate that which promotes equal individual liberty for all of its constituents, not tax some and give to others.
> If any service is deemed a disservice then that would also mean, Firefighters and Police. No?
Federal government. Your firefighters and police are not part of the federal government.
> If that is a disservice then surely a standing Army is one as well since the application of Taxable dollars is a disservice to Liberty. This would hold true for anyone that has, have or will be a member of the Armed Forces. The whole concept according to you is a disservice to Liberty so it should be ended......
This is the most frequently posited opinions. People take the argument to mean that there should be no taxes; which there's nothing in the argument to allude to no taxes. I specifically state that:
Taxation is an arbitrary restriction on liberty, therefore taxation must be considered heavily in a few ways: Is it constitutional? Does it promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What service is being rendered to the public that we deem it necessary to restrict liberty for?
You can not read the first paragraph and the last paragraph and skip the middle.
July 3, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Usually, when one finds themselves making the same argument repeatedly, it's because they're wrong and too stupid to realize it. That's just my personal opinion, of course, and I could be wrong. But, since I have never been wrong about anything within the breadth and depth of all known universes, this is impossible.
July 3, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it's because they're wrong and too stupid to realize it"
- funny to hear that from someone who's been repeatedly saying the same things on healthcare (and a list of other things) over and over again.
July 3, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you have to say Lalo?
July 3, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, Lalo....I have never been wrong.
July 3, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't wrong if your goal is to enslave people based off of their income.
You are wrong if you think federally subsidised medicine will lead to anything but more restrictions on liberty.
July 4, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO YOU ARE NOT WRONG. Ok?
Just take the argument, put it on a wall, argue with it for fifteen minutes. There will be no negotiation of course.
Then go on with your business like it never happened.
ha!!!!!!!!
July 3, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you choose the ad hominem attack? Why not either ignore it or actually respond with an honest counter. Just calling someone stupid doesn't achieve much, other than make you look like you have no alternative (or more intelligent) response
July 4, 2009 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, but vague and academic and your premise is faulty.
Just flat-out wrong. Taxes pay for services. That's not theft. You seem not to know what the definition of "theft" is. Lucky you.
Next!
July 4, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to read the middle part of the sentence where it says "For the sole benefit of another."
Taxing for mutual benefit should be considered heavily, as I stated in the post.
Taxing for the sole benefit of one demographic over another is theft.
July 4, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Fab writing. What with the Fathers words "transcending time" and all that sand running into the sea and the great assaults on liberty I thought I'd walked into a Harlequin for a moment.
Talk about gilding the turd.
Kid. I think you spent too long in the Debating Society or something. How about you tell me all about how people subjected to the tyranny of single payer public health systems have been reduced to serfdom, their liberty handed over, spirits crushed, compared to your average, golden, glowing American?
Get a grip.
July 4, 2009 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about I tout the benefits of being able to choose what money you spend where, and how to manage your own risks vs your rewards?
How about I entrust the citizen himself regarding the decisions he wants to make about his own life, and are none of my business, but will become my business when my tax money starts paying for his health insurance?
How about I tell you about the citizens from your beloved single payer systems that come to America to get -any- kind of treatment, let alone treatment in a timely fashion?
How about I tell you about the citizens from around the world that would kill for the opportunity and liberty that we enjoy every single day? Yet we take so much for granted we're willing to sacrifice it just to "feel good" for providing those that have proven incompetent with health insurance?
There is no single payer. It's all of us paying, dearly.
July 4, 2009 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG. A self-inflating libertard.
All those citizens coming to America to get treatment? Who'd kill for the liberty and opportunity?
Ahahahahahaha! Awesome!
No really. DO go on.
July 4, 2009 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did, and you have no retort. Thanks for helping to prove my point though!
July 4, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You have no retort." Are you kidding me, dim bulb? See, I've spent the last 30 years across the US, Canada and the UK, and the nonsense you clowns spew about single payer and public health systems is really top-notch entertainment.
Ok. Lemme see. In your books, my freedoms basically seize up and go into cardiac arrest every time I cross the border coming back from NYC to Toronto, right? Hmmmm. Well, yeah. I really feel put upon, having 7% of GDP suddenly dropped back into my hands... health outcomes better... and not the slightest worry about ever getting sick and going untreated... or about bankruptcy from a health disaster.
