A thought experiment:
Let's say half of the population of the country is dying of a plague. There is a scientist who has a method, that
only he can perform, which will save all those people. If he refuses, or
stops once started, the people will die.
If that method includes killing the scientist, does the group have a right to force him to do it?
What if it involves the torture of the scientist for the rest of his long life?
What if they only have to imprison him for the rest of his life?
What if they only have to force him to work 12 hour days, 7 days /week for the rest of his life?
What about 8 hours/day?
What about 2 hours/day?
What if he only had to press a button once?
Does he have the right to refuse all together?
At what point does the imposition of the will of the masses, upon the individual, become slavery?
Whether or not he would voluntarily do these things is irrelevant. We are exploring his right to choose.
I submit that ANY
such imposition is slavery. The "common good" argument is just a rationalization to allow some degree of slavery in your society.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
An open letter to @twitter @support & Development
Dear Twitter Support & Development,
This letter is in regard to the increasing abuse of the "block and report for spam" function. It has become such a problem that at least two groups have sprung up to defend against the practice, #TGDN and #UniteBlue. Instead of requesting not to be contacted with posts with which the individual disagrees, or merely ignoring such posts, the trend has become to report the account of the individual for spam, when it is clearly not. Some accounts even actively draw others into conversations, with the aim of reporting them and getting those others suspended. This has got to stop.
Twitter has increasingly become an important venue for political expression. The ability of some to abuse the rules, to silence those with whom they disagree politically in such an important venue is not only damaging to political discourse as a whole, it damages the reputation of the Twitter brand, as people feel less free to express themselves, for fear of retaliation.
I have a few suggestions for features which will reduce the number of false reports & enable tweeps to express themselves freely, all while maintaining their ability to report true spammer accounts.
1) Limit the number of accounts that an individual can "report for spam". Let's say they get 2 "freebies" then they have to wait an hour, or fill out a captcha, to report another account.
2) Have the "report" button on the individual posts (not on the account), so a false report (abuse of reporting feature) will be obvious.
3) Add an "Ignore" feature, so that if you ignore someone, they cannot see any of your tweets, your lists, account, etc. nor can you see any of theirs. All you or they see is the avatar and a blank tweet. If you want to report for spam, you fill out a questionnaire. (This ignore feature would work much like /ignore from IRC.)
It is my hope that Twitter will begin to take the abuse of the reporting feature seriously so that everyone can have a more enjoyable twitter experience.
Thank you,
@copycat042
To others reading this, please RT and also copy the following & paste it in your TR, to draw Twitter's attention to it:
Open letter to @twitter @support on the abuse of Spam Reporting: http://tinyurl.com/a987upz
This letter is in regard to the increasing abuse of the "block and report for spam" function. It has become such a problem that at least two groups have sprung up to defend against the practice, #TGDN and #UniteBlue. Instead of requesting not to be contacted with posts with which the individual disagrees, or merely ignoring such posts, the trend has become to report the account of the individual for spam, when it is clearly not. Some accounts even actively draw others into conversations, with the aim of reporting them and getting those others suspended. This has got to stop.
Twitter has increasingly become an important venue for political expression. The ability of some to abuse the rules, to silence those with whom they disagree politically in such an important venue is not only damaging to political discourse as a whole, it damages the reputation of the Twitter brand, as people feel less free to express themselves, for fear of retaliation.
I have a few suggestions for features which will reduce the number of false reports & enable tweeps to express themselves freely, all while maintaining their ability to report true spammer accounts.
1) Limit the number of accounts that an individual can "report for spam". Let's say they get 2 "freebies" then they have to wait an hour, or fill out a captcha, to report another account.
2) Have the "report" button on the individual posts (not on the account), so a false report (abuse of reporting feature) will be obvious.
3) Add an "Ignore" feature, so that if you ignore someone, they cannot see any of your tweets, your lists, account, etc. nor can you see any of theirs. All you or they see is the avatar and a blank tweet. If you want to report for spam, you fill out a questionnaire. (This ignore feature would work much like /ignore from IRC.)
It is my hope that Twitter will begin to take the abuse of the reporting feature seriously so that everyone can have a more enjoyable twitter experience.
Thank you,
@copycat042
To others reading this, please RT and also copy the following & paste it in your TR, to draw Twitter's attention to it:
Open letter to @twitter @support on the abuse of Spam Reporting: http://tinyurl.com/a987upz
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
For frozak
>1. because the power to consume is more important than the actual savings in a consumer market,from each citizens perspective.
---false. savings drives investment in future consumpton. savings is just delayed consumption, it isn't "hoarding".
>when you measure what you can buy at a supermarket, it's based on your purchasing power, which remains unchanged at the lower levels.
---true, but purchasing power is irrelevant to property rights.
> It's just sympathetic to the way capitalism works.
---false. capitalism works by trading value for value.
>2. A flat tax of anything on lower classes does not take the rationale of ppp.
---because that rationale is based (apparently) on keynesianism, which does not take into account the higher order production, or labor in those markets.
>3. Because each individual is being taxed equally, just not on a value that is immediately apparent when you consider complex economies to just be barter systems alleviated by currency.
---no, they are being taxed according to a central authority's idea of "fairness" not justice. The Government is supposed to do its best to see individual (not social) justice done, not to make everything "fair" treating individuals differently according to arbitrary rules.
>4. Don't see what youre getting at
---already posted an explanation of says law.
---false. savings drives investment in future consumpton. savings is just delayed consumption, it isn't "hoarding".
>when you measure what you can buy at a supermarket, it's based on your purchasing power, which remains unchanged at the lower levels.
---true, but purchasing power is irrelevant to property rights.
> It's just sympathetic to the way capitalism works.
---false. capitalism works by trading value for value.
>2. A flat tax of anything on lower classes does not take the rationale of ppp.
---because that rationale is based (apparently) on keynesianism, which does not take into account the higher order production, or labor in those markets.
>3. Because each individual is being taxed equally, just not on a value that is immediately apparent when you consider complex economies to just be barter systems alleviated by currency.
---no, they are being taxed according to a central authority's idea of "fairness" not justice. The Government is supposed to do its best to see individual (not social) justice done, not to make everything "fair" treating individuals differently according to arbitrary rules.
>4. Don't see what youre getting at
---already posted an explanation of says law.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Failure as a Motivating Factor in Improving Educational Performance or... In Praise of the “C” Word
In 1991, Mary Sherry wrote an article for Newsweek magazine citing the poor results of our educational system. She blamed this poor outcome on the lack of motivation on the students' part to attempt to succeed, if failure is only a remote possibility. She cited policies which promote and even graduate students regardless of their performance or mastery of the subject material. In all these things, she is absolutely correct. There are, however, three groups of actors in this drama, not two. There are the parents, the educational system, and the students. Ms. Sherry, correctly , identified the ability of the teacher (as a representative of the educational system) to fail the student as a motivating factor to increase the student's level of performance. The meaningful ability of the parent to fail the educational system, in the form of a wider range of educational choices for their children, would motivate the educational system to improve its level of performance.
A parent's role in the educational system is analogous to that of the consumer in a marketplace. When the supplier provides a good or service which do not meet the demands of the consumer, that consumer is generally free to seek that good or service elsewhere, and therefore not benefit that supplier through trade. With the current American educational system, this is not the case. Not only is the consumption of the service (primary education) mandatory, the consumer has no meaningful way not to support those schools which do not satisfy their demands. Public schools are generally assigned by district and any tax breaks available to parents who choose private schools are much less valuable than the amount spent on students remaining within the unsatisfactory school. If the parents had the direct choice to take the funding which went to their child's education, from school A to school B, then school A would have an increased incentive to satisfy the demands of the parents, and improve the quality of the education.
