I think its kind of pointless arguing with this guy at this point. Its almost as if his dogged loyalty to his perfect ideology won’t even allow him to acknowledge anything that illustrates the fallacy of how his fantasy ideal government would never actually work in reality.
I don’t think he’s ignoring the questions at this point. I think he somehow doesn’t even see them.
Well, I learned pretty early. In high school history, we learned about the “robber barons” and trusts of the last two centuries, and their abuses. We also learned about Teddy Roosevelt and his “trust busting” efforts. The reason government got involved was because of these abuses. Among the abuses was, the robber barons and trusts, would do whatever it takes to get rid of any possible competition - the very cornerstone of most “Randian” fantasy worlds. Free enterprise ONLY existed for the few on top… it was not free for anyone else. The idea that a free, unregulated, unfettered “free” market will stay free has already been proven wrong, and the proof is in any history book that covers that time period.
No, it doesn’t. Read it again.
Let’s not pretend we have an immigration problem. We have a xenophobe problem.
So, there is no limit to the expansion of government in your opinion? Don’t you see that we are financing all this on borrowed money and printing press money from the Federal Reserve? Can’t you see that it is not sustainable?
The real issue is it appears you think virtually everything should be done by the government. I always believed that free people entering into mutually beneficial agreements with one another and practicing freedom of association could solve most problems. You seem to have little faith in this.
Is there anything the government should not do? Or can a bureaucratic agency from the Federal government do no wrong?
Name all the things that Obama has changed from the Bush administration. Remember, Bush started the bailouts and Obama supported him. Bush started the wars and Obama is continuing them. Bush appointed Bernanke and Obama reappointed him. Bush passed the Patriot Act and Obama extended it. Bush and Cheney are war criminals and Obama stalled any federal investigation into any wrongdoing. What has he done differently? What Bush era policy has Obama repealed?
By the way, the stimulus was a horrible idea. It should have never been passed. It will just make things worse, propping up bad debt and preventing a market correction.
Don’t you think he is letting the banks off the hook? It is business as usual on Wall Street after the “stimulus” and bailout.
So, lets just abolish the Constitution, since, according to you it serves no purpose anymore. The purpose of the Constitution is to explicitly spell out the functions of the Federal government, the rest left to the States and the people.
Why can you not look to the market first and to free people to solve problems? Why must we always look to the Federal Government for the answers to everything? They don’t have a very good track record.
Right, and the Constitution, which you apparently want to get rid of. You didn’t say that, but the function of the Constitution is to provide an arbitrary limit on government power. But you don’t care too much about that.
Good, we agree there. But we could not afford Universal Health Care even with massive military spending cuts. And it would not be desirable. As for rebuilding the infrastructure, I agree completely. That is one function of government that should not be neglected.
About UHC, as bad as our system is, other countries health care systems have major problems as well. What about waiting lists, rationing, and the inherent budget problems that come with it? If you can claim “everyone is covered”, yet people still die on waiting lists for care, then you have not succeeded in your goal. Our government is not equipped to function in that manner. I’ve posted this already, but you missed it, so why don’t you respond to it directly:
As a result of Obama’s Health Care bill, our medical system will be facing a 150,000 doctor shortfall over the next decade. Basically, Obama can cheer about how many people are covered, but there won’t be enough doctors to take care of these people.
What is your response to this information? Why not let the government claim it can cover everyone? What will that change? The doctors and resources are still not there. You are living in this fantasy universe where our Federal Government works like a magician that can summon resources out of thin are and create money (well, they already do that, but that robs people of their purchasing power through punishing inflation) to solve all the ills of the world. You have to come back to reality someday or you will face a rude awakening.
It is embarrassing to hear you talk about free market economics with this level of ignorance. I know you have never once in your life studied Austrian theory or understood the concepts of supply and demand and the effects of competition.
