Question for strident capitalists...

[Schmelzer]

Of course you don't. And since you never heard of Lester Maddox, you obviously have no real life experience or personal knowledge of the workings of racism and other bigotries in the US, so what you are able to "see" is limited.

So because I have been in the US only three weeks for some scientific reason (and decided for myself that this is the most boring country I have ever seen) I have a completely insufficient life experience? LOL. I would guess you have insufficient life experience about North Korea, so, never talk about what happens there.

That is why you simply assumed that if black people were denied motel lodging across the American South, or medical care, or any job that paid more than the lowest paid white man in town, it must be by government law, Jim Crow. It wasn't. It was freedom of contract, as enjoyed by racial bigots.

You have completely missed the point. Which is not about what people do, but what they would be obliged to do by libertarian principles. Jim Cow laws are unjust, because they reject freedom of contract. If the motel owner does not want black customers, this is his right as the owner not to have them.

You have no conception of organized, societal, systematic, non-governmental, oppression of people. It simply doesn't exist in your world, because there isn't enough reality in it. You haven't fact- checked your theory. In your theoretical universe child labor cannot exist as a stable, long term free market institution. Motels and hospitals cannot be systematically denied on grounds of bigotry except by governmental force. Free market corporate monopolies cannot burden and oppress people's lives because they cannot exist for long enough. And so forth.

No, I simply follow completely different principles. Libertarian principles are moral principles. I explain you what is morally allowed by these principles and what is not. These principles are violated systematically by all states. And, without doubt, they can be violated even without a state. And, of course, an ideology, which defines certain groups as subhumans or enemies, will force the adherents of this ideology to refuse cooperation with this group.

What to do with such ideologies? One idea to fight them is a totalitarian state with a "good" (means, the own) ideology. If you reject this, then one has to think about possibilities to organize a society accepting that different people follow different ideologies, with almost all of them (of course, with the own ideology as an exception) being stupid bigots (or whatever the term which describes the enemies of the people in the own ideology).

The base of such a society should be that the different ideologies obtain a possibility to live peaceful with each other. However stupid the other ideology, the believers should have a possibility to live in peace, undisturbed by the other ideologies. And the society as a whole should not take sides. Even the right of small stupid ideological minorities should be preserved.

This was - restricted only to religions - together with the free market the base of the american success. The weak place was this was restricted to religion. But it should hold be applied to all ideologies, secular ideologies too. If not, secular ideologies could be used to create a totalitarian state. First, it was the right who has used anti-communism for this purpose: Communists did not have the rigths of a religious minority, so one can fight them, introduce anticommunism as the state ideology, and move toward a totalitarian police state to suppress them. Now, the left have also found this possibility, and fight racism and the rejection of gay rights. Without, again, giving the racists and homophobes the rights of a religious minority, introducing anti-racism and gay rights ideology as the state ideology, and move toward a totalitarian police state to suppress the "bigots". And as the left, as the right have found agreement about "sexual predators" being subhuman, the fight against these subhumans is state ideology too, and what the police does against "sexual predators" has already all the characteristics of a totalitarian police state.

So, please understand: I may be an atheist, free-market supporter, gay, love blacks and hate sexual violence. But, nonetheless, I may support the rights of religious minorities, communists, racists, homophobs, and even of criminals (for a just penalty in accordance with the "an eye for an eye" upper limit). Simply because the danger of a state with a state ideology (quite independent of what this ideology is) is much greater, it is, in the long run, a totalitarian state.

Even the point with the child labor you haven't got. Of course, in a small isolated society with no ressources for science and technology development, near the subsistence level, child labor will be stable for a long time. But this is not the modern world.

About monopolies: Yes, they need government support to persist. The best example is software. There was, initially, no government restriction - but programming is an extremal case of a natural monopoly, one program, the actually best one, will get a monopoly position. So, indeed, there have been monopolies. But they have not lasted long. In almost each domain of application, every three years there came a new
programm much better than the old monopolist's one, and the old monopolist was forgotten almost immediately.

Then came the governement - with software patents.

From this time, the monopolists are the same. Microsoft, Google, Amazon and so on. The condition for survival on the software market is a big list of software patents, which allows you to forbid programming at all, and a sort of peace with those who have a similar large pool of software patents which could forbid you to programm too.

Have you even considered the motel example? Take a second: no laws, no government, free market rules throughout, freedom of contract the entire basis, the entire area of the old Confederacy and neighboring States covered - black people were systematically refused motel accommodations. This harmed the entire community, black and white. It did all kinds of damage to all kinds of people in all kinds of ways. And it did it for years -generations. Stable situation.

