Slashdot Mirror

You make NH sound most unattractive; libertarian notions of freedom in many cases boil down to social Darwinism, and that's not even pleasant for the winners.

The concept of Social Darwinism is actually a rather recent invention; it's adoption was a disaster for the classical libertarian ideology (although its adherents didn't realize this at the time). Prior to Social Darwinism (and utilitarian economics in general[1]) the underlying basis for libertarianism was concrete ethical principles -- ownership of self (self-determination, "inalienable human rights") and ownership of property (based on "homesteading" and title-transfer contracts)[1] -- which are collectively known as "natural law". From these principles and a few simple and non-controversial observations of human behavior one can derive all the conclusions of the libertarian ideology. This was the form of libertarianism (a.k.a classical liberalism) that existed at the time of the American Revolution, and on which the United States was founded; likewise with the original Libertarian Party.

These principles are (IMHO) the ultimate expression of that ideal "majority rule with minority rights" which Americans supposedly hold so dear -- the actions of the majority dictate the allocations of resources (in accordance with economic principles), and yet all individuals hold certain absolute rights (negative rights[2]) which cannot be taken from them regardless of the wishes of the majority. A society which actually respected absolute minority rights[3] would be libertarian.

A good source for the information about classical liberalism (principle-based libertarianism) can be found in the writings of Murray Rothbard, particularly the book For a New Liberty, which includes detailed history and ideology as well as practical sketches of a working libertarian society.

[1] There are a number of issues with utilitarian ideology, but the main issue for the libertarians who chose to adopt it was that utilitarianism always tends to reduce to support for the status quo, possibly with an allowance for small, gradual changes (Social Darwinism). In contrast, a classical liberalist, on grounds of principle, must support (but not necessarily require) the immediate elimination of any and all coercive actions. The ideologies are fundamentally incompatible in this regard.

[2] There are two basic theories on natural rights: that of positive rights, and that of negative rights. A positive right is the right to something -- a right to food, or to shelter, or to a printing press or assembly hall, for example. As such, positive rights cannot be absolute, as it may be impossible to provide such goods to everyone in practice. Also, such goods can only be provided through the efforts of individuals, and thus a system of positive rights tends to imply a condition of enforced servitude of a portion of the population to subsidize the "rights" of the remainder. Negative rights, on the other hand, are the right not to be aggressed against by others. Instead of a right to food and shelter (presumable created by others) there is the right to procure food and shelter (through production and/or exchange) without interference. Instead of the right to a printing press or assembly hall, there is the right to procure a printing press or assembly hall and use it as one sees fit (while not infringing on the rights of others). Despite the name, negative rights actually allow a greater degree of freedom than positive rights; they are "allow by default, but deny infringement" instead of "deny by default, but allow specific actions." Furthermore, negative rights are absolute; they can apply for all humans in all circumstances. The U.S. Constitution was based on the idea of negative rights; the Bill of Rights was controversial precisely because many thought it both unnecessary and dangerous as an affirmation of the idea of positive rights

Microsoft is not a monopoly. There is too much choice in that market, and Microsoft spends a huge amount of money in keeping themselves at the top of the game -- and they have millions of happy consumers to prove it. The same isn't true of the DMV in Illinois (or your state) which has a monopoly on driving permits. There are more people mad at the DMV as a percentage of users than at Microsoft, for sure. I know, I run a medium-sized IT company in the Chicago market and not more than 10 of my thousands of desktop users that we maintain has complained about Microsoft.

Standard Oil was never a monopoly - they were a success. The only peole who complained about Standard Oil were the competitors who could not provide oil at the same price! Standard Oil lowered consumer prices for decades. The one book/media author who spoke out against Standard Oil was the sister of a man who ran a competitive (and state-subsidized) business that competed with SO and failed.

Read about both Gates and Rockefeller and the myth here: The Gates-Rockefeller Myth

AT&T was created by the State through licensing schemes, regulatory restrictions, and local mandates. It wasn't until competition was allowed that prices fell and consumers were happy.