Competition ALWAYS lowers cost. Any monopoly, whether private or government based (usually private monopolies have bought off the government) raises prices. You think a private doctor would reject any sick patient? Not only are doctors looking to stay in business, but they are looking to gain a reputation for a leg up on their competitors. It was common practice before government got involved for doctors to treat patients for free. There were many church hospitals and charity hospitals. They were put out of business by the government. Under a free market, there would be so many choices available, that virtually everyone, poor or rich would have access to decent care.
The most ludicrous notion that liberals have is that if you take the profit motive out of something it will increase the quality. Yeah, cause doctors love to spend a decade in medical school racking up hundreds of thousands in debt and then work for free. In a free market, the consumer is king. Business must satisfy the consumer or go bankrupt. There would be instant checks on unethical behavior.
Der Trihs, I don’t know where you went to school, but you should ask for a refund. Your knowledge of markets and freedom is abysmal and it seems you have bought into the convenient propaganda about how bad things were “in the old day” and how the government “saved us from ourselves”. It is sad.
I hope you consider sucking up your pride and actually spend some time reading Austrian economic literature and lay off the propaganda a little.
We are already spending $7000-$8000 per student in this country. As a transition, we could give vouchers to those who wanted them and show how private education works. Over time we could cut the cost to public schools. This is not the biggest cost. Its not like anybody is going to favor eliminating public schools overnight. That is never going to happen. This would be a negligible cost over what we are spending now and the benefits would tremendous.
This is a fair question. I think that public education is so much more ingrained in peoples psyche that it will necessitate a transition phase were we can demonstrate the improvement of quality in private education. Plus, this step will INCREASE competition.
Government involvement in medical care has decreased competition. The steps needed are to eliminate government rules and regulations and licensing of the medical industry to increase competition and create a market. It is an opposite problem.
Are their libertarians that favor abolishing public schools? Sure, but I am not one of them. I favor giving them competition. The trick is insuring that government gives a voucher that can be freely used on any private school without the government then controlling that school. That is a difficult task, because where government money goes, government control follows. Perhaps it could be in the form of an income tax write off of $7000 or $8000 dollars a year or something like that. The point would be to increase school choice and raise the level of education in this country.
After all, how are we going to elect more libertarians to office if people are educated so poorly?
I already answered that. I missed it because I was a page behind or so. But here is the gist (its a few posts up):
Make sense?
Are you suggesting there will be private schools that charge a total yearly tuition of no more than $8000? Because if there are not, at least half the current students will be unable to afford to pay tuition above the government voucher, and their education will be much worse than public schools, because they will get no education at all.
It seems to me that whatever “immigration problem” we have mightbe solved by deregulation and allowing the free market to operate. At whatever point there is no benefit to immigration it’ll stop on its own.
I’m not saying he isn’t doing NEW stuff. I am saying that he isn’t repealing the bad stuff Bush did. This is a very easily verified fact. Obama is posturing like he will draw down in Iraq, but we still have 100,000 troops there. And he sent in more contractors. He will never leave Iraq completely. And why the escalation in Afghanistan? The bombings in Pakistan, the threatening of Iran? He is more pro war than Bush. Maybe you want a pro war president. I don’t.
As far as financial regulatory “reform” literally everything reasonable in that bill has been watered down and rendered virtually meaningless, from ending too big to fail to auditing the Federal Reserve. Obama is protecting the banks. He fought against a true audit. He doesn’t want transparency and accountability, he wants secrecy and the status quo. He has demonstrated that.
Health care reform was not real reform, even from a progressive standpoint. Ask a true progressive like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich what they think of this bill. It is a massive handout to the insurance companies and nothing more. The arbitrary “claim” that it will cover several tens of thousands more of us rings hollow. Plus, he spent a year pushing a bill that nobody wanted while people were concerned about jobs and losing their houses. Talk about being out of touch.