No doubt, ideologies are stable, even more stable than states. But they become really dangerous only after they get the power in the state.

 

[iceaura]

"That is why you simply assumed that if black people were denied motel lodging across the American South, or medical care, or any job that paid more than the lowest paid white man in town, it must be by government law, Jim Crow. It wasn't. It was freedom of contract, as enjoyed by racial bigots."
You have completely missed the point. Which is not about what people do, but what they would be obliged to do by libertarian principles. Jim Cow laws are unjust, because they reject freedom of contract. If the motel owner does not want black customers, this is his right as the owner not to have them.

You point was that racial bigots making contracts with other white racial bigots would not harm others. My point is that you are wrong about that. The white racial bigots who followed your principles, such as Lester Maddox, did a great deal of harm to their entire society and everyone living in it.

No, I simply follow completely different principles. Libertarian principles are moral principles. I explain you what is morally allowed by these principles and what is not.

Your principles need a reality check. Your principles were shared, almost to the letter, by the white racial bigots of the American south such as Lester Maddox. The harm they did to millions of people for generations was very great.

Even the point with the child labor you haven't got. Of course, in a small isolated society with no ressources for science and technology development, near the subsistence level, child labor will be stable for a long time. But this is not the modern world.

I linked you to the theory and the research. You are wrong. Once established by market forces, child labor can and will persist in a modern, industrial, free market, capitalist economy unless some outside non-market force displaces the economy to a better equilibrium.

About monopolies: Yes, they need government support to persist

No, they don't.

"Have you even considered the motel example? Take a second: no laws, no government, free market rules throughout, freedom of contract the entire basis, the entire area of the old Confederacy and neighboring States covered - black people were systematically refused motel accommodations. This harmed the entire community, black and white. It did all kinds of damage to all kinds of people in all kinds of ways. And it did it for years -generations. Stable situation."
No doubt, ideologies are stable, even more stable than states. But they become really dangerous only after they get the power in the state.

Denial of medical care, motel rooms, and decent jobs, to black people, was very harmful. Without the State.

 

[cosmictotem]

This was - restricted only to religions - together with the free market the base of the american success. The weak place was this was restricted to religion. But it should hold be applied to all ideologies, secular ideologies too. If not, secular ideologies could be used to create a totalitarian state. First, it was the right who has used anti-communism for this purpose: Communists did not have the rigths of a religious minority, so one can fight them, introduce anticommunism as the state ideology, and move toward a totalitarian police state to suppress them. Now, the left have also found this possibility, and fight racism and the rejection of gay rights. Without, again, giving the racists and homophobes the rights of a religious minority, introducing anti-racism and gay rights ideology as the state ideology, and move toward a totalitarian police state to suppress the "bigots". And as the left, as the right have found agreement about "sexual predators" being subhuman, the fight against these subhumans is state ideology too, and what the police does against "sexual predators" has already all the characteristics of a totalitarian police state.

The whole march of societal progress has been based on the organized adoption of rules of human conduct.

I'm sure the last lawful murderers and canibals of our prehistoric past were complaining to their last breathe what an outrage it was for society to take away their lawful right to murder and consume another person. Lol.

Same with racism and homophobia.

Anything that society once allowed in the past but later wises up to the societal and human dysfunction such beliefs and behaviors create is going to have its share of defenders to the death.

If we are to function as a group, are there not certain behaviors which adversely effect group interaction negatively that must be restricted?

Do people unite under nations to assure the rights of some of their citizens to discriminate against the others? It would seem such behavior is anti-social and falls outside the boundaries of a large mass of people organized together for their mutual survival.

Why should two different groups opposed to the well being and propagation of each other be united under the same flag at all? Something's got to give. They really need to be in totally self-contained social environments, where one can not come in contact with the other, not existing in the same nation, as they do now, claiming unity with each other but with one group out to deny the other group service. It's a false conception of unity.

One nation cannot serve two masters and expect to function.

If gays and blacks can be discriminated against when they walk into a store, why would they want to participate in the experiment that is the United States? What is in it for them but public humiliation?

The basic requirement for the formation of any group is that the members get along and are out to promote the well-being of each other. Why even bother to form that foundation and strike that contract with another group who would deny you service in their lunch counter or cake shop? It undermines the whole pretense of national unity.

So we both call ourselves "American" but you really hate me and want me to die? Yea, that really works.

I would ask, well, why the f*ck are we even living in the same country and under the same government?

