Slashdot Mirror

how the hell did we arrive at this retarded status quo

Government regulation. Health care became bundled with employment as a response to FDR's wage controls. Later tax benefits for that made it more common. The Federal Government created HMOs, which then expanded the role of health insurance from unexpected events (ie, cancer, breaking your leg, etc) to covering your kid getting a cold. Harry Browne explains this better than I have.

Currently we have a third party (insurance or medicare/medicaid) paying the bills rather than the patient. When a third party pays, costs generally go up since people don't bother to shop around for better deals (or are forced to not to shop around by the insurance company). This raises prices. Real competition will lower prices.

If you look at things people pay for out of pocket, such as Lasik, prices have dropped both in Federal Reserve Notes and in gold/silver while prices in every other form of health care has risen sharply. Same goes with veterinary care. Prices, adjusted for currency devaluation, have dropped over time. John Stossel explains this well.

We need competition. Real competition. We need an end to state mandates. We need competition over state lines (the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution is meant to stop states from preventing commerce across state lines). We need an end to government price fixing. The role of insurance needs to be reduced back towards covering unexpected conditions. We need better fraud laws to protect people from getting dropped from their plans when making a claim. Etc.

Also, we need a focus on nutritional medicine as the majority of our diseases are caused/induced by poor nutrition. Proper nutrition can cure disease rather than just covering up the symptoms with drugs and cause a lower need for surgery.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE. do you not see that?

when you oppose socialized medicine in the usa, because of all the evils of that you see, you merely support a MUCH WORSE STATUS QUO

are you resisting because you have a better solution? (crickets)

The current plans in Congress are, as Representative (and Medical Doctor) Ron Paul puts it, "Corporate Welfare". Howard Dean even agrees with that and referred to the plan as "this is is a giant bail-out. This is a bail-out that makes AIG look cheap. Sixty billion dollars a year go to the insurance companies under this bill."

Some of us could not. The reality is the healthcare problems in this country lead to these issues.

Our health insurance problems are caused by: tax laws, mandated coverage, lack of competition across state lines (what the interstate commerce clause is in the Constitution to prevent, not to let Washington micromanage everything), and corporatism/crony capitalism.

Here are two good article by Harry Browne (Libertarian presidential candidate in 96 and 00): Let's Make Health Care Inexpensive Again and Why not real health-care reform?.

Yet, if you dare mention another method the teabaggers go nuts.

Prick.

Reminds me of the stories about Andrew Galambos. He was nuts about IP, at the point of changing his name because it was the same as his father's.

He's been rightfully forgotten, but if anyone wants to take a peek at how brain-dead this whole IP thing is, here's a famous essay by Harry Browne.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Galambos.htm

Please look into the well-established concept of "case law" before parading your own ignorance around in a public forum. I'd suggest reading http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html for a start. If the words there have too many syllables for you, try http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

If he weren't dead, I think you'd be better off asking Harry Browne what he'd do...

privacy?
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

Read what Harry Browne had to say about insider trading.

The SEC does not protect anyone from making stupid financial decisions.

It fascinates that so many who claim to be "Christians" are also social Darwanists ...

Little correction here: I'm not christian nor any other believer of any god. For Darwinists ... well, such label maybe may be applied to me.

But back to the point which you brought to our attention which I did not address in the original post:

So what you are saying in essence is might equals right that those who can't make it in the global market place should be left to suffer at the side of the road?

Well, yes, I prety much support such idea.

But with "little" addition: Such people should get help. And they should get it from those who are successfull (and willing to help).

I'm against any "help" which is forced upon people under the threat of police and jail (a.k.a. you do not pay taxes, you go to jail).

People should be able to choose whom and how they help. Because one can not help everybody. And everyone has different idea about what a good help is.
(And those who can help but do not ... well, they'll be remembered and helped accordingly when they'll be in need - i.e. maybe they'll be helped anyway, but that may change their attitude even if their upbringing did not.)

IMO, one should first help his family. When there are still some resources left, one should choose on whom else and how it is spent.