The increased ability of the parent to choose which schools get funding automatically, and more efficiently, allocates the resources spent on the student's education. This is accomplished in three ways. The parents, not politicians, will be the judge of the quality of their child's education. Those schools with successful strategies will automatically get funding and those schools with failing strategies will automatically have their funding cut. This competition for the resources controlled by the consumer will improve the overall quality of education, as the bad schools are closed.
In 2004, congress enacted legislation, establishing the “DC Opportunity Scholarship Program”. This is a voucher program, designed to allow parents more choice in which schools their children attend, by putting some of the choices about funds which normally go to public schools, into those parents' hands. By all accounts, this program was a success. The number of vouchers was limited by random draw of applicants, which is unfortunate, but this produced three classes of students for data analysis. There were students who got vouchers, those who applied, but did not get vouchers, and those who did not apply. In 2010, Business Wire magazine published the results of a DOE study of this program, and its peripheral effects. The article quoted the study, saying, “Using a scholarship [voucher] increased the graduation rate by 21 percentage points.” This is not the difference between the students who got the vouchers and those who did not apply. This is the difference between those who applied and won, and those who applied and did not win vouchers. Not only did the students do better, The amount of the voucher was less than half the amount of funds spent on the average DCPS student. The article goes on, stating, ”A stunning 28 percent of D.C. public schools made definitive efforts to improve as a direct result of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the report revealed.” The introduction of choice, and therefore meaningful competition, increased the efficiency of providing an education and improved the average quality of the available educational choices.
Ms. Sherry's article was correct, as far as it went, but it did not go far enough in assigning culpability, and identifying all the incentives present in a primary student's education. The parent should be the primary decision maker, not the school, or a politician, when it comes to their child's education. Such models have been tried, and have yielded better results than the current system. Finally, the possibility of failure is only meaningful if you have the choice of methods by which to succeed.
Connelly, Mark. The Sundance Writer: A Rhetoric, Reader, Handbook. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2009. Print.
“D.C. School Voucher Program Boosts Graduation Rates, Students from Failing Schools Benefit.” Business Wire 22 June 2010. General OneFile. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
Friday, August 24, 2012
I am a Liberal Because:
- I believe that if people don't succeed it's always someone else's fault.
- we must always accept other cultures and always hate our own.
- I believe I am entitled to success even if I do nothing to achieve it.
- I know nothing of history and I refuse to learn from the mistakes of the present.
- when something SOUNDS good it must BE good.
- I'm entitled to the money you earned but you're not.
- I believe class warfare will lead to a better society.
- I want what you have but I don't want to do what you had to do to get it.
- anyone who is suffering is automatically a saint.
- anyone who is poor is automatically a victim.
- if it hurts my feelings it should be illegal.
- I hate myself and my country for reasons I don't understand and can't explain.
- "tolerance" means you must tolerate me but I will never tolerate you.
- I believe in freedom of speech... except for if you disagree with me.
- I have never had to fend for myself or earn what I have.
- it feels cool to yell slogans and pretend I know what's going on.
- I believe more rules and more government will always solve our problems.
- other people should be forced to live the way I tell them to live and think the things I want them to think.
- I know what's best for you and you don't.
- I believe people should be required to make the right decision under threat of prosecution.
- if conservatives do it it's oppressive fascism, if liberals do it it's enlightened progressivism.
- I'm afraid of responsibility.
- If you're successful and I'm not it's because of how evil you are, never because of how lazy or incompetent I am.
- we must always accept other cultures and always hate our own.
- I believe I am entitled to success even if I do nothing to achieve it.
- I know nothing of history and I refuse to learn from the mistakes of the present.
- when something SOUNDS good it must BE good.
- I'm entitled to the money you earned but you're not.
- I believe class warfare will lead to a better society.
- I want what you have but I don't want to do what you had to do to get it.
- anyone who is suffering is automatically a saint.
- anyone who is poor is automatically a victim.
- if it hurts my feelings it should be illegal.
- I hate myself and my country for reasons I don't understand and can't explain.
- "tolerance" means you must tolerate me but I will never tolerate you.
- I believe in freedom of speech... except for if you disagree with me.
- I have never had to fend for myself or earn what I have.
- it feels cool to yell slogans and pretend I know what's going on.
- I believe more rules and more government will always solve our problems.
- other people should be forced to live the way I tell them to live and think the things I want them to think.
- I know what's best for you and you don't.
- I believe people should be required to make the right decision under threat of prosecution.
- if conservatives do it it's oppressive fascism, if liberals do it it's enlightened progressivism.
- I'm afraid of responsibility.
- If you're successful and I'm not it's because of how evil you are, never because of how lazy or incompetent I am.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Libertarianism for Dummies by: Max Borders
Max Borders is a 2011-12 Robert Novak Fellow
His original article can be found at:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/
I have reproduced it here to put it all on one page.
There is no denying it. Libertarianism is hot. This has a lot of people on both the left and right nervous. Some of the territory liberals and conservatives believed they had staked out long ago is being taken over by a new center — one that seems to borrow from aspects of each of the dominant partisan tribes. But libertarianism has its own elegant symmetry, as we’ll see.
The two tribes’ anxiety toward libertarianism rears its head in a number of ways. Most critics stitch together libertarian voodoo dolls from scraps of hearsay and Newsweek articles, then needle the dolls to get a reaction. Others say libertarianism is passé — a mere echo of discredited Enlightenment thinking. Still others claim libertarianism is a dogma that could never exist in the “real world.”
This article is intended as a general antidote to these criticisms. But more than that, it’s an invitation. So feel free to bookmark it. Whenever one of your social network “friends” starts in on some rant, you can save time and simply link to this piece.
1. Myth: Libertarianism is about blind faith in market processes.
Libertarianism starts with skepticism about government power, not faith in markets. Because markets are just an abstraction, what we’re really talking about is decentralized people power. We do have faith in people because people can and do solve problems. Governments are people, too, of course. So the most basic question is: which form of organization does a better job of solving problems and making the world a better place — centralized organization or decentralized? In other words, why do libertarians prefer market processes to government power in most areas? Libertarians are skeptical of government power not merely because of Lord Acton’s admonition about “absolute power.” We also think voluntary association is pro-social.
When people work together voluntarily, they:
1) Have better incentives to achieve their goals — both private and common;
2) Don’t coerce each other, they convince each other (and persuasion is better than power);
3) Are the stuff of real economies and real communities, not some political contrivance;
4) Can more easily exit a group or a set of rules in order to try something new;
5) Tend to pay closer attention to those around them — like their family, neighbors and community.
2. Myth: Libertarians think there should be no government.
Some libertarians engage in philosophical debates about the possibility of no government. But most libertarians believe government should be restricted to certain basic things — namely those things that protect you and your neighbor’s life, liberty and property. So what are those things? Courts to settle disputes, enforce contracts and administer justice. A solid national defense should resist adventurism. A police force should protect us, but with limited powers and responsibilities. Any other purported responsibilities of government — like building roads and bridges — should at least be pushed down to the most local level possible. Big plans fail big. Small experiments fail small. Successful small experiments can be replicated after a process of trial and error.