 

[Schmelzer]

You point was that racial bigots making contracts with other white racial bigots would not harm others. My point is that you are wrong about that. The white racial bigots who followed your principles, such as Lester Maddox, did a great deal of harm to their entire society and everyone living in it.

No, they didn't. What they did by refusing contracts with blacks was stupid and harmful, for themself as well as for the blacks - but on a level which we have to accept in a society. Because there is nothing one can do against the stupidity of various ideologies, except argumentation, which helps only in the long run.

Your principles need a reality check. Your principles were shared, almost to the letter, by the white racial bigots of the American south such as Lester Maddox. The harm they did to millions of people for generations was very great.

By the way, your beloved enemy of mankind Nr. 1 "Maddox ... also urged state troopers to address blacks as Mr. or Mrs. instead of derogatory terms like "nigger."", claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox Even more funny: "Maddox began a short-lived nightclub comedy career in 1977 with an African American musician Bobby Lee Sears, who had worked as a busboy in his restaurant..... Calling themselves "The Governor and the Dishwasher". LOL. So, it looks like that even the presentation you give him is unjust.

And, whatever he supported, it does not matter at all.

I linked you to the theory and the research. You are wrong. Once established by market forces, child labor can and will persist in a modern, industrial, free market, capitalist economy unless some outside non-market force displaces the economy to a better equilibrium.

You linked a long list of literature, without any indication which of the papers supports which of your points, thus, worthless, then an article behind a paywall, and a short article which supported, essentially, my points.

Of course, if it is the market force which established child labor, that means there are reasons for this. If the reasons persist, child labor remains. A triviality. But it is far from trivial that the reasons persist. Usually, the reason is the necessity of survival, because of some crisis, war, natural disaster, or general backwardness. A crisis goes away, wars and natural disasters have ends, and general backwardness may be changed by the power of free development.

 

[Schmelzer]

The whole march of societal progress has been based on the organized adoption of rules of human conduct.

A quite optimistic view, and, I guess, highly ideological. Rules of human conduct have not improved at all, there have always been more or less civilized rules inside a community and segregation from other communities. The artificially unnaturally large communities named nations, classes, races and religions have always been much more aggressive toward the outsiders than communities of moderate or small size.

If we are to function as a group, are there not certain behaviors which adversely effect group interaction negatively that must be restricted?

If you want to function as a group, create this group and organize a community, on volitional basis. Something as large as the US can only be based on brute force.

Do people unite under nations to assure the rights of some of their citizens to discriminate against the others?

No, people unite under nations to discriminate against other nations. And, of course, they not only discriminate against dissenters of their own nation, they usually actively fight them.

It would seem such behavior is anti-social and falls outside the boundaries of a large mass of people organized together for their mutual survival.

What is antisocial is nationalism. It has murdered a lot of people and continues to murder a lot of people. The US-supported Nazis in the Ukraine are murdering a lot of people all the time.

Why should two different groups opposed to the well being and propagation of each other be united under the same flag at all?

They should not. The only reason to form a nation is to be stronger in military terms than other nations, so that they can kill them in the case of a war.

Then, this is not even the question. Segregation may be a reasonable choice even if one is not opposed to the well-being of the other group at all, but simply has different ideas how to organize life.

If gays and blacks can be discriminated against when they walk into a store, why would they want to participate in the experiment that is the United States? What is in it for them but public humiliation?

Indeed, I see no reason why they should participate in totalitarian experiments.

The US started as a place of maximal freedom (except for the slaves, of course) and minimal government, and has become now the world most powerful goverment, with totalitarian powers - killing lists signed by the president as he likes, infinite detention of people without any court decision, secret laws controlled by secret courts, simply killing other people with drones all over the wold without even a declaration of war - the completely lawless totalitarian police state.

So we both call ourselves "American" but you really hate me and want me to die? Yea, that really works.
I would ask, well, why the f*ck are we even living in the same country and under the same government?

Because the largest military of the world has occupied the territory where you live, and does not care about people like you at all. You live there because you are too lazy to emigrate or think that in other states the government is even worse, that's all.

 

[Michael]

No, it isn't. It's a change in the regulation of regulated service delivery. It fits perfectly with my preferred single payer insurance setup, eliminating most of the medical insurance industry in the US. I'm not suggesting that we set up a market in which the patient chooses between doctors and nurses when purchasing these services. No, I'm suggesting that nurses would be cheaper to educate and hire for delivery of some medical services, and that would take some pressure off of medical schools. I said nothing about medical outcome in that respect. And there is no competition involved - all my stuff is single payer insurance, non-profit clinics and hospitals, public research, free market supply production.