Oh yeah, and chew this, ideo-tard. The debt is much lower here. And the deficit. And we've got solid banks, and lots of energy, and not many guns, and all in all... the place is just FALLIN' TO PIECES since we got that socialized medicine! Woo hoo!
By the way. I'm out in Winnipeg now, where we've had 12 years of socialist government. Funny. Housing starts and prices are doing just great, unemployment's low, nothing but balanced budgets for the past decade.
Now. Whaddya got, you pompous twit? You gonna haul up some anecdotes about Canadians crossing the border for treatment? Got some "study" by the Fraser Institute or some sad-ass rightwing freak tank? Wanna talk about waiting lists?
You're done. G'night toast.
July 4, 2009 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you live in Canada, what reason could you have for pushing a public health insurance system on the United States? It's really none of your business.
7% of the GDP of Canada is about $75,000,000,000. That is less than 7% what the United States would pay to insure only 16 million people that refuse to work to afford health insurance. We would spend more than Canada's ENTIRE GDP to insure 16 million people, according to the CBO (cbo.gov). Just to be clear, that means we could put every Canadian to work for us and still not have enough money to insure a fraction of the 47 million uninsured in our country.
> Oh yeah, and chew this, ideo-tard. The debt is much lower here. And the deficit. And we've got solid banks, and lots of energy, and not many guns, and all in all... the place is just FALLIN' TO PIECES since we got that socialized medicine! Woo hoo!
Your attempt to link socialized medicine with fiscal responsibility is hilarious. How about trying to discuss the matter at hand?
> By the way. I'm out in Winnipeg now, where we've had 12 years of socialist government. Funny. Housing starts and prices are doing just great, unemployment's low, nothing but balanced budgets for the past decade.
Good for you. This has nothing to do with our American government paying for health insurance for Americans in America. I won't entertain you on the reasons Socialism is a crime against humanity.
> Now. Whaddya got, you pompous twit?
I've still got my original arguments. You haven't addressed the facts that the federal government running health insurance enslaves the wealthy people to the poor people. Maybe that's why all of Canada's entrepreneurs move to the US, though.
July 4, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
CMN argues, perhaps a tad over-enthusiastically, against a slow and seductive encroachment of government dictat into the lives of the people.
Quinn, politely and patiently, points to Canada as proof that it's actually not so bad once you experience it: "The debt is much lower here. And the deficit. And we've got solid banks, and lots of energy, and not many guns.."
I could blame the Northern climate as the reason Canada doesn't reach its annual immigration quotas, and to accept the endless public criticism of the NHS in the UK as constructive dialog.
But that would mean joining Quinn in completely missing point and pretending that only "12 years of socialism" can ever take credit for low debt and deficit, solid banks, lots of energy and not many guns.
July 4, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Lalo. Apologies to you and MCBill for my even-crankier-than-usual tone - 'twas CMN's schtick on that other blog that made me such a prick right out of the gate.
Anyway. Yup, I'm against the slow and seductive encroachment of government dictat as well. I tend to pair it up with its evil twin, Corporate control - and am generally pissed off at how these two play each other off to eat up our personal lives, communities, commons, privacy, etc.
That said, if ever there was a case study in really purposeless bureaucratic bad performance, it's the existing private insurance industry. Cut 'em out, they're useless intermediaries. Lay down basic rules, one core public system to provide a minimum for all, and then let people buy more insurance on top of that if they wish. Yup it extends government. But it pushes back the really really dead hand of private insurance bureaucracies. Private docs, pharma, equipment and so on, sure, great, lots of room for innovation. Insurance? Forget it.
And yup, there are lots of ways through to achieving good fiscal governance, public safety, energy surpluses, etc. Absolutely agreed. I'm happy to give credit to good Conservative governments when they come around, and yes they do come around, just not as often recently. My point in making these connections was NOT to move off the poster's point, but to hit it head on. His argument is about the corrosive effects of public health insurance, the sand slipping into the sea, the way it will tilt, over time, toward further state control, and I was simply saying,"We have 40+ years here, and I'm not at all convinced that slippery slope has happened."