I'm totaly against my taxes being used to help people I know nothing about in a ways I do not approve of. If I want to help, I help either directly the people who need it or I find (or in extreme cases found) a charity, which will help others in a way I prefer.

Why such attitude? Well, it has roots in what we call "unemployment insurance" in my country: if you're employed, you must pay it. If you're unemployed, you are eligible to receive some money from state for a while - supposedly to bridge the time 'till you find a new job. Problem is, a lot of people clearly do not want to work and I think they are not eligible to get such money. But they are getting them. Same with "social insurance" (in rougth terms same as "unemployment i." but you get less money but the period of time is not limited). 1)

So, if I advance my "proposition" from the "local" to the "global", then IMO those unsuccessfull in the global market will have some family or friends or neighbours or in worst case some charity, who will be able and willing to help them to survive. And problem solved.

side note 1) :

Anonymous and state sanctioned help plus big taxes spent on who knows what are IMO the reason why a lot of people do not actively help others by themselves - they either a) think they alredy helped by paying taxes, or b) do not have enough resources left to help, or something like that. Then, at best, they drop few cents onto some massive charity or into the hat of some beggar. (of course I wrote "a lot of people are ..." which can also be understood by some as "I am ..." :)

So if I'm right about that state sanctioned help, than a lot of people are in reality libertarians, at least in this special case, according to article by Harry Browne:

When a neighbor isn't willing to contribute as much to a social project as you are, you'd never think of:
Using a gun to force him to contribute;
Hiring an armed gang to threaten to kidnap him or confiscate his money if he didn't contribute;
Using the government in place of the armed gang if he didn't contribute -- because every government program, in the final analysis, involves violence against those who don't comply.

(except of course in reality it may be other way around: you do not want others to point a gun at you if you do not contribute "enough" - that's the more selfish and "darwinian?" point of view :) .

Searching the consitution...

Free Speech - Check.
Privacy... searching... hmmm.

<tinfoil_hat> Just wait - when a supreme court rules you don't have privacy, what other famous cases based on privacy will fall? </tinfoil_hat>

BTW - here is a reasoned argument on why there is such a right.

Read these:
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryo ne.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#GovernmentS chools
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=240 68
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26270

Read these:
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryo ne.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#GovernmentS chools
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=240 68
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26270

Read these:
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/EducationForEveryo ne.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/FreeTheSchools.htm
http://harrybrowne.org/Journal0409.htm#GovernmentS chools
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=240 68
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26270

Harry Browne explains what life would be like without the income tax or the "fair" tax: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/IncomeTaxDay.h tm

I think the 90% of the world that doesn't like obsessing with security would disagree with you about lassez-faire and how well it is handling identity theft and other criminal conduct that has exploded thanks to the internet. My dad *deserves* legal protections from phishing attacks (a specific example: banks should be required to guarantee client accounts... that is WHAT A BANK IS!!!). And a small business should have their online transactions safe from remote fraud (with banks again being held responsible for THEIR end of any fraudulent transaction). Doing so means legally-defined minimum standards and coverages for financial institutions.

Actually, a bank is there to store your valuable money, and that's all it is to do. A mortgage company is for home loans, a personal line of credit company is for credit cards. Banks just store money -- they used to store your gold very safely and give you a note guaranteeing you that gold -- it was called a dollar bill. Banks do not have to guarantee you anything, in fact, in a free market, banks that didn't guarantee you safety would not last as people would put their money in safe banks. Don't ask laws to give you what you can have for the asking.

You're quick to claim that all regulatory activity is a failure, but using your same (flawed) reasoning, technological remedies have also failed to 'solve' ID theft, viruses, trojans, spam, keyloggers, hacking, international abuses, and so on. These problems all remain, and they need a blend of tech and legal remedies. Tech wherever possible, legal to make sure that it is never cheaper/easier to deny or whitewash an expensive problem.

