Michael Lind vs. the Libertarians

Great Debates
141

Not necessarily. For example, Singapore’s health care system would be a step away from the more statist version that is Obamacare. Singapore has a system of universal catastrophic insurance that exists within a private health care delivery model. Hell, Canada spends less money per capita on health care than does the U.S., and spends even less government money on health care than does the U.S., and the gap will widen once Obamacare is implemented.

The U.S. already has a heavily socialized health care system due to Medicaid and Medicare. In some ways, Canada’s is more market oriented. For one thing, we don’t have a central health care plan - we allow the provinces to control their own method of health care delivery. For another, we have a significant percentage of completely private health care here. We pay for our own prescription drugs, dental care, and many health care services are completely private. I have supplemental health insurance through my employer, just like people in the U.S. do. The difference is that my health care insurance is more affordable because the government does pay for the catastrophic stuff like cancer treatments and major surgery.

The fact is, the U.S government spends more money per capita on health care already than do the other countries on that list. The problem with the U.S. is not that health care has too much market influence, but that your government is bloody inept and dysfunctional. It’s also far too controlled by lobbyists and rent-seekers who have twisted regulations to their benefit. Part of this is because the federal government just tries to do too much - if you’re going to have a 2300 page health care bill, the only way to get that written is to allow the health care industry and its lobbyists to write large parts of it. The politicians not only do not write their own legislation, they don’t even know what’s in it! Hell of a way to run a country.

Perhaps if Uncle Sam had his fingers in a few less pies and stopped trying to do massive ‘omnibus’ legislation, it would be able to be a little more effective at what it does. The Canada Health Act is 6 pages long. Obamacare is 2300. Is it any surprise that our system will work better?

This is one area where there is room for agreement between progressives and libertarians - we can disagree on how big government should be, but we can agree that whatever government there is should be responsive, flexible, and efficient. Currently, the U.S. federal government is none of these things. How about before proposing more sweeping legislation you get your legislative house in order first?

The U.S. would be a lot better off if it delegated more power to the states as we do to provinces in Canada, and if the federal government took a more incremental, piecemeal approach to legislative change instead of attempting to redesign entire industries from Washington.

142

Not only is there no evidence that it’s causal, but the researchers went to great pains to point out that it may not be, and in fact the one area where it is likely to be causal (per-capita income), America is at the top of the list. Other aspects like family life and social structures would have nothing at all to do with government.

It’s funny that you would have to go to an ambiguous measure like ‘happiness’ and cite a study that the very authors caution against making causal connections.

But if you want to go down that path, wouldn’t it be better to try to find a more homogenous data set than trying to compare the happiness of people in radically different cultures? How about comparing the happiness of the 50 states?

On that list, of the top 10 happiest states, 7 of them appear to be ‘blue’ states. Clearly Republican governments are much better at making people happy, right?

Or maybe not. I can spot half a dozen other correlations by looking at that list. Population Density, fertile land, crime, yada yada. Cross-country comparisons are likely to be even more problematic.

At least it’s better than other attempts at refuting the value of smaller government by citing ‘quality of life’ indexes that are explicitly leftist in nature - for example, determining quality of life in a country by GINI index, or by access to public transportation or population diversity.

143

No, he’s great at it. You’re terrible at it. And what’s worse, it’s right in front of your eyes and you don’t even realize it.

I’ll try again. I’ll use the same two examples I always use. The FDA and EBay.

Do people travel to Africa, for pleasure or business? Of course they do. I do it all the time. How about Mexico? Yup. Lesser developed Eastern European countries? Check. Southeast Asia? Absolutely.

Perhaps you have as well. If you live in the US, I suspect you travelled to Mexico at least once.

Did you fast? Did you go without food and starve yourself? How about the people who live there, or the millions of tourists and businesspeople who pass through there each and every day…some of who stay for quite a while (like me)?

How can they eat in restaurants, or buy food at grocery stores, with confidence? How is that possible? Why don’t they all drop dead and die due to unscrupulous restauranteurs, or grocery store managers? How do McDonalds and Coke generate increasing amounts of revenue and profit overseas when they have every ability to cut corners and scrimp (according to you)? Why don’t they do that right now? After all, according to you that seems like their obvious course of action.

After all, the FDA is an American entity. They have no jurisdiction outside the US. Why don’t all those 2nd rate countries and banana republics have heaps of bodies lying in the street right now? If you went there and made it back alive, how was that ever possible?
Do you seriously think you are in danger by going to a McDonalds in Africa? The FDA doesn’t inspect anything there. I’ve been eating at Mickey D’s in Africa for 15 years, and there is always a line 25 people long every time I go in there.