As for those immigration quotas and this Northern climate, immigration numbers are really really high, and the only problem filling them is the number of clerks to process them. We get around 250,000 annually, and God only knows why Filipinos and such seem to be racing to live here, for instance, in the world's coldest large city. (Ok. Ulan Bator is probably larger than Winnipeg now, and it's about as cold. But it's us and Ulan Bloody Bator, neck and neck.)
July 4, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew we were much more on the same page then it looked from your initial comment. And I agree 100% with your distate of corporate control.
What I don't agree with is the rush to replace corporate control with government control.
My reasons are simple:
- corporate control is easier to influence than government control
- health insurance regulations in the US are so bizzare, only a very ignorant or uninformed person would call that a market-driven industry
Market-driven insurance industry with a consistent federal regulation has never been tried in this country. Ever.
And instead of trying something that historically has every chance of success, can be regulated and controlled without costing a trillion bucks, we're going to simply replace it with a parallel system that will not address root causes and will be impossible to control.
July 4, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
> What I don't agree with is the rush to replace corporate control with government control.
Governments are far less easily bankrupted than corporations, making them far less swayed by consumer/constituent demand.
> - health insurance regulations in the US are so bizzare, only a very ignorant or uninformed person would call that a market-driven industry
I just quoted this for truth.
> And instead of trying something that historically has every chance of success, can be regulated and controlled without costing a trillion bucks, we're going to simply replace it with a parallel system that will not address root causes and will be impossible to control.
I know I'm ardently opposed to any system where the taxpayer provides insurance for those it deems fit to receive insurance, all while ignoring the detriments it will have on employer based insurance and privately purchased insurance. And make no mistake, the states ability to print money will ensure dependence for all people on the state for its health insurance.
July 4, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo. My anti-corporate and anti-state tendencies always sortof tracked more toward understanding the "anarchist" take on things, rather than the "libertarian," which seemed a more natural habitat for born and raised Americans. I definitely grew up Conservative enough that I'll never take happily to the State, but have made certain compromises with it - but especially when the alternative is corporate control.
I find myself most confused by American libertarians whose guns always seem to be drawn on the State, when - to me - the Corporate side seems such a great flaming danger there. Just to take this one step further, I don't assume that the natural state of human affairs is to move all activities through markets, nor do I buy the theoretical underpinning that markets necessarily lead to the greatest satisfaction or welfare. Above all, what really moved me into a more wary stance was the realization that the corporation really really really isn't the market (no matter how much our spokespeople like to merge them), and the fact that there are very powerful incentives for firms to CLOSE OFF competitive markets. We can blame the state for passing regs etc. that do so, but to not see corporate interests lobbying for those closures seems to me to be myopic.
What I WANT is for the market to be loosed, in particular, on sectors where economic activity has become hamstrung, stodgy, locked up - education being one that almost drives me insane. K-12 is a monopolistic horror show, and university an over-credentialed mess. But much of INSURANCE, funny enough, is just not an activity where I've been really impressed by the performance of markets. Remember, it was out of various insurance needs that waves of coop, mutual, community, church, political party and eventually state activity arose in the 19th century. Again and again, private interests did poorly in providing here, not just in health, but unemployment, burial, you name it. There may be types of insurance where it does great, but for household needs... I'm not doing cartwheels.
Health, or instance, seems to me to be really difficult to wrap markets around. Many conditions and needs are one-time only events and thus, one-time only purchases. Plus, everybody's product differs... and the customer is intimately involved in the creation of the product. This is not ideal or easy to privately insure.
And I also find it slightly too easy when people just state "the government will own/run/control all decisions." In practice, it doesn't work like that. First off, as soon as you have multiple, independently-operating regions and hospitals and doctors, people have an ability to compare. And they do. They get very very exercised, and begin to use feedback mechanisms within the system, political channels, their own private purchases, and especially the MEDIA. The media wars over waiting lists and what treatments should be paid for here are quite extraordinary. e.g. Kids with rare cancers where the drugs aren't covered become the subject to real public debate.
Is it perfect? NOT A CHANCE. Some waiting lists are still too long. Traditional medicine here still has all the problems of our traditional (i.e. drug/intervention/corporate-heavy) health care anywhere. There are the usual difficulties and downright failures to deal with remote populations (like our fly-in reserves), as well as inter-regional differences. For specialized advances, a smallish country with a public system cannot possibly have all of these available domestically. Our docs still run too much of a closed shop. We still have problems with public health messages and personal responsibility, for smoking, obesity, etc. All those things exist, and are real problems.