3. Myth: Libertarians are selfish.
Some libertarians are selfish, but libertarians are no more likely to be selfish than non-libertarians. You see, libertarians don’t think compassion is something you leave at the voting booth. And if it’s compulsory, it’s not really compassion at all, is it? Self-interest is certainly a part of our worldview. To deny one’s natural inclinations toward pursuing happiness is just kooky asceticism (unless, of course, asceticism somehow makes you happy.) We also know prosperity is the result of “selfish” people going about their business — trucking, bartering and trading.
But people have selfless instincts, too. So how should people manifest those instincts, by actively looking after our neighbors or by watching MSNBC and bitching about the rich? Libertarians are charitable to the extent that human beings are charitable. We happen to think individuals are better at making decisions about charity than central authorities. In fact, we consider it morally lazy to conflate higher taxes and forced redistribution with compassion. And we consider it strange to justify coercion by appeal to compassion. Think about it: Would it be morally justified for me to walk up to a man on the street and hold him up at gunpoint if I planned to give his money to charity? If not, what does a mob of voters and a corruptible legislature add to this story?
4. Myth: Libertarians don’t care if poor people (especially children) starve and sick people die.
In the interests of some grand compromise, most libertarians would tolerate some sort of minimum income or safety net — but it would look nothing like the monstrous entitlement system we have today. I don’t want to be flippant. I’m using strong language because today’s entitlement state is truly monstrous. It creates a dependent underclass — i.e., folks essentially paid to be poor. Bizarrely, it forces younger, poorer people to pay for the pensions (Social Security) and healthcare of rich people in Boca Raton. And it corrupts/crowds out the philanthropic sector. Helping the poor with welfare is like putting out a fire with sweet crude.
5. Myth: Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want.
No. Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as: they don’t harm others or others’ property; they are not contractually bound to forego certain activities; and their own freely chosen moral systems don’t proscribe it. On the latter: I know quite a few Mormon libertarians. They swear off caffeine, tobacco and alcohol. (These are some of my favorite vices!) But most Mormons don’t see it as the state’s responsibility to take care of my body or my spirit. It’s mine. By Mormon lights, I have to choose the straight and narrow for it to matter. Moral practice is both a private and social affair, to be sure. But “social” doesn’t extend to state power. It’s about the free formation of moral communities. What other kind of morality is there but the kind one chooses? State-enforced “good” has always ended up in varying degrees being on the wrong side of history — from the Inquisition to the Great Leap Forward. That is why, for libertarians, tolerance is a prime virtue.
6. Myth: Libertarians have a narrow “don’t tread on me” ethos.
Well, this isn’t a complete myth. Let’s just say it’s a myth of omission — that is, only part of the story. It’s true that in our guts we don’t want anyone to tell us what to do. We don’t think anyone should decide what we may put into our bodies, how to spend our money, or how to live our lives. We don’t want to be used as slave labor for all or part of the year. I guess we could be accused of sounding like most teenagers — only with a big caveat about personal responsibility.
But if we look at the whole libertarian ethos, we can see a corollary to the Gadsden flag motto: “Don’t tread on others.” In other words, Rabbi Hillel the Elder had it right more than 2,000 years ago when he said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” On the other side of the world (at probably the exact same time) Lao-Tzu warned: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” It’s not that hard to understand why. If more people adhered to the “don’t tread” principle as a matter of ethics and of policy, there would be less treading-upon in the world. Far from being based in some Enlightenment fancy or tea party slogan, libertarianism is rooted in ancient truths about how people can achieve social harmony and prosperity.
7. Myth: Libertarians are corporate apologists.
To quote Bugs Bunny: “Eh, he don’t know me very well, do he?”
Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, James Madison to James Buchanan, and Frederic Bastiat to Friedrich Hayek have been warning us about corporations since there were corporations. It’s not that corporations are evil per se, however. Companies are just people cooperating for common goals. Bad things happen when corporations collude with the state against the people. When you hear the words “crony capitalism,” there is a 95 percent chance that’s coming from the mouth of a libertarian. That’s because liberals, conservatives and populists cannot so easily distance themselves from it. The left has had its Solyndras. The right has had its Halliburtons. Both tribes have had their banksters. And libertarians have had enough. We believe cronyism will destroy this Republic as surely as it destroyed Rome.
8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here’s a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights
9. Myth: Libertarianism is untried and would never work.
I have two responses to this myth: The first is: “So you think this is working?” The second is: History has shown that, by degrees, the freer the people, the happier and more prosperous they are. I can say all of this with confidence because there is a strong correlation between freedom and prosperity. Just look at examples in the Fraser and Heritage economic freedom indices.
Now, if we thought something wouldn’t work because it was untried, we would not have most of the good things we enjoy today. Try telling Tim Berners-Lee circa 1988 that the Internet would never work: A fully decentralized information network used by billions of free people around the world without central control? My God, it’s untried!
10. Myth: Libertarianism is a “materialistic” worldview.
Saved this one for last. In fact, one of my friends skewered this turkey in his new book with great finesse: “‘Materialist values’ is a vague term, but if — as seems to be the case — [E.J.] Dionne thinks the chief justification for capitalism is that it generates lots of stuff for consumers, he’s mistaken,” writes Donald Boudreaux.
But, but …
I can hear all the “buts” now. People should ask themselves three fundamental questions before launching into any critique of libertarianism:
1.) In your heart, do you prefer persuasion and cooperation over power and coercion? If no, then read no further. If yes …
2.) In forming your opinions about the role of government — whatever they are — have you exhausted every other means of achieving some good end before turning to state coercion? If no, then try being more creative and entrepreneurial before rashly turning to power. If yes …
3.) Are you even a little closer to understanding the libertarian worldview than you were before?
Max Borders is author of the forthcoming “Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.” Contact him if you want a reminder when the book is out.
His original article can be found at:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/
I have reproduced it here to put it all on one page.
There is no denying it. Libertarianism is hot. This has a lot of people on both the left and right nervous. Some of the territory liberals and conservatives believed they had staked out long ago is being taken over by a new center — one that seems to borrow from aspects of each of the dominant partisan tribes. But libertarianism has its own elegant symmetry, as we’ll see.
The two tribes’ anxiety toward libertarianism rears its head in a number of ways. Most critics stitch together libertarian voodoo dolls from scraps of hearsay and Newsweek articles, then needle the dolls to get a reaction. Others say libertarianism is passé — a mere echo of discredited Enlightenment thinking. Still others claim libertarianism is a dogma that could never exist in the “real world.”
This article is intended as a general antidote to these criticisms. But more than that, it’s an invitation. So feel free to bookmark it. Whenever one of your social network “friends” starts in on some rant, you can save time and simply link to this piece.
1. Myth: Libertarianism is about blind faith in market processes.
Libertarianism starts with skepticism about government power, not faith in markets. Because markets are just an abstraction, what we’re really talking about is decentralized people power. We do have faith in people because people can and do solve problems. Governments are people, too, of course. So the most basic question is: which form of organization does a better job of solving problems and making the world a better place — centralized organization or decentralized? In other words, why do libertarians prefer market processes to government power in most areas? Libertarians are skeptical of government power not merely because of Lord Acton’s admonition about “absolute power.” We also think voluntary association is pro-social.
When people work together voluntarily, they:
1) Have better incentives to achieve their goals — both private and common;
2) Don’t coerce each other, they convince each other (and persuasion is better than power);
3) Are the stuff of real economies and real communities, not some political contrivance;
4) Can more easily exit a group or a set of rules in order to try something new;
5) Tend to pay closer attention to those around them — like their family, neighbors and community.