Why is that? How can that be?

As for Ebay…

Automobiles and even airplanes are transacted on EBay all the time. Used electronics that cost thousands of dollars are transacted between nameless and faceless parties.

How is such a thing possible? Why don’t all transactions end up being frauds, with engineless cars showing up on people’s doorsteps, or cardboard cutouts? How can millions of people keep coming back, time after time, to conduct business with faceless and nameless avatars and not have the whole thing collapse?

You use contemptous language that suggests you think Sam Stone and I are silly for assuming that the world would collapse without government oversight. But the reality is that there are massive, burgeoning marketplaces and businesses all over the world that are growing without it. And I would argue because of the lack of oversight. I think Sam would argue the same thing.

You are afraid of yourself. That is why you want the government to tell you everything will be allright. You are afraid of being accountable for your own choices. That frightens you.

So you reach for the quick psychological salve of signing over your rights of choice to someone who promises you that he will take care of you.

I call it the “Voyager” syndrome. If you search on the Libertarian/fringe thread from a few years ago, and go to (about) page 6 or so, you will see what I mean.

Voyager likes keeping freedom for himself for the simple things in life. Choosing a brand of cola, watching a television program, or picking out a smartphone. But the higher the stakes get, such as the terms and conditions of mortgage, or the drugs he ingests, the more he wants someone else to tell him what to do. The more important a decision is for him, the more he wants to divorce himself from the accountability of his own choices and run into the arms of someone who will promise him that everything will be alright.

It worked for Lenin. And Hitler.

144

You speak a lot about the quantum of spending, but not much at all about public structure, including single-payer option, to avoid actually engaging with the point I was making.

Personally, I think the US system of employer-based health insurance is about the worst imaginable. It combines the problems that beset entrenched private systems without a general public option with added labour market rigidities caused by linking employment with health insurance. It’s just a stupid, inefficient system and regardless of aggregate costs, it compares poorly in terms of health outcomes and costs with mixed single payer models and models with embedded public structure.

As for Obamacare, it’s an imperfect but reasonable compromise given the US political system is essentially unworkable and captured by vested interests. Would I prefer a real public option and the economies of scale of publicly subsidised drugs? Absolutely. But that wasn’t deemed politically feasible and is certainly strongly opposed by libertarians who mendaciously attacked Obamacare as being socialist.

And that’s just the policy area of health. There are many other areas, where the aforementioned countries rely on strong regulatory regimes, as well as public funds and institutions that are contrary to the assertion. Given their higher ranking, this reinforces the point that absolutist libertarian rhetoric about freedom is poorly founded.

145

You responded thoughtfully to my post a few days ago and then I responded thoughtfully (I thought) to yours.

If you do not like the cut & paste from that wiki I am waiting for your response to my post.

146

Wow…

First of all global brands will care about their global image so will not be as keen to serve harmful food. A scandal in a McDonalds in Africa could hurt sales globally (see KFC story below).

Second, brands like Coca-Cola and McDonalds do cut quality and skimp. Why do you think Coke is full of high fructose corn syrup now instead of sugar? Why do you think McDonalds made chicken nuggets out of pink paste (granted they stopped that after public pressure)?

None of those things are inedible and are even legal in the US. Clearly though food companies walk right up to the line in places in an effort to cut costs and the result, while not poisonous, is not particularly good for you either and can be harmful (soda/McDonalds).

Third, a quick Google search can show you plentiful examples of what happens with no FDA. Rarely will any of the problems kill you outright so you could travel to, say, China and eat and be happy as a clam. Does that mean you are ok with eating toxic food or rat passed off as something else?

[ul]
[li] Rice Tainted With Cadmium Is Discovered in Southern China[/li][li] Rat Meat Sold as Lamb Highlights Fear in China[/li][li] With 6,000 Dead Pigs in River, Troubling Questions on Food Safety[/li][li] Ice cubes at Chinese KFC, McDonald’s contain more bacteria than toilet water: report [/li][li] Hepatitis Threat Forces Another Frozen Fruit Recall (USA)[/li][li] Counterfeit Food More Widespread Than Suspected (Europe - “Investigators have uncovered thousands of schemes across Europe involving counterfeit or adulterated food, some on an industrial scale and in developed countries…”)[/li][li] The U.S.D.A. Inspects Its Inspectors (USA "…serial violators of health standards are allowed to keep operating.)[/li][li] Maggots in the Pasta: Europe Screens Tainted Chinese Food (Europe and more than just maggots including things like novovirus)[/li][li] Hepatitis Warning Leads to Recall of Frozen Berries (USA…different case than the previously listed one)[/li][/ul]

That is the result of the barest of Google searches and covers recent history.