But. Forget our ideological wars for a moment, and I can tell you, right now, this stuff is actively debated, and subject to a fairly impressive rate of change & improvement. For instance, I can tell you how many Swine Flu patients are on respirators in this province right now, how many are Aboriginal, how many have died, and the state of the debate on how much this event is considered a State failure, a failure by local Chiefs, a potential genetic weakness, etc. Is this the case in every US state and city? I doubt it. And yet, when we all get bellowing here in blogworld, Canadian health care must either be held up as the paragon, or the next best thing to a veterinary service. Personally, I'd say it's the paragon of vet services. ;-)
Anyhoo. Cheers and hope y'all are having a grand July 4th, and are genuinely proud of what that great big nation of too-loud individuals to the South has accomplished over the years. Damned impressive history, and let's hope there's more to come.
July 4, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, well you're definitely not good with numbers, so we'll just skip quietly over that one. (Hint: Way wrong on Canada's GDP, comparison of annual vs 10 year figures, oh dear. Otherwise, good effort.)
You don't like ME linking socialized medicine to fiscal responsibility?? Problem is, YOU'RE the one who went off making all the grand linkages, claiming public health insurance was the equivalent of about 600 hard miles on the road to serfdom; you're the one who said it led, given 10-20 years, to massive erosions of freedom; and you're the one that gave us the "why stop there" slippery slope argument, listing off all the other types of fiscal grabitude which would follow.
So you see, when all your grand talk is checked against even the slightest reality, "pop" goes your balloon, and you're left scrambling with the (really) lame schtick, claiming I need to stick to "the matter at hand."
Otherwise... Enslaves the wealthy to the poor... Socialism as crime against humanity... All the entrepreneurs leave for the US.... Oh dear. Really not much other than paint balls in your intellectual cannon kid.
Have a nice 4th of July.
July 4, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
> k, well you're definitely not good with numbers, so we'll just skip quietly over that one. (Hint: Way wrong on Canada's GDP, comparison of annual vs 10 year figures, oh dear. Otherwise, good effort.)
Canada's GDP is 1.3 trillion dollars. I think you're way wrong on that, because 7% of 1.3 trillion is actually 91 billion dollars, the amount you claim you've "saved." Sorry, I didn't know Canada's GDP had grown past 1.1 trillion. Oh, and you're wrong again.
> You don't like ME linking socialized medicine to fiscal responsibility?? Problem is, YOU'RE the one who went off making all the grand linkages,
I claimed that taxing the wealthy for the care of the poor was pretty much enslaving the wealthy to the poor. To take someone's wealth and give them nothing in return is theft.
> iven 10-20 years, to massive erosions of freedom;
Look at the UK. Can't even say Fuck to an officer without being locked in jail.
> Otherwise... Enslaves the wealthy to the poor...
See, we take slavery pretty seriously here in America. We've fought it before. We know that if evil truly does exist, then slavery is evil.
July 4, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
CIA & IMF both say the GDP is >$1.5 Trillion. The point is not the absolute though, it's that 7% of our earnings are freed up.
But it's your UK argument that really IS a flaming statement of ignorance. Have you ever been there? Lived there? Or just read articles about it somewhere? Seriously. I've lived there in 4 different decades, been to every county and city of any size. And let's forget all the waffle, if you spend much time there, you'll see that not just the range permitted as free speech, but the active and intelligent use of that range of freedom by the people, is extraordinary in Britain.
Yes yes, they have all kinds of civil rights/freedoms problems, like CCTV, ability to sue, banning orders, etc. Agreed, right? But most North Americans there would agree that the Brits say things we would never dream of saying, they act in public in ways we never would, they have a pretty broad range of political players (from the BNP to Trots), and they have a huge cultural sense of permission.
This is not me slagging off the USA, as Britain always felt far more free when it came to speech than Canada did as well. As for can't say "fuck" to an officer, I'm really sorry that that massive right has been limited, but last time I checked, in any country, saying fuck to an officer tended to get you some kind of vigorous response.
As for your slavery speech, you really are turning your rosy red ass up in public on that one as we've been arguing on this site - lo these many long months - precisely that both Britain and Canada had their own long and nasty experiences of slavery. Just for fun, you might wanna check out the lyrics to "Rule Britannia" sometime. You know, the part that goes,
Britons never never never shall... be... slaves."