Comcast is the same as AT&T -- the State created a monopoly through municipal regulations and restrictions on competition. This still exists in most municipalities.

No, because certain geographical areas are relagated to one company. If I want Roadrunner, too f'n bad, only Comcast is available in my area. If I want another power company, too bad, only Consumer's Energy has wires going to my house. This is not choice, and it is not competition, it's pseudo-competition.

Why do these restrictions exist? Because the "State" (municipality in this case) made it so! They prevented competition -- they created a State-mandated monopoly.

The California retail energy market was never de-regulated, in fact it was OVER-regulated. The California wholesale market was partiall de-regulated, and this is why there was a crisis -- too much government.

Check out this article on the reality behind California. The government let wholesale prices fluctuate but did NOT let retail prices fluctuate. When wholesale prices started to go up based on decreased supply (created by government's mandates!), the companies could not buy energy at a profit since they were forced to sell it at a loss. Hence, rolling blackouts.

I read it. Twice, actually.

It is bunk based on one sentence that is mostly repeated in thought throughout the entry:

If not constrained by the public utility commision, the company would likly charge a far higher price and earn an abnormal profit on its capital.

That is not true. All "natural monopolies" are constantly hounded by new competition. _ALL_ of them. No one just sits back and holds a monopoly -- if they don't constantly compete, they'll be overcome by competition. This has happened in all of history to all companies and governments -- something better comes along.

It is the regulation side of game that creates the most havok for any given market and many consumers within the market. The only monopoly that exists in life is the monopoly over the use of force -- and it is that monopoly that we call government that creates the sustaining momopolies that make life bad for the rest of us.

Well-established economic theory? You mean like Keynes' well-established economic theory?

The Mises Institude has a great PDF on the Myth of the Natural Monopoly. I recommend you read that entirely, just as I read your Wikipedia mumbo jumbo, before saying that anything is well established in economic theory.

D
D
T

Too much junk science out there to acknowledge something that we should still be using, I guess.

The exodus from the Church of Finland is just another example of the desire of citizens to opt out of certain government services that do not serve them. As an American I would like to opt out of Social Security, farm subsidies, K-12 public schools, and public television.

Bzzzzt! Wrong! Public education serves everyone, most especially the ones who are upper class and/or business owners. . . . Everyone benefits.

Actually, compulsory public education systems have pretty much always been implemented for the purpose of encouraging blind obedience to those in power (either the State or the Church), not for any particular economic advantage. Voluntary education programs are generally forced to remain politically and religiously neutral to maintain attendance; compulsory attendance was introduced mainly to get around that limitation on State power. A good reference on the history of compulsory public education programs can be found in Education: Free and Compulsory, by economist, historian and political theorist Murray N. Rothbard. It's quite an interesting read.

This is not to say that there aren't benefits to having an educated workforce, much less that education isn't beneficial on an individual level; both are generally true. Modern public schools, however, tend to do very little educating, in favor of "progressive" programs designed to eliminate all traces of individuality and creativity. Just look at the typical "curriculum" in most of our schools; it's clear that their function is to squeeze as many children as possible into a perfect conformist mould. What little education does occur is little more than an excuse to justify the continuation of the system to the (now relatively uneducated) taxpayers.

</end-rant> You may now return to your regularly scheduled life. Don't forget to stop by the clinic for your monthly mind purge -- if you let those yucky cynical thoughts build up you might just end up becoming a libertarian! You wouldn't want that to happen, would you? :-)

Say, I've been to that site, but it is difficult to find the exact sites/pages where actual examples (like the ones I gave) are handled with what they consider strictly libertarian principles. I mean, I've read http://www.mises.org/story/1784#_ftn16, http://www.mises.org/story/2118
, and http://66.249.93.104/u/Mises?q=cache:_uMdPyltSWQJ: www.mises.org/reasonpapers/pdf/13/rp_13_2.pdf+libe rtarianism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&ie=UTF-8 thusfar, but they are all rather theorethical treaties about the principles of libertarianism (as the author sees it, at least), but none give real-life examples, nor even hypothetical ones, where it is shown how exactly a libertarian society would deal with it (notably something similar as what I described with human interaction in public space).