Few if any of these things will see people dropping dead en masse. It will however sicken people.

It is clear there are plenty of unscrupulous companies providing food to us. Right here in the US even (see story linked above) as well as Europe (see stories linked above). In countries like China rampant barely covers it. You have no reason to suspect that food processing companies in Africa or Mexico are paragons of virtue. Some may be but almost certainly some are not.

With the FDA we have at least some check (albeit a weak one) on food quality. Without one you get China. You may be able to find quality food in China but how do you know?

147

Yeah, I find it hilarious that not immediately dropping dead was apparently a standard of safety sufficiently high to take out the party balloons in triumph.

People also care about getting food poisoning, getting parasites or diseases and having renal problems, just to name a few things. Regulation won’t necessary stop it completely, but it will control the risks downwards so that cases are extremely rare per head of population, while relying on purchasing decisions through repeat business certainly won’t do that. It’s fantasy to pretend otherwise.

148

And I should hope you can appreciate the difference between them and Eugene Debs, or Norman Thomas, or Michael Harrington, or Bernie Sanders.

149

LOL! That’s because you agree with his targeting of the poor and weak. You’d change your tune if the food you eat or the car you drive injures you. Then again, I don’t expect someone who believes all of that to ever make that connection

And there we have the thread :smiley:

150

No, what regulations do is give you a false sense of security. Right now you believe that because restaurants are inspected that you can blindly eat at any of them, and won’t be served expired food.

Well, as a fun little lesson, take a look at what’s happening in St Paul, Minnesota, right now. The state has found that city health inspectors were so brutally incompetent that they have shut them down and taken over their functions. This problem has been going on for at least a year.

Now consider that a restaurant only gets inspected about once per year, then consider that the inspector is as clueless about health regulations as you are. Do you still feel safe eating at a restaurant? How much expired food do you suppose you’ve been served?

Do you still feel safe? Do you still feel free to wonder into any restaurant at random, without any due diligence on your part? If you do get sick, who do you plan to blame: The restaurant for acting exactly as you expect them to? The city for failing to look out for you? The state for not acting fast enough? The feds for allow states to set health policy? Obviously we can’t blame you.

Maybe some day you’ll come out of your little bubble. Possibly after you’ve filled it with bloody diarrhea.

ETA Better article on the subject:

151

Congratulations, you found an example of a tousle between St. Paul and Minnesota over their regulated environment which implies an imperfect regime. But given that nobody suggested food regulations make it impossible to serve bad food, this doesn’t mean much. I don’t see anyone clamouring to repeal murder laws because murder still exists and sometimes authorities squabble over jurisdiction.

To make a meaningful case you need to show that unsafe practices, health incidents and general health outcomes associated with diet are equivalent or lower in an unregulated environment, through repeat business and decentralised general awareness, than under a regulated environment with food service registration, food handling training and periodic health and safety checks set according to the category of food service risk. Good luck with that.

152

Sure. Everyone does.

153

And he’s at it again!

See also this Forbes article on the new “libertarian populism.”

154

Libertarianism populism to me means limiting government intervention at home and abroad in order to liberate the working class from inflation, taxation, and regulations placed on commerce between consenting adults.

155

This is pure bullshit and gets at the heart of intra-liberal confusion. How does taxation distribute resources downward? It concentrates resources in Washington DC to be dispersed at the whim of the elite who own that city. Any crumbs that the “working class” get in this setup is purely for promoting Democratic hegemony.

156

As Lind goes on to discuss, 19th-Century Populism was pro-labor-unions, pro-inflationary monetary policy, pro-immigration restriction, and in favor of nationalizing railroads and replacing public-private contracting arrangements with government agencies. Today’s Libertarians are divided on immigration and against all the rest.

157

Ok and 19th century Liberalism was pro free market, pro sound money, anti-tax. I’m not one of those libertarians who tries to hold on to these old labels. The label “populist” has lain dormant for long enough that libertarians can put their own spin on it, imo. The Forbes article you linked to was very good btw.

158

I don’t think so. Pat Buchanan has both a prior and better claim.