Look, you're going to have to be specific because as it stands, it sounds like you're taking it on faith that the State Healthcare Regulators are going to competently train and qualify nurses and doctors. They're not. Taking 'pressure' off medical schools isn't going to do anything when they're run by people who cannot competently train medical personal.

Do you have a solution that doesn't involve faith?


I'm talking a real world solution to a real problem here. Your's have been tried and do not work. Single payer doesn't make one damn bit of difference when the public institutions themselves fail to competently train medical doctors. Worse still, single payer healthcare doesn't discourage unhealthy lifestyles as the majority of the voting public are most likely to die of extremely expensive cardiovascular diseases directly linked to lifestyle choices. The voting public are not willing to change their lifestyle AND at the same time are not willing to pay the insurance premiums (single payer or otherwise) to cover their eventual expenses. They, like you, like 'magic thinking' where someone just magically *poof* appears out of the ether with all the high-tech equipment and high-end drugs that cure them - competently employed and for next to 'free'. Worse still, statistically, they'll refuse to comply and have an even more expensive cardiovascular episode TWO MORE TIMES at $350,000 - $500,000+ a pop before either dying or finally complying. What they won't do is have paid anywhere near the price to cover these lifestyle induced cardiovascular events.

This IS the data.

And as for how the "paying" for 'free' healthcare occurs, one solution is to cut spending on public schools K-12. I've actually seen this done. Even when reported on by the news - it doesn't matter. The voting public 'wants'. It votes for whomever spins the story that suggests they'll get what they want.

Take a good look at Government run schools, 20% of their Certified Graduates are functionally illiterate. That's 1 in every 5 graduates. Why on the God's green earth would you think that Government run medical schools are any better?!?

As I've said in the past, I'll say again.

Big God, little State
Little God, big State

One more time, you can eliminate ALL private hospitals and ALL private insurance and give everyone 'free' healthcare / single payer healthcare and this will NOT solve the problem of large monopolistic public institutions failing to competently train medical doctors, nurses and other service providers.

The nice thing about running a monopoly where self-appointed 'experts' determine what's in the 'public's best interest' is it really doesn't matter how low the quality of 'free' public service is. Why? Because no one knows the real price and no one will know any different anyway - as they're the only game in town.


Do you have a solution that does not absolutely depend on faith in public servants?

 

[iceaura]

it sounds like you're taking it on faith that the State Healthcare Regulators are going to competently train and qualify nurses and doctors.

No, it doesn't. It sounds like I think other problems with the US system are far more important, and I'm going to pay attention to them instead.

Your's have been tried and do not work.

No, they haven't.

Single payer doesn't make one damn bit of difference - - -

How do you know?

Why on the God's green earth would you think that Government run medical schools are any better?!?

I don't care. Educate the docs in Europe, then, if it makes you happier.
Besides: US government run university graduate schools are among the best that have ever existed on the planet. The medical schools can be run as well as other graduate schools, one would presume.

One more time, you can eliminate ALL private hospitals and ALL private insurance and give everyone 'free' healthcare / single payer healthcare and this will NOT solve the problem of large monopolistic public institutions failing to competently train medical doctors, nurses and other service provider

So?

Do you have a solution that does not absolutely depend on faith in public servants?

Nope. And neither do you. There is no private, capitalistic, free market way to provide First World quality medical care to most people.

 

[Billy T]

... Nope. And neither do you. There is no private, capitalistic, free market way to provide First World quality medical care to most people.

Probably true. They are found, AFAIK, only in democratic socialism countries, like Scandinavian ones (along with their free and high-quality education for ALL - thur Ph. D. if that is your desire.)

A significant part of why US pays about twice as much as they do per capita yet delivers 2 to 3 years less life expectancy, is that the poor don't get (can not afford) preventive care or early attention when ill. (nor pre-natal care either) Thus when quite sick, in an advance stage of their disease, a friend with car drops them at the entrance of the emergency room of a hospital, where treatment is much more expensive, and prolonged compare to having treatment in the early stages of the disease. Also if the disease is contagious, many others, typically equally poor friends, may be infected already, just waiting for problem to either go away or get so serious they too need to be dropped at some hospital's emergency room's door.

The second or perhaps primary reason US pays more for less is mal practice claim lawyers. Normally, even in the US, you can only sue the state, with the state's permission. As medical services in social democracies are "state supplied" there are very few mal-practices suits filled. Closely related cost in the US, is that social democracies don't have private, profit-making, medical health insurance companies. These funds should be going for medical services, not making some stock holders and lawyers rich.