The principled progressives I hang out with and respect are completely disgusted with what Obama has done so far. From any rational perspective he is just another Bush. He’s not “cleaning up the mess”, he’s making the mess infinitely larger by the day. If you don’t see that now, you will within a year. I can guarantee that.
You can’t have it both ways. If you want to free a doctor from government “interference” then that doctor will be free to accept or reject any patient for any reason.
I personally had a doctor reject my health insurance (private insurance, by the way.) When I told him I couldn’t afford to continue being treated by him without using my insurance, he wished me good luck in finding a new doctor.
As for education, here’s the website for the Catholic high school I attended nearly 40 years ago. This is a high school that’s subsidized by the church, and the tuition for a single child is $7,715/yr. They point out that the actual cost is more like $8,600. Of course that doesn’t include the cost of educating those pesky “special needs” students. They’re courteously informed that the school accepts only those “whose educational needs can be met by the Trinity staff.”
Here’s my assertion: in a perfectly free market, there will always be those for whom the market decides it is not appropriate to serve. Agree or disagree?
I am not saying that we will be problem free under any policies. But many of our problems are caused by disastrous policies that many liberals only want to accelerate. I am favoring taking a different course. The notion that we would be much worse off is laughable.
Well, certainly Obama is not going to deliver on these principles. Ron Paul certainly would. We will have to wait and see if Rand has what it takes. I certainly hope so.
As far as:
Balancing the budget: The obvious thing is cutting spending. Ron Paul would slash the military budget, shut down overseas bases and bring our troops home from around the world. He would end the Department of Homeland Security (a meaningless bureaucracy that does NOT make us safer), the Department of Agriculture ( or as I call it “The Department of Welfare to Corporate Farmers”), the Department of Education (return control to the states, allow vouchers), End the War on Drugs (self explanatory), Reign in the CIA (make sure it functions only to gather intelligence to protect national security, not as a government unto itself), and Audit the Federal Reserve, reigning in the ability to print money at will debasing the currency.
Sounds like a good platform to me. Ron Paul wants to avoid a currency collapse and a situation similar to Greece (the riots and social unrest). The other option is a total collapse of our system. I don’t want that, and I don’t think you do either.
Why would I care what whackjobs like Kucinich or Nader think? You seem to be hung up on ideological purity, be it libertarian or progressive or conservative; if someone doesn’t hew to the distilled doctrine of their respective ends of the political spectrum, they are somehow politically unclean. You must be very young to have not realized that things rarely work out the way the textbooks predicted, and the most productive political system is the one furthest from the each of the extremes.
If you don’t see that now, you will within a decade. I can guarantee that.
Its disgusting. I think you could make a very good argument that government was well within its rights to intervene in this case. But that doesn’t mean we can’t revisit the issue and ask if perhaps people are prepared to behave in a civilized manner towards each other without the government getting involved in private property. If I claim to defend property rights, a liberal may say “you want to go back to segregation”. Of course I don’t. I want to build on my property without a permit. Or I don’t want my property confiscated under eminent domain, or a myriad other property rights concerns. But the civil rights bill also allows a convenient way to overrule any objection to government intrusion into business. I don’t think Rand Paul really objects to ending discrimination or racism or segregated lunch counters. He is rightly concerned about a slippery slope that permits government to infringe property rights for any reason. He is right to have this worry. And it is reasonable to have this discussion without being labelled a bigot.
The same thing is true when one favors an instance of State’s Rights. People say you favor slavery. That is ridiculous and offensive. I want a reasonable counterbalance to the power of the Federal Government. That is all. Unfortunately our history of racism and discrimination has muddied the waters to the degree the intellectual debate has been stifled. The term racist has been tossed around much too freely these days.
I believe that either now or in the not too distant future a critical mass will have been reached in society where people will not tolerate bigoted behavior whether there are laws or not. Then, possibly we can have the America where everyone is treated equally and we don’t have to violate property rights to put up with an oppressive government to get along with one another. I want a color blind society that Martin Luther King, Jr preached about. That is the American that I want to live in.