Interesting. I don't use my ID -- ever. I don't use my social security number except when I take payments from a customer and need to fill out a 1099. I don't bank, so I don't worry about banks. I don't have credit cards anymore. Why would I worry about identity theft? Everyone that knows me, KNOWS ME. Viruses are solved -- I haven't had one in years. Anyone who gets a virus is to blame, not the virus. Spam, all that? I don't get it either. My public e-mail address here got 2 spam messages last week, and I post my e-mail address for all to see!

We outgrew that silly business-will-self-regulate oversimplification with Love Canal and DDT, if not with child labor.

I'm glad I'm on your foe list, because you speak nonsense, seriously. I don't mean to write any flamebait, but Love Canal was proven a government problem, not a corporate one. The government you so loved made the problem what it is. In fact, in the media publications of the time before the disasters, many companies were warning the school board not to build there. Your government did it, not any big bad corporation.

As for DDT, this is another greenie myth. You might have "learned" some scary myths in your pro-environment rally or in your public school, but it's all just myths.

Don't spew authoritarian rhetoric if you're against my anti-authoritarian rhetoric. We'll just both flag each other -5 and be done with it. I personally like hearing debates against my opinions, but not when it is the same proven MYTHS over and over and over for the last decade. Come up with new things to find false, will you?

A good arguement on why all campaign finance laws and limits on free political speech should be repealed: Campaign Finance Laws.

Wake up! Enron is a perfect example of how the free markete punishes dishonesty. Where is enron? It's gone man! Do you really think that if the books were more transparent that Enron would still be around? Enron had an erroneous business model and would have collapsed SOONER if it handn't fudged the numbers. That means everyone would have been out of work EARLIER.

Besides, when YOU get a job, you are not garaunteed the job for life. YOU are taking a measured risk that the company YOU work for will be around for the long haul and that the people that run the company are honest and competant. I'm so tired of people expecting the entire world to be perfect and safe. The cosmos just isn't set up that way. The entire universe is virtually unexplainable and chaotic and random at its subatomic core, so expecting a world where there is no death, no risk, no pain, no failure and so forth is expecting to live in your fantasies forever. Grow up. Toughen up. Bad shit happens sometimes...but at least when there is a free market, the best companies, products and ideas eventually win. It is when you encourage and condone government interference and regulation that things slow down, become artificial and get politicized into oblivion.

btw...who said anything about Iraq? The only war we Libertarians condoned was the one we fought against the British in the 18th century. Libertarians would never send troops outside of our country and we certainly wouldn't interfere in the politics of other countries (which is the reason the WTC was bombed in the first place). We believe in national DEFENCE, not offence. That means the only US troops you'd see under a Libertarian president would be on US soil. Libertarians were gainst the idea of invading Iraq before Iraq became Iraq.

That sure does sound ominous...do you have any REAL examples to back up your points? As far as I can see, the only real and destructive monopolies in the world are those that are created by the government, not by businesses in the free market. Read this article to see what I mean.

That's why almost all countries mix in a lot of government regulation, (anti-trust laws, living wage laws, environmental standards, etc) so that society can get the benefits of capitalism while avoiding the abuses.

I guess the political PR machine has worked well on you if you really believe that bullshit. We have regulations, limits on our liberties, "anti-trust" laws etc because politicians profit from these powers which of course they can sell out to the highest bidder. Take away all these powers and there isn't any power to abuse.

I would say that your "mixed" model hurts the market, not helps it.

That sure does sound ominous...do you have any REAL examples to back up your points? As far as I can see, the only real and destructive monopolies in the world are those that are created by the government, not by businesses in the free market. Read this article to see what I mean.

That's why almost all countries mix in a lot of government regulation, (anti-trust laws, living wage laws, environmental standards, etc) so that society can get the benefits of capitalism while avoiding the abuses.

I guess the political PR machine has worked well on you if you really believe that bullshit. We have regulations, limits on our liberties, "anti-trust" laws etc because politicians profit from these powers which of course they can sell out to the highest bidder. Take away all these powers and there isn't any power to abuse.