These facts are no problem for the US rich, but the extra taxes they would need to pay to give all Americans the high quality medical care (or schools)* that all Scandinavians get, are; so they spend a little on propaganda to make most voters believe US has the best medical system in the world.

The main disadvantage, AFAIK, to state delivery of medical care, is urgent needs come first, so if your problem is not life threating, you will wait for treatment. My Norwegian mother-in-law had to wait about three months before getting her free and well done knee replacement. She had been living with its problems for years, but it was slowly growing worse.

* US does have many of the world's best post-graduate level schools, but normally the poorly educated (at pre-college level) poor can not get in. Those that do were often either from rich neighborhood public schools or from private high schools. The public schools in poor neighborhoods, have trouble just keeping the rat population down and fixing broken windows. There are few if any books in their 'libraries" and no "honors level" college prep classes. They get the teachers who could not get better positions in a school with little or no risk of assult by a "student." - Little wonder those who do graduate from these poor neighborhood are not qualified for any legal job except Big Mac" ones or being some rich person's maid. Why US incarcerates about 25 times more prisoners per capita than any Scandinavian country does. BTW, their cost (food, facilities, and guards) is greater than the average tuition of the "Ivy League" schools - How dumb - but the rich, get cheap workers, maid, etc. and don't want the system to change.

 

[iceaura]

The main disadvantage, AFAIK, to state delivery of medical care, is urgent needs come first, so if your problem is not life threating, you will wait for treatment

If you run the numbers, that is not what it seems: many delays in the US system are not tracked, so they are said to not exist. The delays in the more socialized systems are tracked, carefully. It's like the trains running on time under fascist government - it's a paperwork illusion.

At its best, it's based on something like this: http://getbetterhealth.com/wait-times-for-medical-care-how-the-us-actually-measures-up/2010.02.02 Notice key circumstances of inclusion: they surveyed people who had successfully obtained medical care, and they surveyed opinions rather than measured times, and their selection of countries was a bit biased. Notice a couple of key circumstances of exclusion: surgeries and tests and so forth ordered for emergency room admissions, readmissions from too early discharge, or other indications of debit rather than credit, are not excluded; unnecessary tests and the like are not excluded; and so forth.

And even then, with a survey rigged in its favor, the US system comes out looking dodgy and inefficient. Had they included measured wait times, and more places like France (http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/pvd/Primer.htm) or the Scandinavian countries, My guess is they would have found what others have: Other countries have shorter, not longer, wait times (especially: anything connected to pregnancy - in any defense of the US system, pay attention to how the defender handles women's and children's medical care).

At its normal lousy, it's based on something like this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/16/what-world-doesnt-know-about-health-care-in-america.html which is so carefully and consistently deceptive as to support an accusation of deliberate lying.

Appointments for hip and knee replacement surgery are routinely made months in advance in the US, for example. Three months is perfectly normal. At least, that is what I saw from the four such surgeries I have personal knowledge of. Part of the deal there is simply arranging one's affairs to handle the rehab, of course.

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

I don't care. Educate the docs in Europe, then, if it makes you happier.

This is an example of said magic thinking.

Besides: US government run university graduate schools are among the best that have ever existed on the planet. The medical schools can be run as well as other graduate schools, one would presume.

The best research institutions are Private. The NIH, which is actually run by the US Government, is a joke.

There is no private, capitalistic, free market way to provide First World quality medical care to most people.

Cognitive bias. Unless you have some magically ability to see into future? If not, then this is AGAIN an example magic thinking (see: the psychology behind the problem of induction).

I notice you qualified medical care (we practice disease care by the way) with 'First World'. Come on....

Did I mention the medical student who wrote to me stating: "Now that I have experience working in a Public Hospital, I've decided to buy Private insurance". Want to know what changed her mind? A man who came in with a kink in his neck, who was talked into having unnecessary surgery, and who is now a paraplegic and expected to die before the year's end. Want to know what the "Public Servant / Doctor" (outside the USA in one of those lovely counties you want us to model healtcare on) wrote in his or her notes? This: (1) Entered with neck pain. (2) Left paraplegic.
That was it. No other notes. This was such a simple surgery an idiot off the street could do it. Yet, this man is now going to die. Oh, and get this, "Free" public hospitals are not going to be sued. The State makes sure all the "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed. He agreed to the surgery and all the risks when he signed on the dotted line. Of course, with notes that pathetic (probably purposely) it'd be a case of his word verses the experts. Get this, PRIVATE insurance companies don't like wasting resources on useless physicians - that's not conducive towards making a profit *GAAASP* and so you're much BETTER off with Private Insurance - which is what ALL of the Public Servants have - the best your tax money can buy. If not that option they simply go overseas. Which many do. Many go to the USA. Other's go to Japan. OR they make sure they know who the few really good surgeons are.