It's kindof a shocker I know, but most peoples aren't real keen on being enslaved.
July 4, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing. My difficulty with some of your statements is that they use such hyperbole I can find little connection left to the reality that I know. e.g. All this stuff about slavery and how socialism is an offense against human liberty. The thing is, I walk the streets of the place in North America which has the longest-running "socialist" government... and it just doesn't feel at all like you describe. You see, it's just North of North Dakota, it's not oil-rich, and after 12 years of NDP government, it should be failing. But it's not. It's enormously popular, and the economy is doing better than it perhaps ever has.
Just to rip this debate down from the lofty heights, and knowing you're a small businessman, try this. When the NDP got in, the Small Business Corporate Income Tax levied by the province (after a decade plus under the Conservatives) was 12% or so. Now what would you guess it to be today?
The answer is 1%, the lowest in the country, and next year it goes to 0%. That's for small businesses making up to $400,000. That'd be you, right?
Now I know a fair amount about this tax - do read between the lines - but don't you find it muddies the high-level talk when a batch of socialists do this, and are loud and proud about it?
On the other hand, they also intervened to bail-out a major bus manufacturer, an action considered taboo in the free market textbooks. And yet... the bail-out loan has been repaid, the manufacturer is now the #1 maker of hybrid buses on the continent, they're privately-owned, and its order books are full running out for years.
What I'm saying is that while it may read clever when the grand talk is trotted out in a blog... it sounds boorish, blaring, and not at all balanced when it's run up against reality.
My suggestion? Adjust your fire.
July 4, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you're describing clearthinker, q. What do you think?
July 4, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Gasket! I really do hope it's not another round in that game. It's gotten to the point where as soon as a blogger starts going on about how they're all about the logic and the reason and are untouched by emotions... I prepare myself for a full-scale blast-off into looniness.
But then again, being enslaved and soulless and all, I would think that, wouldn't I?
Hope yer havin' a good day, Gasket. ;-)
July 4, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having a good day, q. Hope you are too. It's a gorgeous one here in Bklyn.
As for games, I suspect we're getting dealt from the bottom of the deck no matter what. ;-)
July 4, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. WOOF!
July 4, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, since you "find [your]self making the same argument repeatedly", perhaps it's time to hone your debating skills.
July 4, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could talk about it with people that agree with my every word, or I could talk here and make a difference. I just think it's funny you all getting into a circle jerk over public health insurance when none of you have really thought through a coherent argument for it other than "IT MAKES ME FEEL GUD!!!!1111one"
July 4, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Be the avatar", chump.
July 5, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
why do you make it such a personal attack? Rather than debate the points you attack the person. I'm glad you're happy in Canada, but I don't want the US to become like Canada. Our current system can be fixed without turning it over to the government.
July 4, 2009 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
How?
July 4, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh please, again?
July 4, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, never mind "how?"
Look over there - socialists!!
July 4, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
How? Lots of things need to be fixed, like taking the employers out of the middle and having health insurance be between the families and the insurance companies. It will make things more transparent and increase competition. And setting up state-driven exchanges will also help increase competition and transparency. People really don't have a "choice" today with the healthcare provided through their employers. The current system worked well when designed 50 years ago because people stayed with one company for a long time.
Obama is also taking the right tact and looking for cuts in Medicare. And also fixing the malpractice situation which is also out of control right now.
There's so many things that can be fixed without giving the government more say in the process
July 5, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It never ceases to amaze me how libertarians always seem like they are stuck in some sort of arrested development adolescent fantasy world of "self-reliance."
It's as if they think that they were dropped naked into the forest and emerged sometime thereafter, through their intelligence, talent, hard work and self sacrifice, driving a Mercedes Benz which they built themselves. Never mind the road they are driving on. Utter childish foolishness.
Taxes are not theft, they are the price of civilization. If you don't like civilization, by all means go live in the woods by yourself. Just don't expect to come driving out one day in a 500SL you built yourself.
July 4, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
> Taxes are not theft, they are the price of civilization.
Never said that all taxes were theft, nor unnecessary. Try reading the whole article then form an opinion, rather than skim a few words to reassert your invalid argument.