I would say that your "mixed" model hurts the market, not helps it.

Libertarians claim to be the third largest party in the US, and they range from wanting small government to virtually no government at all. They all agree that the government should be dramatically smaller than it is today. Their philosophy is guided by the principal that freedom is always more important than "safety" and force. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to do as they please so long as they do not take away the freedoms of others. The Libertarian party in the US has a very detailed section on their website with points illustrating how this philosophy shapes their political stance on nearly everything: Libertarian Issues & Positions.

If you want to read some engaging essays and articles by the Libertarian Party's most prominant writer (and former presidential candidate), I suggest visiting Harry Browne's Website. You can also find alot of libertarian essays and editorials at Lew Rockwell's website

Enjoy!

I've been working on a little theory that the whole outsourcing phenomena is reflective of a much deeper economic problem that's been developing in the U.S. over the last 20+ years.

The last great bout with price-inflation in the U.S. was in the late 1970's, after Nixon cut the dollar's theoretical gold-peg (theoretical, because only foreigners could redeem dollars for gold), and while the economy was absorbing all of the dollars that'd been "printed" to pay for the Vietnam war.

Paul A. Volcker, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979->1987, solved the Inflationary crisis of the early 1980's by hiking interest rates to obscenely high levels. His entry in the wikipedia says that inflation was reduced from 9% in 1980 to 3.5% in 1982. The cure wasn't easy, however, as it induced a recession and much joblessness. It was thought that Reagan was going to be a one-termer.

Anyways, today is like the 1970's all over again. We've had tons of newly printed money spewing out of the government since about 1995. First it fueled the dot-com bubble. The government opened the money-faucet even wider after 9/11. The effect of having more money in the economy is that prices go up for scarce items with high demand. Hence we have home prices that seems to grow without end, and the price of oil going through the roof.

The difference between the 2000's and the 1970's is that Giant Corporations seem to think they have a way out of paying American workers the increased wages price inflation forces them to demand: outsourcing.

Remember Little Boy George's hundred-billion $ economic stimulus package that got passed soon after 9/11? In decades past, Americans (er, USians) would've taken the money and gone out and bought products built buy other Americans (USians). Those producers would take their profits from all the sales and use them to invent new things to sale, and new American factories to build them in. Closed circuit, stimulus gets recycled in the economy over and over again.

In the new system, Americans take their economic stimulus to go out and buy stuff "made in china" And profits from that sale allows chinese entrepreneurs to go and build a new factory in China. Open circuit. So Georgie Boy's stimulus package went around once.

There's nothing wrong with trade, so long as it's a two-way street. But at least in the last 4 years, Americans have been buying goods from China, and the chinese have been lending the dollars they've made in the sale back to us, to pay for our illustrious leader's silly little jihad against self-induced terrorism (See Harry Browne's When Will We Learn [part 2], and his other 2001 articles for what I think is a lucid explanation of how the U.S.'s foreign policy has lead to the problems we face today).

Getting back to the subject at hand: the primary problem is not that there's a trade imbalance, but that the Federal Reserve's willy-nilly printing of money allows the imbalance to grow much much larger than it ever could otherwise. In hard-money times, if China accumulated an excess of dollars, those dollars would become worth less in world trade. Chinese products would become more expensive for Americans to buy, and American products would become cheaper for the Chinese.

But as it has been, the Chinese pegged their currency to the dollar (hence, no relative adjustment in the value of the two currencies), and that was just fine for Georgie, 'cause the chinese bought plenty of U.S. bonds to pay for his silly little war.

I think i'm rambling now, so I'll quit soon. My main point is that Giant Corporations are outsourcing today to hide rampant 1970's-style inflation from their customers.

Outsourcing is also done to prevent the natural "leveling of the playing field." In a closed-circuit economy, if no one want

Unfortunately, the parent should be modded insightful. The environmentalists would prefer to leave our children a socialist government that regulates all aspects of their life.