You are taking it on faith that State run monopolies have ANY incentive to provide value for money. They don't. But get this, eliminating a MONOPOLY and allowing people the FREEDOM to offer value for money would provide high quality low cost healthcare. And once did. Particularly as State-run enterprises went belly-up and were reorganized under different management. But hey, then who's pay the fat 6 figures to all our lovely Public "Servants" for the "Good of the People" because "We use the Roads"?

Did I mention the medical student who tried to kill herself? Probably not. Anyway, her father pulled some strings (gaaasp, you mean strings can be pulled in a Public Healthcare system???! Reeeeeeaaallly??? Geee, I thought everyone was treated equally) and got her in to see a psychologist. His professional advice was NOT to enter a public hospital. Why? Because that'd make her problems MUCH worse, and instead to go 6 weeks until an opening in a Private clinic became available. Was it possible she could die? Yes, but taking THAT chance was much preferred than entering a 'Free' public hospital and receiving 'healthcare'.

I could list examples all damn day long.

As for Scandinavia, this isn't the country to compare the USA to. No, the National Healthcare System you're looking for, is Greece. Greece is what the USA is going to look like. And from Greece it'll start to look a bit more like a third world nation. And already does.

As an aside, I was listening to a podcast the other day. And an economist and politician were talking about creating FREE-TRADE zones in some of the more depressed areas of the country. This would 'lift the economy' in those areas which then could be TAXED by the State. Ha! Hahaha.... too funny. Even THEY get it. It's a f*cking scam. Right now there's still plenty enough 'regulated' trade for our Public Servants / Masters to milk tax out of - so they'll keep doing that. But, finally, in the end when the USSA is a craphole, much like Communist China, the Masters/Farmers will allow for freedom to trade again, and the cycle will start again.

Story as old as time.

Here's the simple ingredients for both high quality medicine and a prosperous society: laws that protect private property rights and uphold contract, sound money, freedom to trade. Are we going to see any of this in the U.S.S.A.? Nope. Instead we're going to move towards outright embracing Fascism, a few more cycles through incompetent "Leadership" from our so-called public "Servants" (there's a nice oxymoron to hang a hat on) then we can finally start ushering in The National Socialist American Workers' Party and a Dictator. See, personal freedom and individual liberty are NOT compatible with an Authoritarian government. Progressive socialism is though, as a matter of fact - it needs one.

Two interesting observations:
1) The reason for FAST-Tract of the TPP is because it's oh ooooh so much more expedient when things are run by a Dictator. That's the historical trend, I see no reason why functionally illiterate Americans with ZERO sense of their own history, barely any grasp of their own rights, who have to ask permission from their Nanny to let their kids sell lemonaid, would buck the trend. We aren't. We won't.

2) I see the government is pushing for State mandated Internet ID again. How lovely. Maybe the FCC can 'regulate' the content 'Free' Amooricans are allowed to access. LOL - land of the fleeced, home of the slave.

 

[iceaura]

No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. I have stated explicitly my reasons for thinking that States can educate and train medical doctors and so forth - including the observation that they do, in many places (which I regard as proof, actually). Faith does not appear among these reasons. You are projecting your own faith in your fantasy world of free market capitalist educational systems, which has no support in theory or evidence, with the mental workings of other people.

There is no private, capitalistic, free market way to provide First World quality medical care to most people.
Cognitive bias. Unless you have some magically ability to see into future?

I have an ordinary ability to reason from evidence. First World quality medical care is expensive, and the consumer is often injured, sick, old, young, pregnant, impoverished, etc. - that is, unable to choose among alternatives or pay via productive enterprise. First World medical care is sophisticated and requires dedicated educational effort as well as native intelligence to employ or evaluate. First World medical care is also significantly preventive and publicly administered, imposing costs on those who never directly benefit and providing large benefits to those paying little of the costs. And so forth. You cannot meet the basic requirements of private capitalist free market exchange under these circumstances.

And as the US has so well proven, it's very expensive and dysfunctional to pretend you have a market when you don't.

Here's the simple ingredients for both high quality medicine and a prosperous society: laws that protect private property rights and uphold contract, sound money, freedom to trade. Are we going to see any of this in the U.S.S.A.? Nope

So what is so different about the US, compared with the 34 countries that enjoy better medical care at half the price or less?