Could you, perhaps, give me direct links to the pages which actually deal with this sort of examples? I would be much obliged.

Also, when reading the page of David Gordon about libertarianism, I encounter something which annoys me to some degree, and is seen often with classical libertarian papers: a overly optimistic viewpoint (bordering on the oversimplify-ing) without actual data backing it up. All the papers thusfar, are very scant with scientific references, sources and statistics which support their claims. And sometimes, this leads to a contradiction, or at least an unsolved discrepancy, between what they claim, and what actually can be observed.

For instance, we can read:

"Murray has evidently forgotten his earlier discussion. If the government has failed to alleviate poverty, will not very wealthy people come to realize that a purely voluntary society will be worth trying? If they are sufficiently wealthy, charitable contributions will not burden them unduly. Why then will they turn to the Plan, which Murray acknowledges is less than ideal?"

So, the author sees it as more ideal, to scrap the retrieval of taxes, and the spending of it on medicare and other social programs, and instead the state should do nothing, and leave it all to 'charitable' donations. This, he argues, would be far more efficient in closing the divide between the poor and rich then any government program.

Alas, he does not substantiate that with actual fact, nor examples that might support this theory. and while it is one thing to claim government programs are not very effective, it is a completely other matter to claim charity from the rich will solve it in a better way. The only time he tries to substatiate it, is by reiterating another author who claimed how well things were during the 19th century, when charity was in, and no government programs were around.

I rather think this is a case of historical revisionism; by all accounts, life for the poor were awfull during those times, and not at all mediated by whatever 'broad network' of charitable donations were in place.

And, more-over, I find this notion hard to reconcile with what we can observe in current times. while the author might lament the fact that the USA-government spends so much money on wellfare, it is, in effect (compared to the GDP) only a fraction of what most european countries spend on wellfare. As we can all agree, the EU-countries are far more socialistic-minded, and government spending on welfare (and taxes are higher because of it) is far greater then in the USA. By all acounts, the USA is in this regard far more behaving in a 'libertarian' way, then EU-countries, even when one would claim it is not fully following libertarianism.

Yet, how do we reconcile the discrepancies, then? If the USA is more libertarian then EU countries, and the libertarian way is more efficient then the government-spending-on-wellfare way,

Say, I've been to that site, but it is difficult to find the exact sites/pages where actual examples (like the ones I gave) are handled with what they consider strictly libertarian principles. I mean, I've read http://www.mises.org/story/1784#_ftn16, http://www.mises.org/story/2118
, and http://66.249.93.104/u/Mises?q=cache:_uMdPyltSWQJ: www.mises.org/reasonpapers/pdf/13/rp_13_2.pdf+libe rtarianism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&ie=UTF-8 thusfar, but they are all rather theorethical treaties about the principles of libertarianism (as the author sees it, at least), but none give real-life examples, nor even hypothetical ones, where it is shown how exactly a libertarian society would deal with it (notably something similar as what I described with human interaction in public space).

Could you, perhaps, give me direct links to the pages which actually deal with this sort of examples? I would be much obliged.

Also, when reading the page of David Gordon about libertarianism, I encounter something which annoys me to some degree, and is seen often with classical libertarian papers: a overly optimistic viewpoint (bordering on the oversimplify-ing) without actual data backing it up. All the papers thusfar, are very scant with scientific references, sources and statistics which support their claims. And sometimes, this leads to a contradiction, or at least an unsolved discrepancy, between what they claim, and what actually can be observed.

For instance, we can read:

"Murray has evidently forgotten his earlier discussion. If the government has failed to alleviate poverty, will not very wealthy people come to realize that a purely voluntary society will be worth trying? If they are sufficiently wealthy, charitable contributions will not burden them unduly. Why then will they turn to the Plan, which Murray acknowledges is less than ideal?"