2. Myth: Libertarians think there should be no government.
Some libertarians engage in philosophical debates about the possibility of no government. But most libertarians believe government should be restricted to certain basic things — namely those things that protect you and your neighbor’s life, liberty and property. So what are those things? Courts to settle disputes, enforce contracts and administer justice. A solid national defense should resist adventurism. A police force should protect us, but with limited powers and responsibilities. Any other purported responsibilities of government — like building roads and bridges — should at least be pushed down to the most local level possible. Big plans fail big. Small experiments fail small. Successful small experiments can be replicated after a process of trial and error.
3. Myth: Libertarians are selfish.
Some libertarians are selfish, but libertarians are no more likely to be selfish than non-libertarians. You see, libertarians don’t think compassion is something you leave at the voting booth. And if it’s compulsory, it’s not really compassion at all, is it? Self-interest is certainly a part of our worldview. To deny one’s natural inclinations toward pursuing happiness is just kooky asceticism (unless, of course, asceticism somehow makes you happy.) We also know prosperity is the result of “selfish” people going about their business — trucking, bartering and trading.
But people have selfless instincts, too. So how should people manifest those instincts, by actively looking after our neighbors or by watching MSNBC and bitching about the rich? Libertarians are charitable to the extent that human beings are charitable. We happen to think individuals are better at making decisions about charity than central authorities. In fact, we consider it morally lazy to conflate higher taxes and forced redistribution with compassion. And we consider it strange to justify coercion by appeal to compassion. Think about it: Would it be morally justified for me to walk up to a man on the street and hold him up at gunpoint if I planned to give his money to charity? If not, what does a mob of voters and a corruptible legislature add to this story?
4. Myth: Libertarians don’t care if poor people (especially children) starve and sick people die.
In the interests of some grand compromise, most libertarians would tolerate some sort of minimum income or safety net — but it would look nothing like the monstrous entitlement system we have today. I don’t want to be flippant. I’m using strong language because today’s entitlement state is truly monstrous. It creates a dependent underclass — i.e., folks essentially paid to be poor. Bizarrely, it forces younger, poorer people to pay for the pensions (Social Security) and healthcare of rich people in Boca Raton. And it corrupts/crowds out the philanthropic sector. Helping the poor with welfare is like putting out a fire with sweet crude.
5. Myth: Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want.
No. Libertarians think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as: they don’t harm others or others’ property; they are not contractually bound to forego certain activities; and their own freely chosen moral systems don’t proscribe it. On the latter: I know quite a few Mormon libertarians. They swear off caffeine, tobacco and alcohol. (These are some of my favorite vices!) But most Mormons don’t see it as the state’s responsibility to take care of my body or my spirit. It’s mine. By Mormon lights, I have to choose the straight and narrow for it to matter. Moral practice is both a private and social affair, to be sure. But “social” doesn’t extend to state power. It’s about the free formation of moral communities. What other kind of morality is there but the kind one chooses? State-enforced “good” has always ended up in varying degrees being on the wrong side of history — from the Inquisition to the Great Leap Forward. That is why, for libertarians, tolerance is a prime virtue.
6. Myth: Libertarians have a narrow “don’t tread on me” ethos.
Well, this isn’t a complete myth. Let’s just say it’s a myth of omission — that is, only part of the story. It’s true that in our guts we don’t want anyone to tell us what to do. We don’t think anyone should decide what we may put into our bodies, how to spend our money, or how to live our lives. We don’t want to be used as slave labor for all or part of the year. I guess we could be accused of sounding like most teenagers — only with a big caveat about personal responsibility.
But if we look at the whole libertarian ethos, we can see a corollary to the Gadsden flag motto: “Don’t tread on others.” In other words, Rabbi Hillel the Elder had it right more than 2,000 years ago when he said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” On the other side of the world (at probably the exact same time) Lao-Tzu warned: “The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished. … The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be.” It’s not that hard to understand why. If more people adhered to the “don’t tread” principle as a matter of ethics and of policy, there would be less treading-upon in the world. Far from being based in some Enlightenment fancy or tea party slogan, libertarianism is rooted in ancient truths about how people can achieve social harmony and prosperity.
7. Myth: Libertarians are corporate apologists.
To quote Bugs Bunny: “Eh, he don’t know me very well, do he?”
Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, James Madison to James Buchanan, and Frederic Bastiat to Friedrich Hayek have been warning us about corporations since there were corporations. It’s not that corporations are evil per se, however. Companies are just people cooperating for common goals. Bad things happen when corporations collude with the state against the people. When you hear the words “crony capitalism,” there is a 95 percent chance that’s coming from the mouth of a libertarian. That’s because liberals, conservatives and populists cannot so easily distance themselves from it. The left has had its Solyndras. The right has had its Halliburtons. Both tribes have had their banksters. And libertarians have had enough. We believe cronyism will destroy this Republic as surely as it destroyed Rome.
8. Myth: Libertarians agree on everything.
Here’s a mini top ten list of things about which libertarians are fairly divided:
1.) Immigration
2.) Austrian or Chicago economics
3.) Abortion
4.) Origin of rights
5.) The status of children and teenagers
6.) War and pacifism
7.) Strategy of reform
8.) Tactics of reform
9.) Whether to compromise
10.) Intellectual property rights
9. Myth: Libertarianism is untried and would never work.
I have two responses to this myth: The first is: “So you think this is working?” The second is: History has shown that, by degrees, the freer the people, the happier and more prosperous they are. I can say all of this with confidence because there is a strong correlation between freedom and prosperity. Just look at examples in the Fraser and Heritage economic freedom indices.
Now, if we thought something wouldn’t work because it was untried, we would not have most of the good things we enjoy today. Try telling Tim Berners-Lee circa 1988 that the Internet would never work: A fully decentralized information network used by billions of free people around the world without central control? My God, it’s untried!
10. Myth: Libertarianism is a “materialistic” worldview.
Saved this one for last. In fact, one of my friends skewered this turkey in his new book with great finesse: “‘Materialist values’ is a vague term, but if — as seems to be the case — [E.J.] Dionne thinks the chief justification for capitalism is that it generates lots of stuff for consumers, he’s mistaken,” writes Donald Boudreaux.
While capitalism emphatically does improve material living standards, all the great champions of economic freedom (a.k.a. capitalism) ultimately justify this system because only it affords true dignity to individuals — the dignity that is denied by interventionist systems which arbitrarily diminish each person’s freedom to choose. For “Progressives” such as Mr. Dionne not to share the value of freedom is fine. But it’s rather cheeky to accuse, with one breath, proponents of capitalism of being unduly focused on material goods, and with the next breath to insist that a major problem with capitalism is that some people get fewer material goods than do other people.Professor Boudreaux nails it. What we do with what’s left of our freedom may be materialistic, may be intellectual, and may even be spiritual. But it is not materialism that grounds our worldview. It is rather the powerful and ennobling idea that people are creative beings who should have the maximum possible latitude to pursue diverse conceptions of happiness and the good.
But, but …
I can hear all the “buts” now. People should ask themselves three fundamental questions before launching into any critique of libertarianism:
1.) In your heart, do you prefer persuasion and cooperation over power and coercion? If no, then read no further. If yes …
2.) In forming your opinions about the role of government — whatever they are — have you exhausted every other means of achieving some good end before turning to state coercion? If no, then try being more creative and entrepreneurial before rashly turning to power. If yes …
3.) Are you even a little closer to understanding the libertarian worldview than you were before?
Max Borders is author of the forthcoming “Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.” Contact him if you want a reminder when the book is out.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
An explanation of interest
The Creature From Jekyll Island (pp. 191-192):
WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this proc-
ess is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you-and all others with similar loans- can possibly payoff your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for
you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.
This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job.
The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit
each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and-this is the point-the
money you receive is the same money which you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.
It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank and its ultimate destination is a bank.
The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for
the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.
WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this proc-
ess is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you-and all others with similar loans- can possibly payoff your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for
you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt.
This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job.
The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit
each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and-this is the point-the
money you receive is the same money which you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment.
It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank and its ultimate destination is a bank.
The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for
the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Copycat's Guide to Left-Wing Troll Hunting.
(from an old forum post)
If you spend much time in political forums, or any forum, really, you have no doubt encountered that bane of rational thought and discussion, the Troll. This is a creature who feeds off the chaos and discord caused by his thoughtless, and irrational posts. Wikipedia defines a Troll as:
"someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Some have slightly different definitions, but that one covers the basics.
For more information, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
The aim of these guidelines is to help you deal with a particular species of troll, the liberal-progressive (LP) political troll (Trollus liberalus-ignoramous).
To Identify this type, we will start with the most obvious aspects, and work to the most subtle. This is because there are differing levels of the manefestation of the characteristics, and it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish a liberal troll from a well-meaning, but mentally deficient human liberal,or a true liberal (see Dr. Rubenproven's work on the subject)
an LP troll may:
-Attack the character of the other participants, or call them names.
-Ignore sited information and scientific proofs as "conservative propaganda"(see climategate)
-Blame Bush (whether Bush has any bearing on the matter or not)
-Change the subject of the debate. This happens when the troll nears his "blank out" point (the point at which any logic the troll's argument had deviates from his rhetoric) or when the consequences go beyond the 1 or 2 steps that the troll has considered (google unintended consequences for examples).
Remember, the troll feeds off emotional response. So NEVER show emotion. Structure your arguments logically, never accept a faulty premise, and most of all, have fun. Troll hunting can be a good oppurtunity to hone your debating skills, while impressing the other participants of the community.
Here are some methods to use when troll hunting.
-Stick to answering 1 thread and subject at a time. Don't let the opponent shift the subject.
-Whenever possible, argue the underlying principle instead of the specific issue. using extreme examples of the principle behind your opponent's argument, you force him to either admit the absurdity, or defend it.
-Try to form questions in the form: "why should you do x for me?" This forces him to defend his premise while fighting his own inate selfishness.
-If the opponent makes a good specific point which conflicts with principle, acknowledge the point, but point out the conflict.
-Try to set ground rules with your opponent, and point out violations.
-Try to get the opponent to agree on a premise, then show how their argument contradicts the premise they agreed to.
-Use sarcasm, silliness, or ridicule sparingly, if at all.
-Never attack your opponent, attack his argument. No name calling.
-Whenever possible, use the "desert island" analogy. This gets all "laws" out of the way, and forces the consideration of only the rights involved.
-Everything can be related to the free market, you just have to follow the logic to its conclusion.
-Point out that every person will act in a way to increase his happiness, even if he considers that happiness to be the "warm fuzzy feeling" of helping his fellow man. Some consider wealth as happiness.
Most importantly, NEVER call a troll a troll. This is what they want, and counts as name calling. If you do this, you have lost the argument and the troll has just had a hearty meal that will sustain him for many posts to come.
I hope this guide helps you to understand and defeat the next troll you encounter. It could save your sanity.
If you spend much time in political forums, or any forum, really, you have no doubt encountered that bane of rational thought and discussion, the Troll. This is a creature who feeds off the chaos and discord caused by his thoughtless, and irrational posts. Wikipedia defines a Troll as:
"someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Some have slightly different definitions, but that one covers the basics.
For more information, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
The aim of these guidelines is to help you deal with a particular species of troll, the liberal-progressive (LP) political troll (Trollus liberalus-ignoramous).
To Identify this type, we will start with the most obvious aspects, and work to the most subtle. This is because there are differing levels of the manefestation of the characteristics, and it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish a liberal troll from a well-meaning, but mentally deficient human liberal,or a true liberal (see Dr. Rubenproven's work on the subject)
an LP troll may:
-Attack the character of the other participants, or call them names.
-Ignore sited information and scientific proofs as "conservative propaganda"(see climategate)
-Blame Bush (whether Bush has any bearing on the matter or not)
-Change the subject of the debate. This happens when the troll nears his "blank out" point (the point at which any logic the troll's argument had deviates from his rhetoric) or when the consequences go beyond the 1 or 2 steps that the troll has considered (google unintended consequences for examples).
Remember, the troll feeds off emotional response. So NEVER show emotion. Structure your arguments logically, never accept a faulty premise, and most of all, have fun. Troll hunting can be a good oppurtunity to hone your debating skills, while impressing the other participants of the community.
Here are some methods to use when troll hunting.
-Stick to answering 1 thread and subject at a time. Don't let the opponent shift the subject.
-Whenever possible, argue the underlying principle instead of the specific issue. using extreme examples of the principle behind your opponent's argument, you force him to either admit the absurdity, or defend it.
-Try to form questions in the form: "why should you do x for me?" This forces him to defend his premise while fighting his own inate selfishness.
-If the opponent makes a good specific point which conflicts with principle, acknowledge the point, but point out the conflict.
-Try to set ground rules with your opponent, and point out violations.
-Try to get the opponent to agree on a premise, then show how their argument contradicts the premise they agreed to.
-Use sarcasm, silliness, or ridicule sparingly, if at all.
-Never attack your opponent, attack his argument. No name calling.
-Whenever possible, use the "desert island" analogy. This gets all "laws" out of the way, and forces the consideration of only the rights involved.
-Everything can be related to the free market, you just have to follow the logic to its conclusion.
-Point out that every person will act in a way to increase his happiness, even if he considers that happiness to be the "warm fuzzy feeling" of helping his fellow man. Some consider wealth as happiness.
Most importantly, NEVER call a troll a troll. This is what they want, and counts as name calling. If you do this, you have lost the argument and the troll has just had a hearty meal that will sustain him for many posts to come.
I hope this guide helps you to understand and defeat the next troll you encounter. It could save your sanity.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
How broccoli IS like health insurance
There has been some talk (and much ridicule) about Justice Scalia's use of the "broccoli defense". Proponents of the Affordable Care Act have used the argument that health insurance is different, because not buying health insurance raises the cost because of the increased average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to those who wish to buy insurance. They argue that not buying broccoli decreases the price because it signals decreased demand. To which, I quote Bastiat, "Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
Let us say that I am a health enthusiast, exercising, eating healthy foods, working hard to avoid all manner of risk to my life and health. Let us say that you take no greater care than that of the average person for your health. You are slightly overweight, you rarely exercise, in any meaningful sense, your diet is just slightly, but not too far on the unhealthy side. Also, you HATE broccoli.
Assuming the ACA is in effect:
By not taking active care of your health, you are increasing the average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to the other members who are forced to purchase the insurance. This is the same exact argument used to mandate the purchase of the insurance, in the first place. This argument could also be used to justify mandating that you exercise, outlawing activities which might injure you, outlawing (or taxing) certain foods that you enjoy and forcing you to not only buy, but eat, more healthy foods, including your hated, broccoli.
Let us say that I am a health enthusiast, exercising, eating healthy foods, working hard to avoid all manner of risk to my life and health. Let us say that you take no greater care than that of the average person for your health. You are slightly overweight, you rarely exercise, in any meaningful sense, your diet is just slightly, but not too far on the unhealthy side. Also, you HATE broccoli.
Assuming the ACA is in effect:
By not taking active care of your health, you are increasing the average risk of the pool, and therefore the cost to the other members who are forced to purchase the insurance. This is the same exact argument used to mandate the purchase of the insurance, in the first place. This argument could also be used to justify mandating that you exercise, outlawing activities which might injure you, outlawing (or taxing) certain foods that you enjoy and forcing you to not only buy, but eat, more healthy foods, including your hated, broccoli.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Healthcare Reform: A framework
1. Make it easy to start an unlimited, tax free medical savings account (minimal paperwork). This encourages those who can, to save for their own routine medical care.
2. Prohibit full coverage of medical bills under 10k(yearly). This encourages the patient to pay attention to the cost of his care, but allows for serious conditions to be addressed before they become catastrophic.
3. Prohibit coverage of doctor visits. This forces patients to pay attention to the cost of their routine care and shop around for the best value, lowering prices as doctors compete for patients.
4. Tax forgiveness for donations to medical charities, similar to the school choice scholarship vouchers in Arizona.[1] These charities might use means testing to ensure that the person is not scamming the system (you prove you need help). This allows a taxpayer to direct his tax money directly to funding the medical care of others. Charities should be prohibited from using more than 10% of donations on administration and other costs. This takes care of those who cannot afford routine care, and could possibly pay for catastrophic insurance (or care) for those in need.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice#Tuition_tax_credits_2
2. Prohibit full coverage of medical bills under 10k(yearly). This encourages the patient to pay attention to the cost of his care, but allows for serious conditions to be addressed before they become catastrophic.
3. Prohibit coverage of doctor visits. This forces patients to pay attention to the cost of their routine care and shop around for the best value, lowering prices as doctors compete for patients.
4. Tax forgiveness for donations to medical charities, similar to the school choice scholarship vouchers in Arizona.[1] These charities might use means testing to ensure that the person is not scamming the system (you prove you need help). This allows a taxpayer to direct his tax money directly to funding the medical care of others. Charities should be prohibited from using more than 10% of donations on administration and other costs. This takes care of those who cannot afford routine care, and could possibly pay for catastrophic insurance (or care) for those in need.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice#Tuition_tax_credits_2
An Obamacare Riddle
If everyone must get health insurance, or pay a penalty, and the legal rationale for this mandate is that everyone enters the health care market and either has insurance, or costs others (free rider).
If I am wealthy enough to self insure (I keep money in reserve to pay for all my health care costs), the "free rider" argument cannot be applied to me, because I transfer no burden to others when I use healthcare. I therefore do not affect interstate commerce (as argued by the government) beforehand (I am not purchasing anything), or after the fact (I transfer no burden to others).
I also have not purchased a government approved healthcare policy, an offense, for which others are subject to a penalty.
If the government's argument for their power to regulate non activity as commerce does not apply to me, then I am not subject to the law, because it is (by their own argument) beyond their authority to apply it to me. If I am not subject to the law, and another person is subject to the law, then it is a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains the clause:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If I am, subject to the penalty and the law, regardless of the government's authority to apply it to me, then it violates the "without due process" clause of the same amendment.
Assume that I do not qualify for a waiver.
Question:
Am I subject to the penalty, and therefore the law?
If I am wealthy enough to self insure (I keep money in reserve to pay for all my health care costs), the "free rider" argument cannot be applied to me, because I transfer no burden to others when I use healthcare. I therefore do not affect interstate commerce (as argued by the government) beforehand (I am not purchasing anything), or after the fact (I transfer no burden to others).
I also have not purchased a government approved healthcare policy, an offense, for which others are subject to a penalty.
If the government's argument for their power to regulate non activity as commerce does not apply to me, then I am not subject to the law, because it is (by their own argument) beyond their authority to apply it to me. If I am not subject to the law, and another person is subject to the law, then it is a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains the clause:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
If I am, subject to the penalty and the law, regardless of the government's authority to apply it to me, then it violates the "without due process" clause of the same amendment.
Assume that I do not qualify for a waiver.
Question:
Am I subject to the penalty, and therefore the law?
Friday, July 2, 2010
for cM0SS (on the constitution)
The US constitution is unique in that it recognizes the sovereignty of the individual _over_ the government, and that the government derives any authority it has from the consent of the governed. It also recognized the flow of authority from God to the people to the government instead of the traditional God to government to the people.
A constitution for any nation is the codification of the powers of the government as granted by the people to be governed. The truth of the consent given by the governed varies from country to country. The structure of the US constitution is such that it is set up to be a document which strictly limits the power of the federal government to act, and enumerates the manner and methods (the powers) which are usable by that government. It also specifically limits the powers of the federal government to the enumerated powers in the 10th amendment. The 9th amendment specifically states that the people and the states retain any and all rights and powers which are not enumerated in the constitution.
There are procedures for amending the constitution, and granting additional powers, or taking powers from the government, but unless a particular power is granted, in the manner prescribed, the government DOES NOT have the authority to carry out that power.
A constitution for any nation is the codification of the powers of the government as granted by the people to be governed. The truth of the consent given by the governed varies from country to country. The structure of the US constitution is such that it is set up to be a document which strictly limits the power of the federal government to act, and enumerates the manner and methods (the powers) which are usable by that government. It also specifically limits the powers of the federal government to the enumerated powers in the 10th amendment. The 9th amendment specifically states that the people and the states retain any and all rights and powers which are not enumerated in the constitution.
There are procedures for amending the constitution, and granting additional powers, or taking powers from the government, but unless a particular power is granted, in the manner prescribed, the government DOES NOT have the authority to carry out that power.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Our government is like a game of baseball.
Think of the constitution as the equipment and the field at a baseball game. Think of our system of laws as the rules of that game. The whole makes up our government. So long as the rules make sense within the context of the game (designated hitter rule, or a mercy rule) the game will go pretty smoothly. If you try to institute rules that do not make sense within the context of the game (laws that are unconstitutional) The game will start to break down. For example, if you make a rule that a field goal is to be kicked after a player carrying the ball enters the end zone, the rule is meaningless and disruptive, unless, you also change the field (amend the constitution) to include a goal post, and an end zone. If you try to change the rules (change the laws through redefining the terms and legislating from the bench) do redefine home base as the end zone,or the foul lines as the goal posts, you change the entire nature of the game. Changing the rules is easy. Changing the field is purposely difficult.
This is the problem we find ourselves with. The federal government has been changing the rules, without changing the field, for so long that you can hardly recognize the game.
This is the problem we find ourselves with. The federal government has been changing the rules, without changing the field, for so long that you can hardly recognize the game.
Frank's brick.
On Private insurance:
Imagine that the risk and financial responsibility for an injury or disease is a brick. Each person carries a certain number of bricks (the number is different for everyone) just because they are alive. Some people increase or decrease their own number of bricks by choosing to engage in risky activities (or not), or eating healthy (or not), or any of a thousand ways to increase or decrease their risk. It is the responsibility of each person to carry their own bricks. It is acceptable for someone to voluntarily carry some of another person's bricks. Now let us say that Joe gets the idea that he can earn money carrying bricks for another person. So he saves his own money (or gets other people to chip in) and buys a wheelbarrow. People then pay Joe to carry some of their bricks. Joe pays some of this money to fix (health care) the bricks that turn out to be bad (the illness or injury happened) and he keeps the rest of the money. The business model is:
"Joe carrys some of your bricks, you pay Joe for this service. If Joe is carrying one of your bad bricks, then Joe pays to fix it, if not, you pay to fix it. "
This is how private insurance works.
On denial of coverage:
If joe thinks some of your bricks are bad (you have high risk factors), then he may choose to charge you more to carry those bricks, or refuse to carry those bricks at all, because his service is voluntary.
On preexisting conditions:
If one of the bricks you are still carrying is bad, it is not Joe's responsibility to pay to fix that brick. If you knowingly give Joe a bad brick (preexisting condition), then he is not responsible for paying to fix it.
On the health care industry:
Tom has a business repairing bad bricks (providing health care). It cost him a certain amount for supplies (facilities, insurance and staff) to fix bricks. He charges a certain amount for certain repairs, pays for the supplies, and keeps the rest as profit.
On medical repricing:
Now, since Joe sees a lot of bricks, and has to visit Tom, the brick fixer, he makes a voluntary deal with Tom to give him a volume discount on his's services. Since Joe is a good customer and brings in lots of business, Tom agrees to charge him at a lower rate. Tom even gets the idea to offer this discount to other people directly, in exchange for a small regular fee. He is trading occasional high profit for a steady lower Profit.
On the uninsured or self insured:
Suzie decides that she does not want Joe's services. She earns enough money to put aside some of it to pay for fixing her own bad bricks (she is self insured).
Frank cannot afford to pay anyone to carry his bricks (he is uninsured), so if he has a bad brick, he will have to pay to have that brick fixed. We will assume that it is not frank's fault that his brick broke, and no one else broke his brick (if they had, they would have to pay to fix it).
Imagine that the risk and financial responsibility for an injury or disease is a brick. Each person carries a certain number of bricks (the number is different for everyone) just because they are alive. Some people increase or decrease their own number of bricks by choosing to engage in risky activities (or not), or eating healthy (or not), or any of a thousand ways to increase or decrease their risk. It is the responsibility of each person to carry their own bricks. It is acceptable for someone to voluntarily carry some of another person's bricks. Now let us say that Joe gets the idea that he can earn money carrying bricks for another person. So he saves his own money (or gets other people to chip in) and buys a wheelbarrow. People then pay Joe to carry some of their bricks. Joe pays some of this money to fix (health care) the bricks that turn out to be bad (the illness or injury happened) and he keeps the rest of the money. The business model is:
"Joe carrys some of your bricks, you pay Joe for this service. If Joe is carrying one of your bad bricks, then Joe pays to fix it, if not, you pay to fix it. "
This is how private insurance works.
On denial of coverage:
If joe thinks some of your bricks are bad (you have high risk factors), then he may choose to charge you more to carry those bricks, or refuse to carry those bricks at all, because his service is voluntary.
On preexisting conditions:
If one of the bricks you are still carrying is bad, it is not Joe's responsibility to pay to fix that brick. If you knowingly give Joe a bad brick (preexisting condition), then he is not responsible for paying to fix it.
On the health care industry:
Tom has a business repairing bad bricks (providing health care). It cost him a certain amount for supplies (facilities, insurance and staff) to fix bricks. He charges a certain amount for certain repairs, pays for the supplies, and keeps the rest as profit.
On medical repricing:
Now, since Joe sees a lot of bricks, and has to visit Tom, the brick fixer, he makes a voluntary deal with Tom to give him a volume discount on his's services. Since Joe is a good customer and brings in lots of business, Tom agrees to charge him at a lower rate. Tom even gets the idea to offer this discount to other people directly, in exchange for a small regular fee. He is trading occasional high profit for a steady lower Profit.
On the uninsured or self insured:
Suzie decides that she does not want Joe's services. She earns enough money to put aside some of it to pay for fixing her own bad bricks (she is self insured).
Frank cannot afford to pay anyone to carry his bricks (he is uninsured), so if he has a bad brick, he will have to pay to have that brick fixed. We will assume that it is not frank's fault that his brick broke, and no one else broke his brick (if they had, they would have to pay to fix it).
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Debating welfare:
When debating against various forms of welfare, with liberals, I have found a few common themes in their arguments for these programs. Here's the short list:
1. "Welfare payments keep the poor from rioting for food and other resources."
2. "The taxes that go to pay for welfare are 'payment' for living in society."
3. "It is 'immoral' for someone to buy when that money could go to save a sick child"
When all these arguments fail to convince me that stealing from some people to pay for resources for other people is a good idea, most will fall back on #4:
4. "you are a mean and nasty person, if you don't want to help the 'needy'." (this is the "I'm losing the argument, so I will attack your character" argument.)
To the first point, I would ask: If welfare is extortion money, wouldn't it be better to let them riot, and then treat the rioters as the criminals they are? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have them all in jail eating bread and water, than supporting food stamps where they buy steak for their dog (extreme, but i've seen it done)?
To the second, I would comment that society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the person who pays in to these programs, see from the people who receive these benefits. There are generally two answers to this question. One involves the "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone in need (i can get that from giving to charity, where I know the money is going for what i want it to go for). The second involves the first "riot" argument.
To the third point, I would ask: Is it the responsibility of government to force a person to act "morally"? To enforce morality? Whose morality should be enforced? Some would say that homosexuality is immoral. Most of us would agree that slavery is immoral. If majority opinion should shift so that this were not the case, should these issues be made mandatory, or prohibited , based solely on majority opinion? Or should the government only step in when one party actually harms another?
To the fourth point, I would say that there are other, more efficient, ways to help the "needy". Ways that ensure that the truly needy get help, and not just people who "game" the system for free resources. People have the right to be as stingy, or as generous as they want, with their own money. Generally, people will help someone in need, but will resist any attempt to take their money by force, for whatever reason. Forced charity is not charity, it is theft. Stealing from me to help someone else does not make me a good person.
What do you think? I'm sure i missed some "standard" arguments, these are just the most common ones i run into.
1. "Welfare payments keep the poor from rioting for food and other resources."
2. "The taxes that go to pay for welfare are 'payment' for living in society."
3. "It is 'immoral' for someone to buy when that money could go to save a sick child"
When all these arguments fail to convince me that stealing from some people to pay for resources for other people is a good idea, most will fall back on #4:
4. "you are a mean and nasty person, if you don't want to help the 'needy'." (this is the "I'm losing the argument, so I will attack your character" argument.)
To the first point, I would ask: If welfare is extortion money, wouldn't it be better to let them riot, and then treat the rioters as the criminals they are? Wouldn't it be cheaper to have them all in jail eating bread and water, than supporting food stamps where they buy steak for their dog (extreme, but i've seen it done)?
To the second, I would comment that society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the person who pays in to these programs, see from the people who receive these benefits. There are generally two answers to this question. One involves the "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone in need (i can get that from giving to charity, where I know the money is going for what i want it to go for). The second involves the first "riot" argument.
To the third point, I would ask: Is it the responsibility of government to force a person to act "morally"? To enforce morality? Whose morality should be enforced? Some would say that homosexuality is immoral. Most of us would agree that slavery is immoral. If majority opinion should shift so that this were not the case, should these issues be made mandatory, or prohibited , based solely on majority opinion? Or should the government only step in when one party actually harms another?
To the fourth point, I would say that there are other, more efficient, ways to help the "needy". Ways that ensure that the truly needy get help, and not just people who "game" the system for free resources. People have the right to be as stingy, or as generous as they want, with their own money. Generally, people will help someone in need, but will resist any attempt to take their money by force, for whatever reason. Forced charity is not charity, it is theft. Stealing from me to help someone else does not make me a good person.
What do you think? I'm sure i missed some "standard" arguments, these are just the most common ones i run into.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Americans have it good, what are we complaining about?
Whenever I start to complain about the state of affairs in the United States, how we are slowly losing liberty, self reliance, and self determination to the juggernaut that is big government, people will point out that I should be happy that I have as many freedoms as I have, that we are still the most liberty-laden country in the world, and I should sit down and shut up.
This is my reply:
Imagine that your grandfather wanted to buy you a car. A nice sports car, with leather seats, and state of the art EVERYTHING. Let's say he worked hard for years, and years to save up enough money to buy you this perfect car. He finally saves up enough money, goes to the dealership, pays for this car, and gets a receipt. He then goes to your house, and hands you the receipt for this perfect sports car. You are excited, you run to the dealership to pick up your car. You show them the receipt, and they go to the back to get the car. The salesman pulls around the building, and you see a bright , shiny new YUGO. The guy gets out and hands you the keys. Now, what do you do? Do you complain, and demand that they give you the sports car that your grandfather worked so hard for? Or should you be happy that you have a car, sit down, and shut up?
Our forefathers fought, and died, to secure, for us, a republic that protected the sovereignty of the individual over the tyranny of the masses, and the government. Hell yes, I'm going to fight, when they try to deny me that which my ancestors paid dearly for.
This is my reply:
Imagine that your grandfather wanted to buy you a car. A nice sports car, with leather seats, and state of the art EVERYTHING. Let's say he worked hard for years, and years to save up enough money to buy you this perfect car. He finally saves up enough money, goes to the dealership, pays for this car, and gets a receipt. He then goes to your house, and hands you the receipt for this perfect sports car. You are excited, you run to the dealership to pick up your car. You show them the receipt, and they go to the back to get the car. The salesman pulls around the building, and you see a bright , shiny new YUGO. The guy gets out and hands you the keys. Now, what do you do? Do you complain, and demand that they give you the sports car that your grandfather worked so hard for? Or should you be happy that you have a car, sit down, and shut up?
Our forefathers fought, and died, to secure, for us, a republic that protected the sovereignty of the individual over the tyranny of the masses, and the government. Hell yes, I'm going to fight, when they try to deny me that which my ancestors paid dearly for.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Political spectrum quiz
Take the quiz, and post your results in the comments section.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
Here's mine:
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-results-alt.html
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
Here's mine:
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-results-alt.html
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
on universal health care and social security:
People on both ends of the political spectrum agree that Social Security is quickly going broke. The only reason it has lasted as long as it has is because lawmakers keep lowering benefits, and increasing the eligibility age for retirement. This is functionally equivalent to rationing the service. How long would the Social Security funds last, if you could withdraw money at will?
With socialized health care, either you would be restricted in your ability to use the service (rationing services) or you could visit the doctor whenever you want (withdraw at will). Which , do you think, will happen? If health care is rationed, how is this a more desirable system? If you can withdraw at will, how long before the system is as broke as Social Security?
With socialized health care, either you would be restricted in your ability to use the service (rationing services) or you could visit the doctor whenever you want (withdraw at will). Which , do you think, will happen? If health care is rationed, how is this a more desirable system? If you can withdraw at will, how long before the system is as broke as Social Security?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The parable of WidgetWise
Lets pretend that you own a store that sells Widgets. You have to make $1000 a day to stay in business. You can serve 10 customers a day, so you sell widgets for $100 each. Now, let's suppose that the government decides that everyone needs to have a steady supply of widgets, and starts a program called "WidgetWise". This program pays for widgets for people who , otherwise, would not have as many widgets. You think: "great! This will be really good for business". So, you open up your shop, and wait for the profits to roll in. You hand the new WidgetWise customers their Widget, and they give you "WW" number so that you can collect the payment from the government. You have seen four WW customers, when you notice the fine print on the WW card:
"Widget vendor must take this number for payment in full of $50, and supply the bearer with a Widget."
You can only see 6 more customers, and you have to make $1000 dollars today to keep your doors open. The first four "WW"customers only provided you with $200. What do you do? (here's a hint, 800/6=133)
This was the dilemma faced by health care providers when medicare came into effect. The liberal camp would have you believe that rising health care costs either have no cause, or are caused by "greedy doctors" gouging their patients for every last dime. So next time you hear The democrats shouting that the problem of the high cost of health care needs to be solved with a government program, just remember that before the last "government program" health care was affordable.
"Widget vendor must take this number for payment in full of $50, and supply the bearer with a Widget."
You can only see 6 more customers, and you have to make $1000 dollars today to keep your doors open. The first four "WW"customers only provided you with $200. What do you do? (here's a hint, 800/6=133)
This was the dilemma faced by health care providers when medicare came into effect. The liberal camp would have you believe that rising health care costs either have no cause, or are caused by "greedy doctors" gouging their patients for every last dime. So next time you hear The democrats shouting that the problem of the high cost of health care needs to be solved with a government program, just remember that before the last "government program" health care was affordable.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
comments from another blog...
>>It’s something that has to happen. Americans are already literally dying in the streets due to the Status Quo. And Privatization-gone-amok.
It is Status Quo, but it is not “Privatization-gone-amok”. The government has its hands in it, in the form of medicare. That makes it “semi-nationalization-gone-amok”
To use an example from another thread:
In the “safeway” situation, the striking workers have a resource (their labor) that they are withholding from the store owners, in order to force a change in the valuation of that resource (the “market value”). If the government were to bring in labor (scab labor) from somewhere else, and charge less than what the striking workers were making in the first place, how effective would that strike be? Would the value of the workers’ labor go up (change)?
Now let’s substitute the players: The patients are the “workers”, The patients’ money is their “labor”, The cost of health care is the “market value” of the labor (basically, how much health care a dollar will buy) and medicare is the “scab labor”.
The medicare system (scab labor), at present, prevents any “strike” by the patients (taking their money elsewhere), from being effective in changing the price (”market value”) of the health care.
The only thing that makes a strike effective is the threat of losing money on the part of the employer. As long as the medical providers are getting that money from the government (in the form of medicare, or universal health care) they are not going to lose enough money to force them to lower prices. If you remove that stream of “public money” from going into the pockets of the medical providers, the only source of money left is the patients. The patients’ money supply will be a relatively fixed resource that different providers will have to compete for. This competition will drive down prices.
>>Since the Right Wing hasn’t anything besides “more Reaganite Bullshit” and “give the Private sector more Public Money” any policy which caters or compromises to that is going to be so insufficient that it would take nothing less than the most massive police state ever to hold the people down.
I agree there, that is why I suggest letting the “private sector” A.K.A. “the individual” keep the money he earns, and not funneling it (in the form of taxes) through the government which will care little where it goes, because government did not earn it. The government didn’t load the truck, or stock the shelves, or machine the lower gear casing, to earn that money. They just stole it from the workers who did all those things.
>>copy cat, YOUR side has had almost thirty years of almost complete unfettered access to the public money without public oversight, aka “government regulation”.
“my side” has had little or no control over policy since the Keynesians took over in 1913. I am a “Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman”, kind of guy, not a Reaganite.
>>Thieves like Cheney and Bush and Wolfowicz have done what, exactly? to benefit the economy.
Worse than nothing, and the current policies will be even worse.
>>Yet we’re supposed to trust these bastards with more leeway, more money and less regulation? Fuck that.
I suggest trusting the government with as little money as possible. I suggest making the consumer the only source of income for businesses.
copycat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)