July 4, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It never ceases to amaze me how libertarians always seem like they are stuck in some sort of arrested development adolescent fantasy world of "self-reliance."
- It never ceases to amaze me how liberals zero in on a piece of the argument, distort it to mean the opposite of what was said, then beat it like a dead horse.
July 4, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it never ceases to amaze me that some, libertarians in particular, never understand the consequences of their own arguments.
Oh, and CMN, I did read the whole article. In just what way is my argument (which was really more of a metaphor) invalid? You don't make much sense, but I guess that's what happens when you live in some Ayn Rand fantasy world, instead of reality. Remember, her books were novels, about imaginary characters living in a world that does not exist.
July 4, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In just what way is my argument (which was really more of a metaphor) invalid?"
- To start, "Taxes are not theft, they are the price of civilization" - is not an argument. It's a meaningless platitude.
CMN's point was about taxing one group of people for the exclusive benefit of another. That's not civilization. It's institutionalized theft, especially in a country that prides itself on thinking that "all men are created equal".
July 4, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to reply in the same manner, but Lalo got to it before me.
If all men are created equal, then all men have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If all men have this equal, inalienable right, then to tax the more wealthy for the sole benefit of the less wealthy is not just a crime of theft, it's a crime against the humanity that you tout while propagating this agenda.
There is absolutely no natural right that any government anywhere in the world can give you, and this includes the "right" to another man's labor, property and belongings simply because he has more than you do.
July 4, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somewhere back in my unenlightened past, I believed much the same thing. However, you cannot argue that a child born into poverty is as "equal" as a child born into wealth. Not only are his long term prospects not the same, but his ability to even survive to adulthood is not the same. Part of being a civilized society is taking care of the basic needs of those less fortunate. The very thought of babies (let alone anyone) in this wealthy country (or even the whole world!) going to bed hungry and people having to watch their children suffer through illnesses they cannot afford to treat, or losing their homes because of medical bills is abhorrent to me.
Since we do not seem to be able to take care of these things on our own, as citizens, the government needs to, IMHO. That requires that money be taken from the haves to give to the have nots. It seems to be real easy for some people to sit back from their positions of comfort, or minimal distress and say who cares? But what if it was you or your kids or family who were suffering? Would you have such a calloused view then?
July 4, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happened to be someone who was born into poverty. By the current US standards, it would be called extreme poverty. I know first-hand what it means, but it's besides the point.
You can do one of two things:
(a) provide basic services AND give people opportunities to become as successful as they can possibly be (initiative, education, low taxes)
(b) redistribute income to reduce the material dimension of poverty.
And if you just take a look at what we do to the poor kids in our public schools, you will see that (b) has been our exclusive policy on poverty since the WWII.
That's what created generations of people being taught to expect a monthly allowance from the government and vote accordingly.
July 4, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me put it another way. Our policy on poverty should be "ennabling". Not "addictive".
July 4, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I replied to you, but forgot to actually reply to you. My response to you is at the bottom of the page.
July 4, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One question: Do you think your life is better or worse off because all people get a free el-hi education, regardless of the fact that the poorest among us would not be able to pay the amount that that education costs? [In other words, the poor are being educated through the taxed money of those who have more than they do] Do you think that your every-day encounters with illiterate people would have a neutral effect on your own life style?
Don't go off on a tangent about education not being provided by the federal government; I am asking specifically about the concept of the general good, and education is provided through taxes (not federal, but taxes non-the-less).
And one statement: You keep saying that you are trying to convince us that you are right. None of us were born thinking the way we do; we have spent our lives thinking and developing our beliefs. I was brought up by parents who thought very much like you do. I evolved; there is nothing you can say that will make me devolve; I've heard it all before -- I simply know that you are wrong.
And one observation: You made a comment about me previously that I must be poor, and today or yesterday that someone else is probably obese. Where do you get those ideas? I think the same place that you get everything you say -- you pull them out of your ass.
July 4, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
> Don't go off on a tangent about education not being provided by the federal government; I am asking specifically about the concept of the general good, and education is provided through taxes (not federal, but taxes non-the-less).
Whatever your local (state, county, city) taxes want to support is fine with me. Limiting me to not going off on a tangent of "it's not federal government" when federal government is exactly the topic we're talking about is absurd. "Ignore the basis of your argument, and then try to make it!" Hah.