So, the author sees it as more ideal, to scrap the retrieval of taxes, and the spending of it on medicare and other social programs, and instead the state should do nothing, and leave it all to 'charitable' donations. This, he argues, would be far more efficient in closing the divide between the poor and rich then any government program.

Alas, he does not substantiate that with actual fact, nor examples that might support this theory. and while it is one thing to claim government programs are not very effective, it is a completely other matter to claim charity from the rich will solve it in a better way. The only time he tries to substatiate it, is by reiterating another author who claimed how well things were during the 19th century, when charity was in, and no government programs were around.

I rather think this is a case of historical revisionism; by all accounts, life for the poor were awfull during those times, and not at all mediated by whatever 'broad network' of charitable donations were in place.

And, more-over, I find this notion hard to reconcile with what we can observe in current times. while the author might lament the fact that the USA-government spends so much money on wellfare, it is, in effect (compared to the GDP) only a fraction of what most european countries spend on wellfare. As we can all agree, the EU-countries are far more socialistic-minded, and government spending on welfare (and taxes are higher because of it) is far greater then in the USA. By all acounts, the USA is in this regard far more behaving in a 'libertarian' way, then EU-countries, even when one would claim it is not fully following libertarianism.

Yet, how do we reconcile the discrepancies, then? If the USA is more libertarian then EU countries, and the libertarian way is more efficient then the government-spending-on-wellfare way,

It goes into a bank account which is then used to pay suppliers. i.e. somewhere else. the local supply of money is decreased temporarily, it's increased temporarily somewhere else. The important thing for the economy as a whole is that there's an intrinsic balance, there's no overall increase in the supply of money. It doesn't decrease in value.

You're wrong and you're right about money as a symbol, the dollar for instance comes from the word "thaler" which was a silver coin, a weight of silver. When dollars were exchanged, what was being traded was a known weight of silver, a commodity.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Almost all money was originally a weight of a precious metal. A British pound was a pound of silver. Today (actually 1921) the link has been broken so the dollar (or any currency) has no intrinsic value other than what the government decree it as having, (i.e. the government's reputation) but that doesn't change the fact that a dollar is something you trade for. Services, time, DVDs, bread, butter. Money is a commodity just like everything else that is traded and it's subject to the same rules of supply and demand, it increases and decreases in value just like coffee and oil. This is why there's inflation coming, governments print more money to finance wars instead of increasing taxation. They're doing it now, so there's going to be markedly increased inflation in the next few years. Inflation is a form of taxation, but a very subtle one which most people don't understand and one which hits the poor harder than the rich.

In a closed system/gold standard currency. If oil becomes scarce, the price goes up the oil purchasers have fewer dollars to spend elsewhere, the value of everything else decreases in relation to oil, the demand for oil is higher than the demand for everything else. Prices elsewhere for all other commodities are pushed down, everything else deflates in price in relation to oil.

In today's open, elasticated system with additional supply of money, the value of the other commodities will never apparently decrease in price because there's always more money to spend on them. The price remains fixed. Instead, it's the money which decreases in value. This year you're being paid in today's 50,000 dollars which has a 5% additional supply and is now worth 5% less than last year's 50,000 dollars as everything else becomes more valuable in comparison. That's inflation.

Oh and that's another thing about an open/inflationary economy. It doesn't make sense to save, it makes sense to spend now because your money will be worth less tomorrow. In fact it makes most sense to take out lots of loans and to allow inflation to reduce the value for you.

You're confusing the effect with the cause. The inflation figure you're talking about is the result of already inflated money in the economy. The cost of the standard goods isn't increasing, the value of the money is decreasing.

Money is a commodity just like gasoline, if you buy gasoline with money, the value of the money you have left increases, you have less of it. The less money you have the more careful you are with the remainder, the greater your demand for money. If your money is decreasing in value it's because someone, somewhere is producing more of it in vast quantities.