 

[Michael]

No, it doesn't. I have stated explicitly my reasons for thinking that States can educate and train medical doctors and so forth - including the observation that they do, in many places (which I regard as proof, actually). Faith does not appear among these reasons. You are projecting your own faith in your fantasy world of free market capitalist educational systems, which has no support in theory or evidence, with the mental workings of other people.

One more time, in 2015, at least 500,000 Americans will die BECAUSE OF medical mistakes. Another 3 - 5 million more will be seriously injured. This IS the data.

So, we can agree to this much.

You are taking it on faith that the people given a monopoly on both pedagogy AND licencing have any incentive to improve pedagogy and provide quality of their certifications. They don't! Why would they?! They have a State granted monopoly. They're not fighting to keep a monopoly in a free market by driving down their price and providing high quality (this has happened in highly pure silicon). Exactly the opposite. They are given a State granted monopoly. Well, how has this worked out for Government Schools? They certify 1 in 5 graduates who are functionally illiterate. The average reading level of an incoming University student is grade 7. Why improve? The own the market. The ONLY reason they're now starting to improve is it's gotten so bad parents are choosing Charter Schools and other forms of education in an attempt to keep their children FROM 'free' Government Schooling. And what are the monopolists doing? Using the State at every turn to try and prevent competition - they know they'll go bankrupt.

When the Government gives a market monopoly (under a King, a Dictator, a Republic, whatever) there is NO incentive for the rent-seekers to provide quality. None. Zero. As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. Only a fool would waste their time educating (which is hard work) because their career will be left in the dust by the people who focus all of their energy working the system and moving up in the monopoly - - gaining both power and pay.
Guess what?
It doesn't take long before anyone who gave a shit quits, is discouraged and/or fired or gets along to go along.

So, unless you have a solution to State monopolies. Then you're taking it on faith that rent-seeking monopolists will provide anything other than the lowest quality they can shit out the door. Which is exactly what we see IS happening.



DO you have a solution to the problem of monopolies? Other than magic thinking?

I have an ordinary ability to reason from evidence. First World quality medical care is expensive, and the consumer is often injured, sick, old, young, pregnant, impoverished, etc. - that is, unable to choose among alternatives or pay via productive enterprise. First World medical care is sophisticated and requires dedicated educational effort as well as native intelligence to employ or evaluate. First World medical care is also significantly preventive and publicly administered, imposing costs on those who never directly benefit and providing large benefits to those paying little of the costs. And so forth. You cannot meet the basic requirements of private capitalist free market exchange under these circumstances.

'First World' medicine does NOT have to be expensive. For the most part is should be cheap. Super computers took up the size of a small house and WERE expensive. Now they are cheap and fit in your pocket. They're so cheap people toss them out. As a matter of fact, the quality is soooo low now, in terms of medical service, I expect computers and cheap DIY medicine with short plane trips overseas for surgery taking care of the rest. Which is sad - probably the State will try and ban access to these as well. I guess it will come down to who buys off the right political 'servants'. How SAD for the so-called 'freest nation on Earth in all of history's history'.


Unless you can see the future - you do not know IF medicine can be provided for by free people voluntarily working with one another using law and sound money. You're taking it on faith AGAIN that the only way healthcare can be provided is by giving one group of humans the legal right to violate the property rights of others, taking a huge slice of money off for themselves, and then somehow magically 'redistributing' medicine care effectively.

Well, lets take a look at reality. A hundred years ago the State claimed it wanted to 'help' the worker by 'taxing the rich'. What happened? We go a central banker caused Depression, WWII and a country where you have to ask God damn permission from to even let your f*cking kids sell lemon aid. THAT is how hyper-god-damn-regulated 'free' markets are in the USSA. Kids can't even sell lemon aid. Jesus. This same State that was going to help the poor and tax the rich has bailed out the rich by selling T bonds on the poor! It's the largest polluter in history. Currently the State is spending $2 trillion or more a year maintaining the Police State and it's various Wars on Everything. You don't think that MAYBE.... just possibly, those resources could have been instead directed better through the free market into medicine and education?!

It's a MASSIVE case of magic thinking to believe you can give a group of humans the legal right to INITIATE violence against INNOCENT humans and expect anything to end in any way other than in a Police State.



RE: Free Market Medicine
IF the free market is so hopeless, then why does the State need to be used to legally prevent it from even occurring?!?! That should give you pause for thought. Because IF it was true, that the State really does provide such high quality pedagogy and medical care, then there's no need to legally bar competition by threat of violence. As a matter of fact, the ONLY REASON to legally bar competition is because you're worried of being out competed. And this IS the real reason why the State maintains it's monopoly on both pedagogy AND licencing.