> And one statement: You keep saying that you are trying to convince us that you are right.
Because I am. My statements are not based on emotions, but logic and reason. Interesting how you can tout logic and reason while talking about cap and tax, but switch to emotion when talking about health insurance. The inconsistency here is laughable.
> nd one observation: You made a comment about me previously that I must be poor, and today or yesterday that someone else is probably obese. Where do you get those ideas?
Statistics. 43% of the nation either pays no federal income tax or has a negative federal income tax liability. 72% of the nation is obese. Statistically, you're probably fat. Poor people make poor decisions; as evidenced by your decisions in what you believe, you're probably broke.
July 4, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow; I have a pretty good idea of what you look like too, but I may be as wrong as you are about me, so I'll spare you the description. No, talking about education is not changing the subject; your point is that you should do nothing for anyone else unless you want to. Your argument includes federal taxes, but your "principal" if one can call it that, is that your hard-earned money should not go to pay for anything that doesn't directed benefit you.
So I ask you again -- do you not benefit from the results of an educational that takes all people, including poor ones and teaches them to read and write, math skills, and many other things? Do you acknowledge that your daily life would be negatively affected by having the majority of people who provided you services, delivered goods to you, and even took care of your children; if they were all illiterate and couldn't count to 100?
If you dodge this one it just proves you can't sustain your lame argument.
July 4, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, education benefits everyone that receives it. Public education, even though provided on a state level, is far inferior to private education. Actually, public education is probably a disservice because it gives one the illusion that they know something for a fact, and simply trains citizens to be drones for the state.
So while education does benefit all, public education is almost as good as no education, and worse than home schooled education. The only intrinsic value I see in public education is children learning to socialize; ironically, the schools don't teach this.
July 4, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
> Somewhere back in my unenlightened past, I believed much the same thing. However, you cannot argue that a child born into poverty is as "equal" as a child born into wealth.
Let me tell you a small story about this:
I was born into poverty. Shortly after my birth, my mother divorced my father as he was an alcoholic. My mother, having been a housewife for over 25 years, had no real trade skills and marginal intelligence. Needless to say, she could not support me on her own, so she turned to the state.
She found that Welfare would only give her $233 dollars a month to live off of. Knowing that no human can live off of this meager salary, she turned to private charity; her church. The church, under no mandate from government, donated not only the funds to get a lawyer so that my mother could receive SSI (money that my father had already paid, and could have been privatized), but also supplemented her a thousand dollars per month to care for me.
My mother never obtained a marketable skill.
I've overcome having no health insurance, no money, meager public education, etc. Not through the will of the state, but through the sheer will and determination of my own character. No state mandate made me the person I am today.
Am I terribly wealthy? No. I have my own business, which Obama taxes higher because it turns greater than 250000 per year. People say "Oh call the wahhmbulance!" until I bring up that net income is far different than gross profit. Then they say "Oh, so you really actually only made X amount of money, but you're taxed as if you made Y amount?"
In short, I am perfectly comfortable with the labor that I put out and the compensation that I receive for it. If you are not smart enough to do for yourself, I should not be expected to do for you.
> Since we do not seem to be able to take care of these things on our own, as citizens, the government needs to,
This thought process is the way that people are enslaved to the will of the state, and not the other way around.
> That requires that money be taken from the haves to give to the have nots.
No. If we value liberty, this action must -never- be taken, for the government will have set the precedence that it's ok to take your life and give you nothing in return if it deems it for the "greater good."
> ut what if it was you or your kids or family who were suffering? Would you have such a calloused view then?
I've suffered similarly before, and I have an even more calloused view. It has made me a better, stronger person. I know that I can overcome any obstacle in my life, and I don't need the state to do it for me.
July 4, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
if what you are saying is true, you are to be commended, but not everyone is capable of doing what you say you have done.
I, too, believe that in many instances welfare can be a means of enslavement. I do not think there are any perfect answers. I cannot help but think that there are ways for everyone to contribute in this society, and everyone who CAN work, should be required to. But what if there are no jobs? Are you truly willing to sit by and watch children starve or people lose their homes? Or do you just not watch? Maybe some of you can. I can't.
If your business truly has over 250K in taxable income, you are doubly deserving of praise. I was never able to come any where near that in my business. To those who much is given, much is expected. How much would it take for you to HAVE before you felt like you WANTED to share your bounty, rather than be required to?
