It reminds me of what I just read in Nock’s book “Our Enemy, The State”.
“One asks again, what can be done to stop the States self-aggrandizement? Simply Nothing. So far from encouraging any hopeful contemplation of the unattainable, the student of civilized man will offer no conclusion but that nothing can be done. He can regard the course of our civilization only as he would regard the course of a man in a row-boat on the lower reaches of the Niagra.”
I’m with Esuric, let’s go full socialization now and get it over with. No reason to needlessly drag it on for decades more.
It fails to take into account the fact that these insurers will also be forced to insure a whole new high-risk pool of people, who will invariably require more consistent medical care of the substantially expensive persuasion–and they will have to pay for this care. In order to absorb these costs, premiums will necessarily have to be increased. As more health care resources are now being consumed at a higher rate than before, supply will dwindle and scarcity will occur, thereby driving the base costs of medical care up even higher, thereby making the insurers pay even more, thereby making the insurers raise premiums even higher.
Of course, you’re right, I had forgotten that only the propertied are intellectually and politically capable of making policy decisions. Perhaps we should re-institute slavery so that the benevolent protection of property rights can effectively safeguard the rest of the population from the dangers of self-determination.
Maybe no one should be making policy decisions on behalf of other people. Did that ever dawn on you?
I don’t understand. Democracy is a violation of individual rights and freedom, in the exact same way slavery is. Why would I condemn democracy and support slavery when it violates the same principles?
Not anymore. This whole thing is about to come down. The international monetary system is about 3 fiscal crises away from destroying itself. China can hurry this process; it merely need to accept its losses (dollar denominated debt) and begin servicing the needs of its own citizens. I wish I had $50,000 on me, I would short the dollar, Euro, Pound, and buy Yuan.
Yes, but in theory, the Republic is supposed be under a “Constitution”, but when was the last time the Constitution was upheld, ie, for such things as “Congress shall make no law…” etc.?
But the people like to have their needs met by the People in Power (no use calling it government anymore). Industry likes “bailouts” and “subsidies”, individuals like “benefits” and “entitlements”. Of course, the people and industries never think about where the money comes from, they simply believe their needs (interests) will be met by the People in Power. There will be no pioneer spirit. The people will not protest. There will be no nullification when many states are “bankrupt” (so to speak) due to budget problems and need Federal “assistance”.
lol… yes but in the Constitution it says ‘if necessary and proper’ they can do whatever they want and they’ve found many necessary things, in their special opinion, to do that’s for sure.
you might be right, but i know i can’t really talk politics or economics with most people around here. they could care less. and depending on how much they could care less about politics in general, how far they want to take that attitude, in the long run that might actually be good. though of course, I’m not ignoring that this all may have to degenerate into a worse off situation than it is now. I don’t know what goes on in other people’s heads. I was only giving my opinion.
But don’t underestimate Uncle Sam’s power to create crises. Remember how yields plummeted in the fall of '08, treasury prices soared? Nothing like a good world crisis and the “flight to quality” to get yields down. Maybe world crises will become the next “policy tool” to steer interest rates?
Regardless of whether or not a state apparatus exists, decisions will always have to be made involving matters of public interest, or resources of common value. How do you intend to adjudicate between individual interests without respecting either the principles of majority rule democracy (inherent in a jury), or the power of the state as represented by an appointed or elected judge?
The problem with this type of individualist analysis is that the very economic conditions of capitalism necessitate a large level of social cooperation - corporate development is an obvious manifestation of this process. In the end, you must decide - are you an anarchist or a capitalist? Do you want absolutely unfettered individual liberty, or do you want freedom of capital movement? The two cannot coincide.
It doesn’t matter. Since then, the FED has expanded the monetary base by 3 trillion dollars. Once it slows down its open market purchases, yields will soar, and we will default on our debt. Or we could just wait for the inevitable fiscal crises that are about to hit France and England, which will freeze the money markets, leading to massive global insolvency. The BIS and G20 know that the shit’s about to hit the fan, so they’re trying to ban all financial instruments which reveal the catastrophe they’ve created, like sovereign credit default swaps, for example. They are setting up a global regulatory regime in an attempt to mask their inflation, but it’s all in vein. The current neo-mercantilist system must implode.
You have a right to your life, your liberty, working hard and keeping what you earn. People who believe they also have a “right” to a job, healthcare, welfare, etc. tend to overlook that in order to deliver such services, the government has to violate someone else’s rights. ||
By respecting property rights. Also, “resources of common value” don’t exist. I don’t even know what that means.
When individuals are allowed to better their own condition they must necessarily benefit the condition of others, as long as property rights are maintained and respected. Production is a social process consisting of mutually beneficial and voluntary exchanges. There is no conflict between individualism and freedom–in fact, they are the same exact thing. The fact that we are all individuals and have our own interests only a fortiori defends our position, and refutes any theory which supports centralization/planning.
“The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble … and there is great danger that our people will lose that independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked … and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise.”
- MarkTwain*, letter to* Enterprise,January 24, 1866
Next stop: the “financial regulation” monstrosity which will fully realize the total socialization of the finance sector. Now doubt they will hurry this through in the fray of the fireworks over “healthcare reform”…
I think you could gain a lot by beggining to read some of the material offered here on this site.
I would tell you that there is no such thing as a public interest, or common value. We are not collective oriented beings as the Ant or honeybee. Praxeologically speaking we act independently of each other and in our own self interests.
The market will be the arbiter. Violating one’s rights in order to uphold them is self-defeating wouldn’t you say? Oppression of the majority is the opposite of what a market does, the two are not the same and not compatible. The market serves both minorities and majorities alike. Democracy does not.
A market encourages social cooperation, a democracy encourages social oppression and compliance by way of coercion.
Both, a market is anarchy by it’s very nature. New jars of fresh milk show up every morning at the store by way of anarchy. The new milk is not directed at the hands of a central authority, but in concert of numerous people seeking their own individual ends.
I would characterize a resource that is commonly available but universally valuable as a resource of common value, e.g. unenclosed lands in England before the Industrial revolution, which were available for planting and grazing publicly.
Without some form of adjudication, property rights cannot even be effectively established - this is the essential problem with your entire argument. Perhaps human social interactions would in fact be entirely free and mutually beneficial if property rights were universally respected - but history is a long litany of instances where property rights were not respected. To argue that abolishing the state would bring about some sort of universal enlightened respect for property is not only naive, it is utopian - and from a socialist, I think we can agree that means something.
I agree. I’m a minarchist. I reject all forms of anarchy as Utopian, and support the nightwatchmen state. There are problems with my position though, namely that all such minarchies eventually become complete democracies where the majority becomes the ultimate tyrant, and eventually places an actual tyrant in power. So I can’t respond to this position, though I’m sure that others will. My only point is that all productive and wealth producing activities come from mutually beneficial and voluntary market activities. When one understands the subjectivity of value, and acknowledges the existence of scarcity, then all forms of centralization and planning must be rejected.
That’s basically all goods of higher orders (initial inputs). This term seems completely arbitrary.