Here's a slightly humourous explanation:
http://www.angryharry.com/esPrintingMoney.htm

And more detailed:
http://www.mises.org/money.asp

There are many libertarians (including myself) that have a different opinion, see http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf and many other articles on www.mises.org. The article is a fascinating read on the subject.

In fact, the concept of culture is to copy and improve, to make variations. To learn and spread knowledge, not to restrict it. I think the concept of intellectual property in all its forms is a horrific abberration and completely opposed to culture. Alas many have been brainwashed and believe, without any proof, that somehow copyrights and the like are necessary to provide incentive for innovation.

In almost the complete human history people were allowed to copy any idea, method or product they saw, except less and less for the last 200 years in western culture. It is the biggest threat for human liberty and basic rights.

Gold, it's the obvious choice.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Money, like everything else is a commodity, you trade for it in exactly the same way you do everything else.

The only real reason that the government mandates that it holds a monopoly on money is so that it can print more itself to pay for stuff it hasn't taxed you on already. It prints more money, buys goods and services with it, the overall supply of money increases and the value of an individual dollar decreases, your bank balance loses worth just by sitting there.

Privately issued money is perfectly possible and in fact there are several countries where it was the norm until fairly recently. In Scotland for example, several of the banks are still able to issue their own bank notes, none of which are "legal tender", (including the bank of england notes btw), yet people accept them and the economy continues quite happily.

Of course this is actually illegal in the US.

I thought to myself, hey, here's a chance to bash libertarians, and everyone who knows me knows how much I love me some libertarian bashing. Well, according to wikipedia, they economy is not doing too badly. The well known libertarian think tank Mises Institute even has an article entitled "Stateless in Somalia, and loving it." It is from Mises, so take it with a grain of salt.

Damn, I so wanted you to be right about this I went and looked up some facts to back you up, only the damn facts aren't cooperating!

How is there time to submit well-formulated arguments about MARKETS on slashdot? For more of my opinion, just follow my link. I write about this stuff almost every day. For better formulated arguments, go hit The Mises Institute or check out Dr. DiLorenzo's latest book, How Capitalism Saved America.

I'll bite. I consider your comment a troll. Calling Carnagie a fool must be a troll. By virtue of the fact of his success he is not a fool. His philanthropy afterwards can be considered either a moral good or a poor substitution for his actions in life. Either way he was no fool.

As far as the unions being benign this, this, this and this seem to say otherwise. Just using GM as an example.

Not only do unions cripple companies against competition, they do a poor job protecting workers. The best protection workers can have is high standards. If all you want to do in life is work in a coal mine or work a hydraulic press then you may get paid highly or poorly depending on how many other people also want those jobs. Even in the greatest of depressions there is always a way for an enterprising individual to avoid working a shit job. And the more people who do that, the higher the guy who does it gets paid.

Furthermore, there is an underlying undercurrent of Victorian philosophy behind a pro-union position. It presumes that some are born to be kings and some are peasants. Well, that's bullshit. In a free society any one of us can get a good job or even become a millionaire. There is nothing preventing a person from striking out on their own, with their own business. There never has been. Even with zero capital starting out (in a service based business.) The thing that has always kept people subservient is the rink associated with doing so. As long as people are fearful then they will remain the peasants they consider themselves.

Modern India, China and Brazil are perfect examples. Look at the number of people who are rising out of poverty by refusing to work the jobs their father's did. Their pay scale remains lower than some places but that is strictly contingent upon the risk they take in a chosen occupation or business. The business owners are the ones making the money because they are the ones taking all the risk. Just as Andrew Carnagie once did.

Read his Wikipedia entry. He had nothing handed to him. He started out making $1.20 a week and ended up the richest man in the world. So he was most certainly not a fool. The fools were the ones who decided to work for him for so little. If half of them had decided it wasn't worth it there would've been no need for unions and their jobs wouldv'e paid much better.

*shakes head* So many economic fallacies in this thread. I'm begging all of you to read the following articles:

The Problem of "Hoarding" - explains why hoarding is not a problem at all

Money Warehouses - explains why banks can't magically make us all richer by expanding the money supply

In fact, you guys would do well to read the entire phamphlet: What Has Government Done to Our Money?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

*shakes head* So many economic fallacies in this thread. I'm begging all of you to read the following articles:

The Problem of "Hoarding" - explains why hoarding is not a problem at all

Money Warehouses - explains why banks can't magically make us all richer by expanding the money supply

In fact, you guys would do well to read the entire phamphlet: What Has Government Done to Our Money?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

*shakes head* So many economic fallacies in this thread. I'm begging all of you to read the following articles:

The Problem of "Hoarding" - explains why hoarding is not a problem at all

Money Warehouses - explains why banks can't magically make us all richer by expanding the money supply

In fact, you guys would do well to read the entire phamphlet: What Has Government Done to Our Money?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

Prior to reading a few articles on the subject, I had taken the assumption that network neutrality was a good thing. It didn't cross my mind to question whether or not it was actually good. But then I read this article and it tweaked my desire to have the government leave me alone to negotiate my own private decisions.

But, of course, I'm frustrated by this. I'm really nervous about the ability of the telco and the cableco to take away my easy access to vonage (or any other 3rd party service that I might like). Both of those companies offer competing voice services at a higher price. So they have incentive to make it hard for me to use a more efficient and cheaper solution. I don't know how to resolve this because I feel like I have very little choice in the matter and I can't effectively make use of an alternative high speed broadband provider.

That is, until I read this article which argued that the entire problem starts with government regulation of telco and cableco providers. We have very little choice because the government came in and granted exclusive monopolies. Do we really think the solution to the problems created by government regulation is more government regulation? For my part, I don't.

I now think that the best solution is to get the regulating bodies out of the way so that competition can be employed. As soon as there's a competitive marketplace for last mile high speed connectivity, if the cableco restricts my access to vonage, there's lots of other choices. They'll lose market share and the benefits of network neutrality will be achieved without all of the heavy handed (and ineffective) government oversite.

My current stance is: have patience. It might just work itself out on it's own. It might not and at that time the argument in favor of network neutrality might have more weight. But for now, I'm not convinced. And if you're certain that we need to "do something" then the thing we should do is release the restrictions on who can and can't provide last mile service to my house.

But, of course, I'm willing to be wrong on this one. Anyone care to educate me?

Oh... and here's a pretty good compilation of opinions on the subject.

Prior to reading a few articles on the subject, I had taken the assumption that network neutrality was a good thing. It didn't cross my mind to question whether or not it was actually good. But then I read this article and it tweaked my desire to have the government leave me alone to negotiate my own private decisions.

But, of course, I'm frustrated by this. I'm really nervous about the ability of the telco and the cableco to take away my easy access to vonage (or any other 3rd party service that I might like). Both of those companies offer competing voice services at a higher price. So they have incentive to make it hard for me to use a more efficient and cheaper solution. I don't know how to resolve this because I feel like I have very little choice in the matter and I can't effectively make use of an alternative high speed broadband provider.

That is, until I read this article which argued that the entire problem starts with government regulation of telco and cableco providers. We have very little choice because the government came in and granted exclusive monopolies. Do we really think the solution to the problems created by government regulation is more government regulation? For my part, I don't.

I now think that the best solution is to get the regulating bodies out of the way so that competition can be employed. As soon as there's a competitive marketplace for last mile high speed connectivity, if the cableco restricts my access to vonage, there's lots of other choices. They'll lose market share and the benefits of network neutrality will be achieved without all of the heavy handed (and ineffective) government oversite.

My current stance is: have patience. It might just work itself out on it's own. It might not and at that time the argument in favor of network neutrality might have more weight. But for now, I'm not convinced. And if you're certain that we need to "do something" then the thing we should do is release the restrictions on who can and can't provide last mile service to my house.

But, of course, I'm willing to be wrong on this one. Anyone care to educate me?

Oh... and here's a pretty good compilation of opinions on the subject.

Libertarians need to learn some marketing. From what I can tell, they are the party that supports selling off all roads and sidewalks, essentially abolishing the right to travel.

Indeed, if that's your impression, then marketing certainly isn't working.

So what did people do before the government owned all the highways? They built them themselves. Look up "turnpike" in a history book, and be amazed.

They seem to be inconsistent in some messages (i.e., they are pro-business, when they should be for limitations on corporations based of how they describe liberty).

Limitations of what? Do you really mean, allowing the people who own and run organizations to be held responsible for their "organization's" actions? That isn't pro- or anti-business, that's anti government-granted-limited-liability.

Why should I change if public roads work so good?

They do? As someone stuck in traffic on the only road between A and B some time.

Yes, public schools are cheaper than private.

Actually, they're not. The public schools spend more than $10,000 per student, per year, every year, and it's only going up. Private schools charge far less than that, and get better academic performance on every measurement. Homeschoolers spend a fraction of that and beat public and private schools.

Try http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ for a little background on the subject of "public" education.

If you like video instead of reading, try doing a little bit of piracy and finding "ABC's 20/20 Stupid In America". While John Stossel comes down hard in favor of vouchers, the reasons why are what will shock you to your boots if you are paying attention.

Social Security is run with a lot less overhead than Wall Street funds doing the same T-bill investments.

Social Security is not an investment at all, it's a ponzi scheme. Present beneficiaries are being paid out of present donations. There is no trust fund, there is no set-aside, the money goes into and comes out of the general fund.

The only reason SS is said to "cost less" is because the government doesn't include sallaries of government employees or costs of the buildings and facilities in their "cost" estimates.

When the Libertarian message gets me benefits (and I think those that run can manage to impliment their ideas), I might consider them.

Those lists of benefits are out there. http://www.fff.org/ http://www.lewrockwell.com/ http://www.mises.org/ http://www.cato.org/ http://www.pennradio.com/

If the only information you are listening to comes from government, as your statements of "fact" indicates, then no wonder you have a bad impression of "libertarians".

Until then, they are the party for government-hating gun nuts (and no, people that support the 2nd Amendment aren't gun nuts, the people that get upset they can't have their Desert Eagle strapped to their hip wandering around their children's kindergarden are gun nuts).

When someone comes to the school your child is in and starts killing them (even though murder is illegal) with whatever weapon they choose to use (regardless of any law to the contrary), you'd better pray that some principled gun owner who chose not to be disarmed by law is there to stop them. ...like what happened in Pearl, Mississippi, when a killer decided to visit a "gun free zone". Oh, you didn't hear about that? Then may I suggest http://www.johnrlott.com/ _The Bias Against Guns_ by John R. Lott?

But that would re

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0603e.asp The New Mercantilism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html Patently Absurd

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.htm l The Fraud of Intellectual Property

http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002935.asp Mises Economics Blog: Bill Gates: Anti-IP Movement Is Communist

I wish the Pirate party far better success than the Libertarians have had. It is surprising that the message of Liberty does not resonate in the United States.

Bob-

"no private firm rich enough would be stupid enough to try."

Burt Rutan and Steve Allen, "SpaceShip One".

"but even economists today acknowledge that..."

No, only government economists place such artificial limitations on "private" efforts.

Real economists talk about private space exploration and exploitation every day.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1644 Profit, Loss, and Pluto

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22private+sp ace+exploration%22&btnG=Google+Search

There's the shotgun approach for you. I hope you can learn something about both economics and "risk". The problem being that government never risks itself, and private ventures "bet the farm" many times. That is why private efforts always out-perform government ones, be it "dollars to orbit", crossing the South Pole, finding the North West Passage, or delivering fresh strawberries to my grocery store in January cheap enough that even I can afford them.

Oh no, such an effort for mere strawberries would be a waste of taxpayer money. It's too risky.

...and the fact that graduating more sub-par students in addition to the best of the best is not really necessary or all that beneficial and you will come to realize that the decision is rather rational.