Personally, I couldn't live in a McMansion, knowing so many didn't even have a roof over their heads, while I continued to amass even more of a fortune. I'm sorry, I just don't get the mindset and I hope I never will.
July 4, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damnit, I keep replying without hitting the reply button first. It's because I have to have two tabs open to quote you in one window and reply in the next. My reply is at the bottom again.
July 4, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he makes $250,000 before taxes, he is in the top 2% of income earners in US. The fact that he does not believe this makes him "terribly wealthy" shows a warped sense reality, which explains his callous attitude
July 4, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. If I haven't mentioned it, you rawk!
July 4, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
BWAK bwak, bwak bwak...
July 4, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've told us what you aren't, but I'll tell you one thing that you are: Bitter. Very very bitter. Probably from the way you were brought up. Not a crime; just a shame.
For all your lack of compassion and any semblance of personal happiness, I'll just bet you are right there in the front row every Sunday shouting "AMEN!"
July 4, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe in any religion, especially not the one of Big Government.
July 4, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welfare and SSI, you were raised suckling the gov't teat. Your I've got mine, so fuck you attitude is disgusting.
You wish to deny others gov't benefits after receiving them yourself, how can you possibly justify that?
July 4, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't. So he just ignores that little fact. Ta-da! Booststraps, baby! Bootstraps!
July 4, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. You've missed the point, and are a waste of time.
July 4, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is your mother, by your definition, stole from others to support you.
July 4, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
> if what you are saying is true, you are to be commended
I don't seek commendations, just a better understanding of the idea that I'm trying to convey.
> but not everyone is capable of doing what you say you have done.
No, they are not. And nor should I be penalized for doing what I have done.
> But what if there are no jobs?
Then you can go out and create one, by creating a business.
> If your business truly has over 250K in taxable income,
Most of it is simply through reselling goods, but the government treats these sales as profit.
> To those who much is given, much is expected. How much would it take for you to HAVE before you felt like you WANTED to share your bounty, rather than be required to?
I often do share willingly. When income is forcibly removed from me to share with the "less fortunate" I feel less inclined to share though. It's kinda like a waitress adding gratuity to a bill; since they've already demanded what they want, why should I give them more?
> Personally, I couldn't live in a McMansion
I don't live in a McMansion, and I doubt I ever will. I'm far more comfortable living with fewer responsibilities, and less stress. I also don't want to earn that much money, because the more I earn the more will be removed from me.
July 4, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please pardon my bluntness, but there is something fishy about your story...
The words you use to describe your business are not professional, you have an unrealistically simplistic view of "just create your own job" that tells me you don't really know anything about the difficulty of starting a business, let alone operating a successful one, you claim to be paying higher taxes because you make over 250K, but Obama just got into office...how can you be paying higher taxes already - you have no idea yet if you will be netting over 250K in 2009, you show total disdain for the system that kept you from starving to death as a child...
Nothing is adding up.
July 5, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Stilli, you've saved me some time. It's good to see someone else is paying attention. CMN is a slightly more intellectual "Joe the Plumber".
I know something about SSI and that little story about the SSI is a complete load of shit.
July 5, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you should mention him...as thoughts of this post flitted through my mind 1st thing this morning, "joe, the-not-really-a-plumber" came to my mind, as well.
July 5, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 5, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! No one who had a business netting 250K before taxes would say something like that...fishy, I'm telling you!
July 5, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm beginning to obsess, but...
More smelly stuff with "The Story"...Assuming his mother was no younger than 17 when she married, she would have been 42 when he was born (having been a housewife for 25 years before he was born and she divorced his father.) He mentions no siblings in his "mom couldn't take care of me on her own" story-line, so it would be her first child at 42...
I think there's a good chance we've been had folks...
July 5, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total Agreement!
July 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
unless he's a drug dealer
July 5, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about those children who have been abondoned and/or abused and have disabilities, should government provide healthcare to them?
July 4, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question, Aunt Sam. But don't expect a good answer from someone whose avatar looks like a botched circumcision done on a penis coming out of their forehead.
July 4, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello!?
July 4, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nose-offee on the keyboard!
July 5, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOSE-COFFEE and tears in my eyes on preview
July 5, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink