This Study by a couple of Swedish economists has been getting some attention lately. Here’s the abstract:
The authors on the reason: “The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west,” the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40 percent of GDP, and in some countries above 50 percent, compared with less than 30 percent for most of the United States."
Forces employers to either provide health care coverage, or pay into a national health insurance program.
Forces insurance companies to insure people regardless of health or pre-existing conditions.
Forces parents to take out health insurance for their children.
Forces child care providers to have a completely lead-free environment within five years.
Forces all hospitals in the U.S. to move to electronic record-keeping within five years, at a cost of 50 billion dollars.
Forces all insurers to implement ‘disease management plans’
Forces hospitals to disclose all medical errors to the public, and provide records to the government showing their treatment programs, costs, and charges.
Forces insurance companies to turn over ‘excess profits’ to the government, whatever they are, and will ‘refuse them unjustified price increases’. I guess this means every time a health care provider needs to raise prices, they will have to get permission from the Obama administration. So… Government price controls, with the price set by whatever the Obama administration deems ‘fair’.
Forces medical care facilities to report on the demographic makeup of their patients and demands a ‘diversified’ workforce to ‘ensure culturally effective care’. Whatever that is.
Prohibits large drug companies from ‘keeping generics out of markets’. Anyone know how this is supposed to work? The only thing I can think of is reducing the patent period - which would be a disaster.
Nope. No central planning and control here.
Sounds close to what that socialist Mitt Romney did. Employers have to provide vacation and overtime for non-exempt employees also - is that socialism too?
Non-discriminatory. Kind of like restaurants being forced to seat everyone is the same as establishing a menu. This just establishes an even playing field, in other words, the boundaries within which competition can occur.
Remember, those who cannot afford it get help. Do you really think that having children not be covered, for any reason, somehow adds to liberty?
Not allowing toxins near kids is bad? Lead in electronic systems is rapidly being eliminated, (a great attack on liberty too, no doubt) so this is hardly controversial.
And about time. It will probably save more than that. I assume that this is to standardize systems for payment, etc. I do agree that this should not be required - hospitals that don’t do it won’t be eligible for reimbursement from the system, though. Why cause the rest of the system to incur expenses to handle their paper because they don’t want to move to a better system?
From his website, this seems to force the use of best practices for treating chronic illnesses. The claim is that this will reduce costs.
I thought you were in favor of a free market in health care. How can there be a free market if important information is withheld from consumers making decisions on which hospitals to use. Are you also against schools releasing test scores? Still, I don’t see how this is government control of anything. Businesses report all sorts of stuff, by law, but are not controlled by the government. BTW, his site does not say all errors, but all preventable errors.
I don’t see anything about turning over excess profits. I do see limits on administrative costs as a percentage of premiums. I can see this as being considered onerous, but it is still not government control. In fact it tends to set a floor on profits. I used to work for the Bell System, and this was the way we operated. We were regulated, sure, but we were neither controlled nor micromanaged by the government. This represents a move from a purely profit driven system, which has demonstrably failed, to a new service-oriented one. I can’t blame the insurers from screaming about this. However, just like SarbOx, you screw up long enough and you eventually pay for it.
Where I live if large facilities do not have people who can speak a large number of languages, they are not serving their communities. Diversity around here isn’t just liberal politics, it saves lives.
To really do that, the patents on drugs would have to be eliminated, which I doubt is what is meant. He says he is going to increase the use of generics in Medicare and Medicaid (no problem there, I hope.) I suppose this means the elimination of drug company pressure on pharmacies to avoid stocking generics - but I’m unaware of any stories about this. But I doubt very much this has anything to do with patents.
Quite right. Just some reasonable regulations ensuring fairness, access to all, and preventing some companies from getting a competitive advantage by not providing workers with health care, like WalMart used to, before the public pressure on them.
I don’t know how many hundreds of billions of bucks you want us to waste for libertarian purity - not to mention the people not getting care.
This brings us back to the point I and others have made. There seems to be two kinds of Libertarianism: Orthodox Libertarianism, which says nobody gets coerced by the government ever, and Libertarianism Lite, which says that occasionally the government does make somebody do something they didn’t want to do.
Orthodox Libertarianism has never been tried by any place I’m aware of (outside of fiction). And any discussion of its implementation quickly points out the difficulties of making it work.
Libertarianism Lite, on the other hand, would probably work. But it raises the question of what the point is. Libertarianism Lite doesn’t seem any different from what the Democrats or the Republicans or any other political party are doing. Why switch?
Sam I think you may be suffering from a definitional problem. You seem to think “central planning” exists whenever any kind of regulation or oversight is introduced, especially by government. But regulation and oversight are not central planning, a term which refers to a non-market economy.
For example, from Wikipedia: “A planned economy or directed economy is an economic system in which the state or government manages the economy. Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy. In such economies, the state or government controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income, much like a communist state.”
Note that nothing proposed by Obama or any other liberal is anything remotely like the above definition.
Now you could go ahead and make your own working definition where “central planning” meant simply that some kind of bureaucratic organization (such as the government) does some kind of bureaucratic task (such as to collect and review records). But if that’s your definition then not only government but all corporations are centrally planned.
More generally, I’m astounded in your response to healthcare by your seemingly robotic aversion to the notion of government compulsion–as though it were the one and only evil on this earth. As you shrink from the horrors of government forcing errant hospitals to disclose their malfeasance or–perish the thought–compelling parents to insure their children in part by helping them to pay for it if they’re too poor–it’s hard not to wonder what’s going on with the other dimensions of your ethical compass. Do you want to live in a word where children are not insured or where consumers can’t find out about medical malpractice? Wouldn’t libertarians advocate transparency for all so that the market can do what is supposedly does?
I don’t actually think you’re as libertarian as you think you are. I think you just have an obsession one issue–government intervention.
If the government never coerces anyone into doing anything then there is no government, as such. What you refer to as Orthodox Libertarianism seems to be what’s known as Anarcho-Capitalism – it’s essentially anarchy, though usually with the assumption that voluntary state-like organizations would exist to provide for common defense, police, etc. Several posters in this thread have argued against AC (though not by name), but as far as I can tell no one here is actually a proponent that philosophy.
(It’s funny. On the SDMB I’m an anti-government loon, but on another message board I sometimes post to, the politics forum is composed primarily of anarcho-capitalists; there, I’m a statist thug.)
What you refer to as Libertarianism Lite is actually much more common and mainstream than Anarcho-Capitalism, and is usually what you should assume is meant by someone who describes himself as “libertarian.” An apt term sometimes used to distinguish it from AC is Minarchism. It shares with AC the belief that government coercion is both immoral and inefficient, but it differs in that minarchists hold that certain functions of the state could not be adequately replaced with purely non-coercive means. Most commonly, libertarians propose that providing for common defense and conflict resolution requires the maintenance, by the state, of courts, a police force and a military. Beyond that there’s a range of opinions about what is the proper role for government, with disagreements over (for example) environmental protection and utilities/roads – however once you get to something like, say, public education, most libertarians have already balked.
AC-ists will point to what they consider to be a couple of instances of more-or-less successful implementations of their theories, but I don’t find them particularly compelling and would agree with you that under AC there would be certain insurmountable inconveniences.
As for what separates libertarianism form mainstream U.S. politics, I suppose it’s just a matter of degree . . . but it’s still a big difference. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats seek the wholesale legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling; nor do they seek to drastically reduce the size of the military; nor do they seek to abolish (or greatly reduce in scope) the welfare state; etc., etc.
I’m not real hard-core minarchist (I’m a pure civil libertarian, but I’m more moderate on economic issues), and in a discussion among libertarians I’m usually criticized for being too tolerant of government coercion. Still, the philosophy has merit on both moral and practical grounds, and around here it needs people to stick up for it.
VarlosZ, thanks for your very lucid post. That said, I’d like to dispute the notion that Republicans do not seek to “greatly reduce in scope” the welfare state. That seems to me to have been a central plank of their agenda since Reagan at least. It’s also the main reason, IMO, why libertarians and liberals (who might otherwise find lots of interesting common philosophical ground) tend to spar so much over politics: i.e., libertarians tend to come off as Republican tools (to the liberal eye).
But this isn’t what you claimed. You said nothing of GDP, but of quality of living. The authors themselves, in the prelude, point out a number of problems with comparing GDP’s, for instance:
It comes as no surprise to find that Europeans, on average, have far more leisure time than their American counterparts (cite):
You’ll note that Italy, France and Germany are exactly the three countries that your cite references in its Introduction.
Central planning is… anything that is planned centrally. I never said the U.S. had a ‘centrally planned economy’. I said that Obama wants to substitute the market for a certain amount of central planning.
You are attempting to define things in a way that forbids calling any kind of government intrusion central planning if it’s not complete command economy. That’s ridiculous.
If the government decides that people should buy more domestic sugar when the people themselves have shown that they would rather buy cheap sugar from abroad, and therefore institutes taxes and tariffs to push people into buying domestic, that’s central planning.
If the government decides that hospitals should use electronic record keeping, and passes a law mandating that hospitals comply, that’s central planning.
If the government decides what a ‘fair’ insurance premium is, and what a reasonable cost for administration is, and forces that on companies through new laws, that’s central planning.
That doesn’t mean the entire economy is centrally planned, obviously. It just means that in some limited areas, the government has decided that it knows what’s best for people and is going to force them to do it.
There are no countries on the planet that are completely centrally planned. And there never have been. We’re always talking about some kind of mix between market forces and state control. Even the Soviet Union was not completely a command economy because the government looked the other way while a large segment of the economy was conducted on the black market. They had to, because their central planning was so inadequate that they needed the black market as a safety valve to keep things running.
How can you say that? Even your Wikipedia quote doesn’t say it’s all or nothing. They say that only the most extensive form is a ‘command economy’. Clearly there are differing ratios of central planning vs market economies in all countries. My point all along is that Obama feels that he and his team are smart enough to provide the answers to the health care problem, and to dictate them from the top down. That’s central planning any way you slice it. Sorry.
If all Obama wanted to do was collect records and make recommendations, that would not be central planning. You’re creating a false scenario, because Obama clearly wants to do far more than that. His plan is all full of laws which FORCE people do change how they provide health care.
There is a distinction to be made between varying types of government regulation. The first type of regulation is one which seeks to prevent fraud, coercion, and other such actions on the part of business. In other words, regulation which simply sets up a level playing field and makes sure that transactions are voluntary. SEC regulations, anti-trust laws, laws against fraud, and tort law in general fall in this category.
The next level of regulation is one in which market failures are addressed - disclosure laws to prevent ‘lemon markets’, laws to limit the effects of geographical monopolies, etc.
The worst kind of government regulation falls under the category of industrial and social planning. This is the kind of regulation where a government looks at a perfectly functioning market but doesn’t like the results of it, and therefore seeks to manipulate the market through subsidies, tariffs, and other regulation to make to perform ‘better’. This is the category of legislation that invariably has perverse effects, leads to even more regulation, and generally fails. Obama’s economic policies are rife with this level of interference in the market by government. To be fair, McCain wants to do some of this as well, as do most politicians.
Obama’s health plan takes this to another level. He wants to micro-manage things like the demographic composition of the workforce and the technology used to keep records. He wants the government to dictate the type of care people will receive, how much profit the insurance industry can make, who they choose to sell their products to, and much, much more.
Nah, there’s lots of evil on the earth. I just didn’t think it was relevant to bring up the plight of Tibet in a discussion of Obama’s health care plan or Libertarianism. I tend to think a discussion of Libertarianism would focus on whether or not government coercion is superior to the market.
My ethical compass tells me that humans do not belong to the state, and have a right to make their own choices about how to live their lives - which includes choices about who I want to sell my products to and how much I’m willing to pay people (or how much I demand for someone to hire me). And conversely, that other people have a right to tell me to go to hell if they don’t want to provide the fruits of their labors at the price I’m willing to offer. That’s what Libertarianism is all about. I fully understand that freedom is hard, and that sometimes people will make bad choices and suffer the consequences.
I understand that some people are more motivated than others, smarter than others, or have more inherited assets than others, and therefore may earn more money, be more famous, and maybe even have a better life. I’m okay with that. I was okay with that when I lived in a small apartment with my single-parent mother and wore hand-me-downs and went to work at age 14 to help make ends meet, and I’m still okay with it now that I’m living a nice middle class life.
As a pragmatic Libertarian, I understand that there are some situations which are just so horrible that society isn’t going to tolerate it, and that some aspect of government is going to provide aid and assistance to people who are really hurting. But understanding how the market works, I also know that there are moral hazards involved in rewarding people for bad decisions (or isolating them from the consequences of bad decisions), and it’s a very dangerous path to go down when you start trying to mandate equality of outcome. Therefore, such programs should be approached with great care, with an understanding that they are a last resort.
Government should not just have to prove that its plan is better, but that it is so much better that it is worth sacrificing some freedom for, and worth giving more power and control to a central authority which has the sole monopoly on the use of force to achieve what it wants. The bar on this should be set very high, as freedom is precious and tends not to last unless eternal vigilance is maintained against the forces that wish to take it away.
Too many people today see a problem, and automatically assume that a government program to address it would be a good thing. I think that the market has proven itself to be so effective in delivering the vast majority of things we need that the default position should always favor the market and government should have the burden of proof that it’s the only answer, and that the solution it offers won’t result in making things worse. That’s a heavy burden, and one that too many Liberals gloss over in their zeal to ‘do something’ to right every perceived social injustice.
As a libertarian, I think the progressive notion of ‘positive rights’, such as a right to health care, a right to an education, or a right to a living wage are oxymorons, because these ‘rights’ require that other humans provide them. If you have a ‘right’ to a living wage, but no employers can afford to hire you at that wage, whose rights get trampled? Any right which requires removing the rights of others is invalid. The right to pursue happiness or be free in your home from unreasonable searches does not require that anyone else lose their rights to comply.
You don’t know me very well. I’m not an anarchist, and I’m not one of those idealist Libertarians that believe that everything should be privatized overnight. I’m a pragmatist who understands that we’re never going to live in the ideal Libertarian utopia. Therefore, I see Libertarianism as a tendency or bias (bias in the good sense). When presented with two options, I will choose the one that maximizes freedom and minimizes government intervention.
If I were a politician I could find myself voting for a bill that increases government regulation - but only if I had satisfied myself that not supporting it would lead to even more regulation. Libertarian purists are useless, and there’s far too many of them - which is why the Libertarian party has a hard time getting more than 1-2% of the vote, even though 10-20% of the American people self-describe themselves as Libertarians or partial Libertarians.
But I don’t just have libertarian ideas on a single issue. I oppose big government programs pretty consistently. If it were up to me, I’d abolish the Department of Education, the FDA, the Department of Homeland Security, and a host of other government departments. I’d phase out Medicare and Social Security and turn the control of health care and retirement savings back to the people. I’d abolish minimum wage laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a whole stack of other government regulations.
Fine but if that’s your definition you’ll have to agree that it describes the workings of almost all complex organizations–not just government.
No. I’m attempting to introduce a level of specificity and clarity into your repeated use of a loaded term. Check the wikipedia definition again: “centrally planned economy” = “command and control economy”
Fine, and if my insurance company decides that I can only consult a certain kind of specialist if I get their approval, or that I’m ineligible for coverage because of a pre-existing condition then than that’s central planning–tamping down on my freedom to get the kind of care that I want and need, right?
Right, and if Walmart decides to make certain kinds of employees ineligible for healthcare coverage then that’s central planning.
Uh-huh. And if Microsoft decides what a “fair” price is for a new operating system that I can’t do my job without purchasing so that I’m effectively forced to buy something that I don’t want, that’s central planning. Agreed?
Agreed, though I prefer the term state regulation to control.
And my point is 1) that healthcare is already centrally planned, though in large part by insurance companies and HMOs and 2) many people are not being served by that system, so that 3) some kind of legislative reform is required (a point on which the majority of Americans agree) and 4) Obama’s proposals all sound reasonable to me. (Though if this were a healthcare debate I’d say that I agree with Paul Krugman that the lack of mandates in the program is a serious flaw.)
Sigh… And the status quo is full of laws which force people to live without healthcare. For example, laws that prevent them from robbing a bank when they need drugs or surgical procedures that they can’t afford.
So there is a level playing field between children who grow up with medical care and those who don’t? Between people who survive from serious illness because they have access to care and those who die because they don’t?
So in your view the market for healthcare functions perfectly by excluding so many people from coverage? (A simple yes or no will do. I thought you had indicated otherwise earlier but I might be misremembering.)
Well me too actually, but I haven’t seen you provide any good examples yet. Since you concede that there are problems with the market, ones that need to be rectified, please clarify what you propose to do about them. Otherwise it sounds like you’re simply saying well government coercion is bad and market failure is bad: so I’ll just take the lesser of two evils which in my view is government coercion because that just happens to me my bag.
Right–nor to powerful corporations or privileged elites, I would add.
Interesting examples given that I think most people have relatively little choice about any of these things (that is, market forces tend to determine their options within fairly narrow confines).
Sam, though I deleted the part about your childhood so as not to seem disrespectful I’m glad that you’ve been upwardly mobile: I mean that really sincerely. I’m sure you deserve it.
I don’t disagree. I simply don’t think that healthcare reform is a relevant example of such rewarding of bad decisions.
But the market that we live in isn’t remotely “free.” It’s regulated and subsidized in all kinds of ways (some not very good, I agree). The life that you have enjoyed, including your ability to climb up the ladder, has depended on all sorts of legislation and other forms of government aid–whether these are visible to you or not. I don’t ask you to give up your suspicion of government programs, I ask you to acknowledge coercion in other domains and to recognize that life as you know it depends on a lot more kinds of government intervention than the police and fire department.
Of course, but it’s not much of an issue for someone who lacks healthcare and isn’t able to make ends meet. To take an extreme example, you can’t tell someone dying of a curable illness how free they are and how unlikely that the FBI will knock down their door without a warrant. You seem to be saying that you’re only willing to tolerate rights when they’re no brainers. The problem is that life is rarely so simple.
Believe it or not Sam, I kinda do. This isn’t the first time that we’ve enjoyed this kind of toe-to-toe. It’s been several years. I think I’ve missed you
Good idea! Then maybe we could have drugs as good as the one’s they’ve been making in China. Or maybe more people could die of painkillers that give them heartattacks!
You gotta love a guy willing to give more power to the pharmaceutical industry. Always a pleasure Sam, seriously.
Not the kind of central planning that people in this thread are talking about, no. Your scenarios are examples of the opposite of central planning, in fact. They’re examples of financial transactions in which both sides must consent in order for the transaction to exist, which is the essence of a free market. “Central planning,” as it’s used in this discussion, refers to aspects of the economy in which at least one participant is coerced into behaving a certain way by the state.
Well actually VarlosZ the only person using the term “central planning” in this thread besides Sam, up until this point, is me and Sam was the one who wrote: “Central planning is… anything that is planned centrally.” (emphasis added).
Less technically, I’m well aware of the fact that central planning has a historical usage in which it refers to governmental efforts to replace market forces. And it’s precisely because the discredited notion of a “centrally planned economy” can be used to tar any kind of government intervention that I want to insist on the distinction (whatever we choose to call it) between the kind of intervention Obama’s plan advocates and the kind of central planning associated with the old Soviet economy.
Again, technically, not according to the definition Sam offered. More importantly…
My point isn’t that we argue over what definition to use of central planning–my point is that if one wants (as you seem to do) to reserve this pejorative term only for government coercion then one ought at the very least to recognize 1) that there is plenty of coercion in market forces and 2) that the “free” market as we know it depends on a wide variety of government activities–and always has.
How can you describe anyone denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition in these terms? If anything it’s the refusal of one party (the insurance company) to engage in a financial transaction with the uninsured person who is decidedly not giving his/her consent to that refusal. If that’s the essence of the free market, I suspect most in this situation would say no thanks–I’ll find my liberty elsewhere!
And then there’s the Microsoft example. If I can’t do my work without buying their new softward then I’ve only “consented” to engage in this new financial transaction in the most limited sense of that term (i.e., I’ve consented not to choose to lose my job rather than fork over my dough to Microsoft or not to hold a gun to the head of some Microsoft exec or Office Depot clerk until I get a free copy).
Right, that’s the definition that you like–but my point is that there are (many) aspects of the economy in which at least one participant is coerced into behaving a certain way (or coerced into doing without a needed service) *by market forces *.
Bad example. We have had public education for a long time. At one time it was the envy of the world. What has happened to it is another thread. It is not because we have a public system. Who doesn’t.?
Dorothea, yes, there is certainly a degree to which we’re arguing semantics, and, yes, there are types of freedom besides political freedom (e.g., I am both free and not free to buy a helicopter). And, furthermore, it is perfectly fair to point out that a free market system does have the effect of restricting some of these non-political freedoms for many people.
However, what I would object to is that you seem to be conflating the kind of freedom you lose when you can’t afford to pay for something with the kind of freedom you lose when the state says you can’t (or must) do something. While it would be fine in some discussions to do so, in this particular case your conflating the two is preventing you from addressing the point that Sam is making. Sam’s objection to “central planning,” as he’s using it, is not just a moral one, but also (mostly, I would imagine) a practical one: the more thoroughly the state manages (or plans) a sector of the economy, the more inefficient that sector tends to become – not just in dollars earned, but also in the quality of quantity of service provided.
You could argue that there are exceptions, and there are probably instances in which we should be willing to tolerate such inefficiency for the sake of some other benefit. However, arguing that Sam’s point is moot because there’s also a kind of coercion in the free market is completely besides the point, since that kind of “coercion” tends to lead to less inefficiency.
Is this clear, or am I not explaining my meaning very well?
Agreed–though I’d add that there are plenty of political freedoms that the “free” market restricts (note that I’m putting free in quotation marks from now on because one of my central points, which neither you nor Sam has yet to acknowledge, is that the so-called free market as we know it relies upon government interventions of many kinds–and always has. Government intervention, in other words, ought to be treated neutrally, not, as libertarians tend to assume, as guilty until found innocent.)
Back to my point about political unfreedom: because we don’t have public financing of elections in most states in this country I’m not free to have the same influence over the political system as someone who can afford to make large donations to politicians. And yet (before Sam comes in to remind me about the impracticality equal outcomes) I think–in my oh so humble opinion, of course–that my opinions are every bit as valid as those of the very wealthy. Thus, public financing of elections is one those non-market programs that I think any democracy ought to adopt.
To be fair, I’m not “conflating” them in the least. What I’m saying is that both are real and should be acknowledged as real. Moreover, it’s not purely a question of not being able to afford things. The “free” market as we know it coerces me in all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with my ability to afford things. For example, I am forced to breath air that is polluted by the local power plant–and I really wish I didn’t have to and so do most people I know.
Actually, I’ve repeatedly said that I’m sympathetic to emprically defensible claims about government-induced problems–I think most liberals are. (I set aside your assumption that it’s axiomatic that the private sector will always be more efficient, though it’s debatable in my view.)
Roughly speaking I think that I (and most liberals) am a utilitarian of sorts. If the program works then I like it; if it doesn’t then I don’t. My points (and those of others on this thread) have repeatedly focused on areas where there seems to be agreement that the market doesn’t work/isn’t working (e.g., healthcare). As far as I can tell, Sam doesn’t have a coherent objection for me to address since he seems to concede that the situation is bad but chooses only to argue against the government’s “central planning” but not for some alternative.
Assuming your claims of mass collusion are true, collusion doesn’t, in any way, eliminate the laws of supply and demand. You can change the nature of the supply curve but the laws remain in force. Even a monopoly is subject to the laws of supply and demand. If they weren’t, why aren’t they charging $50 a gallon for gasoline? Or $500?
I don’t cause the law of gravity to go away by constructing a hot air balloon.
The difference is, I think, twofold:
Libertarians and “liberals,” as I believe you are describing the set, tend to disagree on their interpretation of the facts of what constitutes harm or how much of it there is.
As classic example is rent control. Libertarians seem to oppose it, but it’s very popular with liberals. My honest examination of the facts is that rent control is generally very bad; I oppose it. Many liberals seem to think it’s good. I think the difference here is made up largely by what facts people choose to observe or disregard.
Libertarians believe freedom has its own independent, intrinsic value. I think, really, that that’s the REAL difference; a libertarian places greater utility on freedom itself. My impression of most liberals (and most conservatives, actually, and most people in general) is that if government intrusion into freedom generates a measurable benefit that outweighs the measurable drawbacks, it’s worth it; the loss of freedom by itself is not part of the equation. To Sam, and myself I might add, it is. Freedom is immensely valuable to me; I would give up at least some positive impact to retain more freedom.
If this statement indicates that you have posted on the SDMB previously using a differnt username, please note that that practice is forbidden.
If you have previously posted under a different name, please e-mail TubaDiva@aol.com or ckdexthavn@aol.com, explaining that you need to resolve the issue.
On the SDMB. I hope I don’t seem obnoxious in being mysterious here–I really don’t mean to. I was on and off a fairly regular poster for almost 3 years but have not posted at all for almost 5 years–just too busy unfortunately. I’d rather not revive my old identity just because so much has changed–it would feel too weird. But I felt badly that Sam assumed I was a stranger even though I felt I knew him almost like an old friend (though we were seldom on the same side of any debate!). Again, sorry if this seems like being absurdly mysterious. Probalby no one would remember me anyway.