What I don't get is that the federal government is the worst polluter and yet the environmentalists want MORE federal government. It's the federal tax breaks that are given for 10000lb suv's and to the oil companies that cause these gasses. When will people learn that we can never make government benevolent. We need to get rid of all but the smallest amount of government and environment will be better off. In a free market, that which uses less energy will be cheaper and in more demand. The federal government subsidizes that which uses more energy, making an artificial demand for it. If we want to save the planet, we need to get rid of the massive governments that are destroying it.

Now we have UHF, VHF, cable and satellite, so why this FCC still around?

Goes to show you that once you create a government agency it only grows bigger, it never goes away.

Get rid of the FCC and free the airwaves. Read http://www.harrybrowne.org/Harry Browne's articles for more details

Harry Browne's campaign was also roiled in controversy in 2000 which led a lot of little "L' libertarians to vote for Bush.

Economic Fallacies: Is America In Trouble for Lack of Manufacturing?

The Exporting Jobs Scam

Service versus Manufacturing Economy

The Exporting Jobs Scam

Service versus Manufacturing Economy

I agree in theory, but in practice a vote libertarian is a vote for Bush. Just ask anybody who voted for Nader in 2000.

No no no no no, a vote for the Libertarian is supposidly taking votes away from the Republicans (because Libertarians are conservative.) thats why when I voted for Nader, even though I'm a conservative, the vote really counted for Bush.

Now, at least in Florida, a vote for Gore counted for Buchanan I don't understand this but I didn't make up this logic.

What I don't understand is if a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and a vote for Browne (in 2000) is a vote for Gore, than who do you vote for if you actually want your vote to count for Nader?

If a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, does that mean a vote for Bush is a vote for Nader?

No, that' makes no sense.

I guess you have to vote for the other reform canidate if you actually want to vote for Nader. But no one remembers his name.

Maybe if we get even more 3rd party canidates there will actually be an enemy of my enemy to vote for so that you can actually vote 3rd party without your vote counting for a Republicrat.

But I've heard rumours that the Democrats are playing dirty tricks with Nader this year, and if that's true it really pisses me off. Could that backfire?

Exagerating a bit, my experiences in France (as well as the actions of G.W.) have pushed me away from the republicans, but I'm not quite all the way to anarcho-capitalist. Free market libertarian is probably the best descriptor - allow the government to run national defence and protect the people and property against the most egregious crimes: primarily murder. Most everything else can be handled by tort law. Social and especially moral issues are not the state's concern.

I understand the power of personal incentive, but I do believe there is a proper balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society.

I think Adam Smith was right, an individual, working only for his own benefit will positively influence society. Working for only my own benefit, how many people's livlihood do I contribute to? Unless I'm sacking my money away under the matress, I'm providing employment (well, contributing to it anyways), everyone from the grocery clerk on up is benefiting from my being employed. If I don't spend it and invest it that money is allowing banks to make business or mortage loan or giving companies the capital to expand. I'm not doing this out of the goodness of my heart, I'm getting a return. At this point the argument generally shifts around to the "super rich" and how they're not paying their fair share. Their money isn't under the mattress' either, it's providing more jobs, loans, and capital than my small salary ever could.

Beyond all that, it's my belief that people can only operate in their own best interest due to the survival instinct. There are a very few true martyrs, most are simple cons preying on people's good nature. Every society has them, the party members who lived it pretty damn well while the "proles" subsisted in misery or our current government whose forcing us into the social security con while exempting themselves (ever seen the pension those bastards get?). Again, the "super rich" are usually lumped into this category but do they truly belong? I've never heard bill gates claim to be "giving himself up only for my benefit". Those who are truly martyrs? They're dead and their usefulness and contribution to society died with them.

Societies can and do get torn apart when the power of individuals gets too strong.