If it didn't, it'd be bankrupt by decade's end.

And as the US has so well proven, it's very expensive and dysfunctional to pretend you have a market when you don't. So what is so different about the US, compared with the 34 countries that enjoy better medical care at half the price or less?

This depends on the country. Japan is very different than Australia.

Both America and Japan have Government Schooling. America spends more per GDP and more per student then Japan on Government schooling. Yet American Government schools graduate functional illiterates at a rate of 1 in 5. In Japan this would be unthinkable. It simply doesn't happen. So, you want to know why? Well, answer the question of why American Government Schools cost so much and suck to bad, and I think you'll have your answer.

 

[iceaura]

And as the US has so well proven, it's very expensive and dysfunctional to pretend you have a market when you don't. So what is so different about the US, compared with the 34 countries that enjoy better medical care at half the price or less?
This depends on the country. Japan is very different than Australia.
- - -
Well, answer the question of why American Government Schools cost so much and suck to bad, and I think you'll have your answer.

I don't need an answer - I don't think there is any solid reason America cannot enjoy First World quality medical care at the same price the richer European countries enjoy it. And I have personal experience with several American Government Schools that did not suck, and were priced at a level their modest communities could easily afford.

So you will have to bring your reasons to the table yourself. Until then, all the evidence points to benefits for America in these better performing systems, in cost and quality both.

 

[pjdude1219]

One more time, in 2015, at least 500,000 Americans will die BECAUSE OF medical mistakes. Another 3 - 5 million more will be seriously injured. This IS the data.

and they tend to happen more often in for profit hospitals.

 

[Michael]

and they tend to happen more often in for profit hospitals.

You mean for spoils hospitals.

Look, I imagine this is a difficult concept to push past all the brainwashing, but 'Profit' is a virtue. It means someone is efficiently providing you with a valued good or service in a way that isn't wasting resources and is actually allowing for capital to be secured for further social development.

The fact is, millions or more than competent Americans are standing in line at the various Regulatory institutions wanting to enter a healthcare profession. They're not allowed in so that the price stays high. See how nice State regulation works? Well, for the Regulators and the Rent Seekers at least. And SOMEONE is going to pay. Medicine isn't free - it isn't even cheap.

 

[pjdude1219]

You mean for spoils hospitals.

Look, I imagine this is a difficult concept to push past all the brainwashing, but 'Profit' is a virtue. It means someone is efficiently providing you with a valued good or service in a way that isn't wasting resources and is actually allowing for capital to be secured for further social development.

The fact is, millions or more than competent Americans are standing in line at the various Regulatory institutions wanting to enter a healthcare profession. They're not allowed in so that the price stays high. See how nice State regulation works? Well, for the Regulators and the Rent Seekers at least. And SOMEONE is going to pay. Medicine isn't free - it isn't even cheap.

one of these days micheal your going to grow up and start living in the real world instead of your childish fantasy. its been pointed out to you numerous times the flaws in a for profit health care system. you don't care because like for most people of your ideology life is cheap and money is all that matters. that you think thats all that entails to make a profit shows a remarkable level of naivety.

 

[GeoffP]

You mean for spoils hospitals.

Look, I imagine this is a difficult concept to push past all the brainwashing, but 'Profit' is a virtue. It means someone is efficiently providing you with a valued good or service in a way that isn't wasting resources and is actually allowing for capital to be secured for further social development.

The fact is, millions or more than competent Americans are standing in line at the various Regulatory institutions wanting to enter a healthcare profession. They're not allowed in so that the price stays high. See how nice State regulation works? Well, for the Regulators and the Rent Seekers at least. And SOMEONE is going to pay. Medicine isn't free - it isn't even cheap.

Profit is a reward based on subjective ascertainment and subject to numerous non-objective biases, not to mention outright commercial piracy, Michael. It isn't a descriptor of optimality.

Look at all those business meetings, and proposed products, and ask yourself how the ones that get ahead really get ahead. They're so much better than their rivals? They really had the best idea? Half the time, it's dumb luck.

And why is medicine so goddamn expensive? Because sticking a tube in something is really a $100-an-hour kind of operation? I don't agree and never will.

And stop making me agree with pj. Too damn early in the day for that.

 

[Billy T]

... Half the time, it's dumb luck. ..

And 49%of the time, they knew / were friends of / or relatives of / the "right" decision makers.