I want that, plus the explicit separation of private property and public property. I think we can have that today. I don’t believe we would re-segregate overnight without the explicit wording in the Civil Rights Bill. That is just my opinion.
What questions haven’t I answered? I have diligently gone from front to back on this thread answering virtually every single post made. What is the problem?
How can you claim that the form of government I advocate would not work in reality? You can’t possibly know that. The failure of your form of government is all around us. It is plain for all to see. Double digit unemployment, a thirteen trillion dollar national debt, rampant corruption, endless wars, etc. I am offering a compelling alternative. I don’t pretend that it is perfect. But it would eliminate the most pressing problems of our time and restore fiscal discipline to our government and eliminate moral hazard from our financial system. Not to mention restoring civil liberties and saving the dollar.
If you want to write off what I have said so far, give me some indication you actually know something about Austrian School economics and libertarian ideology other than the occasional mention in the media. Argue with me on the facts, not preconceived (often fallacious) notions.
I hate to break it to you but much of what you have been taught in history class was, if not wrong, unbelievably simplified. The reason government expands and “gets involved” in any capacity is usually because powerful individuals desire to use the power of the state for their own benefit. There is continuous rewriting of history. You went to a public school, right? Why on earth would a government school ever tell you that it was wrong or ill conceived for the government to “get involved” and expand its power? It would never happen. That part of history is frequently revised in an effort to maintain the intervention.
By the way, there WERE abuses in the 19th century. However, the industrial revolution provided the greatest creation of wealth and the quickest rising of the standard of living for the most people in world history. Nothing since that time comes even close. Even the poorest were doing much better than their parents or grandparents. Once a free market stops being free, it is correct and necessary for the government to “regulate” the environment of the market, that is to ensure that there is a free market. That is what I believe, as do most libertarians. This is a far cry from what the term regulation means today.
Virtually all of abuses of “free markets” in our history come when corporate power buys off politicians to distort the rules of the market in their favor. That requires government intervention and is the antithesis of a free market.
For a better look at the truth of the Industrial Revolution, look here:
Perhaps you don’t understand the Constitution and its ascribed function. That is the only reason I can think that you wouldn’t understand what I said.
Why don’t you elaborate on what YOU think the Constitution says?
There is no problem I have with legal immigration. Shouldn’t we reform our system so we can welcome legal immigrants rather than having them hide in the shadows, being exploited by businesses? My issue is that it is a strain on society to have a certain number of mass immigrants coming across the border all at once, stressing our institutions and creating social upheaval, overflooding our hospitals and getting welfare benefits in places like California, which is completely broke.
I welcome all immigrants who want to come and work hard and improve their lives. We must have a reasonable legal system to allow reasonable numbers of people to come at a time, allowing time for our society to adjust to every influx of immigrants.
Plus, the law is the law. I don’t think you can ignore the law simply when it is inconvenient.
Believing this does not make me a xenophobe. To insinuate that is intellectually dishonest.
If we created that program, people would have a choice. They could take that money and put it towards a private education that cost more, or spend it on a private school that charge exactly that amount. I went to a very nice private high school that cost about $13000 tuition. Plus I was on scholarship that paid for half of that. So that is not too far off from what a decent private school would charge. Obviously the super high end preppy schools in New York are different (they cost upwards of 20 grand a year) but there would be many options available to students.
Plus, if this was enacted, private schools would pop up around the country charging exactly $8000 a year, competing for that money. A market would be created instantly overnight. Parents would have a choice for the first time.
How could you oppose that?
Funny. You’re a funny guy. Seriously, we could solve our problems by, oh I don’t know, actually enforcing the law. Big shock, I know. I am very compassionate towards mexican immigrants, but surely you can see that there are negative effects for everyone if a certain amount of people flood across the border all at once stressing our social systems? Can’t you see the reasonable objections a person might have?