Only when those individuals are created by the will of, or due to force of, the state. Al Capone, Pablo Escobar, or the other crime lords? All created by the state's wish to control some substances "for our benefit". State created monopolies are a problem, think ma bell. When the state, who is supposed to operate for everyone's benefit, declares that one company is the one true way, that's a huge barrier to entry. Outside of those, the free market has ways of dealing with individuals who get out of hand. Microsoft is the current target, but really, as microsofts share in the marketplace has risen, haven't you noticed the rise in Linux and BSD distributions? If you can do better than MS, do so, otherwise get the hell out of the way because someone else will. Money spent on lawsuits trying to break up the company could have been invested into a competitor to bring another product to market. There is no need for the state to interfere in this area.

I have to apologize for the spelling and lack of coherence, it's way past my bedtime... If you're at all interested in this viewpoint, check out Harry Browne a past libertarian candidate and much more skilled orator.

Freedom for Iraqis

May I point you to my favorite civil libertarian author's thoughts on the subject of privacy.

May I point you to my favorite civil libertarian author's thoughts on the subject of privacy.

And just how is this non-violent candidate going to collect all that money from American taxpayers for government programs, like social security or education or medicare?

By getting rid of social security. Then selling off federal government owned property to pay for the people currently with social security.
Anyway, it didn't sound like the parent was against taxes. More like against being forced to support war through taxation.

Like George Washington once said:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Libertarian Party
Harry Browne (check out the radio archives).

-metric

The time has definitely come for a new political party that champions individual liberty, social responsibility and sicentific progress

Maybe it's time to investigate the Libertarians . Looks like they've started out in the right direction. For a more polished view of libertarianism, check out the US party and their last presidential candidate .

The Dems seem to favor government expansion, especially the nanny state

While that may have been true in the past, might I point you to our current president, who I believe ran as the party of smaller government, and is now working overtime to force the nanny state down our throats and expand medicare. This after nationalizing the airport security industry and spending $70+ billion in Iraq.

There's also the new gov of California, the self proclaimed fiscal conservative, who wants to expand the welfare system. "Everything is for the children. Schwarzenegger keeps talking about taking care of the children. As though children would die in the streets if the government didn't spend lots of money on them." - Harry Browne, former LP candidate.

I find no difference between the reps and dems of today, both are hell bent on expanding government as quickly as possible.

I support the accepted interpretation in the US legal system that commercial speech should be subject to more checks and balances, with respect to factual accuracy (see for example, the Nike case before the Supreme Court - this is definitely an example of unchecked commercial speech) and with respect to the manner in which it is balanced against individual rights. Privacy, for example, is a critical individual right in modern society (see something like this before you tell me that privacy isn't in the constitution), and it is certainly a good thing for our society that commercial speech and its imperatives are balanced against a right to privacy in our own homes. Neither the First Amendment nor the right to privacy are absolute rights - they often may conflict with each other, or with themselves.

I agree with you that it's not always crystal clear which category of protections and which balances or tradeoffs should be made, and that's why we have a court system. Hopefully the court system will rationally and sanely conclude that an individual's right to privacy takes precedence over a company's right to contact random people in their residences in an interruptive and disruptive manner trying to sell them goods or services they have never indicated any interest in.

And if you look further back, the reason comprehensive health insurance (as opposed to catastrophic health insurance) even exists is--once again!--because of government interference in the economy. During the second world war, the Federal Government enacted strict wage controls. This meant that companies could no longer compete for employees in the market based on price. So employers began competing based on other benefits, one being more comprehensive health insurance.

Certainly, there is truth to Baumol's conjecture. I would not expect the cost of labor-intensive services to drop at the same rate as manufactured goods. But it is foolish to dismiss the increased costs in health care to Baumol's Disease. You seem to claim Baumol's disease requires service-sector wages to rise "rapidly", regardless of other factors. My understanding of Baumol's disease suggests service-sector wages will track the rise (and therefore fall) of wages in other industries. If wages have stayed the same for the last thirty years, I suggest to you that Baumol's disease has little or no bearing.

Also, I'll point out that my mother has been a practicing neurologist for twenty-five years, and her income has not increased at anywhere near the rate with which health care costs have risen. Indeed, Medicare continues to drop the fees they are willing to pay doctors for performing the same services.

(Sorry for all the Harry Browne articles, but he explains things very clearly and I knew where to find them.)

And if you look further back, the reason comprehensive health insurance (as opposed to catastrophic health insurance) even exists is--once again!--because of government interference in the economy. During the second world war, the Federal Government enacted strict wage controls. This meant that companies could no longer compete for employees in the market based on price. So employers began competing based on other benefits, one being more comprehensive health insurance.

Certainly, there is truth to Baumol's conjecture. I would not expect the cost of labor-intensive services to drop at the same rate as manufactured goods. But it is foolish to dismiss the increased costs in health care to Baumol's Disease. You seem to claim Baumol's disease requires service-sector wages to rise "rapidly", regardless of other factors. My understanding of Baumol's disease suggests service-sector wages will track the rise (and therefore fall) of wages in other industries. If wages have stayed the same for the last thirty years, I suggest to you that Baumol's disease has little or no bearing.

Also, I'll point out that my mother has been a practicing neurologist for twenty-five years, and her income has not increased at anywhere near the rate with which health care costs have risen. Indeed, Medicare continues to drop the fees they are willing to pay doctors for performing the same services.

(Sorry for all the Harry Browne articles, but he explains things very clearly and I knew where to find them.)

It seems that a lot of so-called libertarians are lately going out of their way to prove the old canard that "Libertarians are just Republicans who want to look cool."

I say no to empire and no to militarism!!! Any true libertarian would believe that, or does ESR really want to go up against people like Harry Browne and Ron Paul. (Note: I used the small "l" libertarian, and Ron Paul is definitely that!)

I really wish he would just join the side he's on and register as a Republican (and prepare to become a Democrat when the neocons switch sides again.).

A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing\

He mentions it again here:

Bring Back America

There is a reason why the "War to End All Wars" is not taught very well in American schools, it might teach American children that war is a bad thing.

A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing\

He mentions it again here:

Bring Back America

There is a reason why the "War to End All Wars" is not taught very well in American schools, it might teach American children that war is a bad thing.

Has anyone read Harry Browne's article?

It's here:http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne2.html
His homepage is here:http://www.harrybrowne.org

It will take you less that 2 minutes to read.

Libertarian Party's Harry Browne's position.

"Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted"

That's why if I were elected president I'd simply stop all federal funding of nearly every sort (especially of biotech research) and shrink the federal government to about 10% of it's current size. I'd spend the rest of my term assessing the results.

Actually, I'm rather lazy, so I'd let a Mr. Harry Browne do all my work.

If I had my way, Nader would take a single state worth 3 electoral votes. The other candidates would come in at 269 and 268.

Still, it would crack me up to no end if each candidate got 269 votes... Although CNN.com is reporting Bush leading 246-242, with FL (25), IA (7), OR (7), and WI (11) still not having been called. The way I read that, if Bush gets Florida, it's all over. Gore needs to get Florida and one other state. If Bush gets all three other states, he wins.

Interesting race, this. What surprised me was how well the Constitution Party did in Pennsylvania, the state where I currently reside, compared to Buchanan and Browne.

(Hmm, the Pennsylvania link seems not to be working in Preview. If that fails, go here and follow the link if you're interested.)

--

The best system that's been thought up to assure a true majority is INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING. Basically, the system lets you vote for your top three candidates, in my case Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, and some one else who I'd think up later. Now, let's say that no one gets a clear (50% + 1) majority. Then, the first-choice votes for all but the top two or three and the second (and, if necessary, third) choice votes would be counted towards these top few. Whoever gets the true majority first wins the election. This way, we'd get no more Clintons (elected with This has been argued to provide for a stronger presidency, as the winner would have some sort of mandate, but it still sucks that turnout is less than half (theoretical) nationwide. (I happen to think that if an election has less than half the eligible voters nationally voting, it should be redone. Wishful thinking, I know :) So, for all you lazy bastards who are not thinking of voting, remember: If you do not get involved in politics, politics will get involved with you. (Also, if your state has you voting for judges, vote NO to all of them. They are all pricks. It's also a lot easier and a lot more fun.)

Here's a much more interesting article about the Nader/Gore vote-swapping thing.

Personally, I'm voting for the lesser of seven evils, Harry Browne.

--

What about Harry Browne?. By conventional standards the Libertarians are a bit extreme, but they're the only party which is consistently for liberty and against government intrusion in personal and economic issues.

Gore hasn't got the same joi-de-vivre as Clinton has, but at least he's an elegant and digified statesman, a boring but professional person.

I would disagree with this. Look at his performance in the debates; he was consistently interrupting, violating the agreed-upon rules, at one point literally getting in Bush's face as he was talking. That does not strike me as professional, and I would not want anyone with an attitude like that representing my country.

Bush is *no* statesman. The fact that he's leading in the polls arguably because more of the electorate things he'd be a more fun guy with whom to have a beer arguably proves the every dictator right: perhaps the people *aren't* smart enough to choose their own destiny after all.

Can't argue with the first statement, but I don't think people are quite that stupid. I think people are tired of the constant lies and scandals emanating from the White House (of which Gore played many integral roles), and are not buying Gore's hysterical claims that Bush's plans would destroy the economy, cause senior citizens to starve, or result in the earth being sucked into a black hole.

I blame this on left leaning principals in public education. I have a feeling that the mean age of the \. reader is probably floating around 20 (wild guess here, if I am wrong I apologize and will shut up), meaning that the average reader has yet to truly develop an opinion without the strong influence from public education, not to mention leftover feelings that it's ok for someone (ie. teachers, parents, etc.) to stick their noses in your business.

To paraphrase the truly great Churchill, if you're young and conservative you don't have a heart, but if you're old and liberal, you have no brain. (All right, he was no libertarian, but you get the point)

Sometimes it is good that younger voters are inclined to be more apathetic come election time than the older voters, otherwise my whole paycheck would go to pay for stupid government programs and expanded government authority.

Young voters should wake up and discover that their freedom is being pulled away from them by blue-haired pensioneers and enviromental zealots. If you truly believed in a cause or causes (for me, it's general charity, volunteerism and environmental conservationism), you'd want to see that your money supports those causes in the most efficient way possible. Government programs don't serve causes! They serve a select few individuals (who line their pockets without truly earning it) under the auspices of supporting a cause. Electing an official to support a pet cause of yours will only ultimately hurt that cause. Elected officials of this sort will take money from people (taxes) and give it to bureaucrats and lawyers and whatever is leftover goes to people who might not serve the cause in the best way anyhow. Why shouldn't you take your own money and put it towards a private foundation that you know will get the most bang for your buck. If they misuse your donation, take it to another foundation! With taxation, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE where it goes!

The people that will vote for Nader feel that corporations wield too much power in America today. If you really want to keep corporations from influencing government and pushing you around, eliminate the protections corporations receive beyond normal citizens! Browne would do this! Let the corporations scramble for your consumer dollar without tax rebates from your tax dollars! Let them get sued under civil law without caps and other protections! Browne would work towards that end!

Support Your Cause, Vote Harry Browne

Although I like some of Nader's ideals, Harry Browne fits my leanings more closely. I also like his responses to the Slashdot poll.

Keep pressing this to individuals you talk to. Suggest they try SelectSmart's Presidential selector to see how their opinions match with the candidates. So far, NONE of the people I've gotten to actually try it got either Gore or Bush in their top choices. If nothing else, it encourages them to click on the name that comes up first.

Second, stress that this is NOT a ball game. Winning at any cost is too expensive. Doing anything to make the "other guy" lose, makes us the losers. Only by voting our conscience will we get a government with a conscience. Personally, I think Browne presents the best message a citizen can send to Washington: Do your job and let us live our lives. But I don't want anyone to vote for him because I think he's best. I'd rather see everyone vote for who they believed would be best for the country. Explain that it's kind of like "Poll the audience." Who knows, it just might work...