Actually, there is no way to know if the decision was rational or not, because of the socialist calculation problem.

Does modern medicine lack a guiding philosophy? Eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, exercise a little, don't smoke and don't drink too much. Sounds good to me.

These are tacked on as an afterthought. Cayce spoke extensively about good health being the product of good assimilations and eliminations. There's so much more than "five servings" in nutrition.

One of the decent things grandma's oncologist did for her was send her to a nutritionist. Later she said, "she wanted me to eat five servings of vegetables a day. She's CRAZY!." The oncologist never again asked about grandma's diet, and went on his merry way happily trying to drug the symptoms away.

Quackwatch seems to be an organized slander campaign against health technologies outside those accepted in the allopathic paradigm. They have entries on just about anything that isn't drugs and surgery. See Quackpotwatch for one take on the organizers behind "Quackwatch".

Grandma decided to pass on the thalidomide because she knew she was dying, and wasn't about to waste $2.3k of her own money in a last-gasp effort to prolongue her life. Later my uncle, a MD/radiologist, decided that that drug probably would've done more harm than good, as thalidomide is a harsh drug (don't remember what it was exactly - kidneys perhaps?).

I won't try to defend the high prices of drugs, merely point out that is a problem of politics, specifically capitalism and private medical care, not medicine or science.

The Flexner Report was used to shut down 1/2 of the U.S. medical schools early in the last century, obstenably for "quality" reasons. The medical education system that emerged was transformed into one that focused on new patented drugs as the primary modality. Not because that approach was superior, but because that was one way for distant middlemen to stick their profiteering fingers into the doctor-patient transaction.

100 years of Medical Robery
  Real Medical Freedom

Also articles on LewRockwell.com ...

And as for Reich, remember that Cosmologists now tell us that only 4-7% of the universe is made up of matter. Another 20-something % is "dark matter", and the other 70% is classfied as "dark energy". They call it "dark" because they don't know what it is, just that some missing form of matter & energy is needed to account for their observations on the expansion of the universe. Reich was onto something 60 years ago, but most of our medical technologists still focus 100% of their attention on that 4-7% of the universe, for material drugs.

Does modern medicine lack a guiding philosophy? Eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, exercise a little, don't smoke and don't drink too much. Sounds good to me.

These are tacked on as an afterthought. Cayce spoke extensively about good health being the product of good assimilations and eliminations. There's so much more than "five servings" in nutrition.

One of the decent things grandma's oncologist did for her was send her to a nutritionist. Later she said, "she wanted me to eat five servings of vegetables a day. She's CRAZY!." The oncologist never again asked about grandma's diet, and went on his merry way happily trying to drug the symptoms away.

Quackwatch seems to be an organized slander campaign against health technologies outside those accepted in the allopathic paradigm. They have entries on just about anything that isn't drugs and surgery. See Quackpotwatch for one take on the organizers behind "Quackwatch".

Grandma decided to pass on the thalidomide because she knew she was dying, and wasn't about to waste $2.3k of her own money in a last-gasp effort to prolongue her life. Later my uncle, a MD/radiologist, decided that that drug probably would've done more harm than good, as thalidomide is a harsh drug (don't remember what it was exactly - kidneys perhaps?).

I won't try to defend the high prices of drugs, merely point out that is a problem of politics, specifically capitalism and private medical care, not medicine or science.

The Flexner Report was used to shut down 1/2 of the U.S. medical schools early in the last century, obstenably for "quality" reasons. The medical education system that emerged was transformed into one that focused on new patented drugs as the primary modality. Not because that approach was superior, but because that was one way for distant middlemen to stick their profiteering fingers into the doctor-patient transaction.

100 years of Medical Robery
  Real Medical Freedom

Also articles on LewRockwell.com ...

And as for Reich, remember that Cosmologists now tell us that only 4-7% of the universe is made up of matter. Another 20-something % is "dark matter", and the other 70% is classfied as "dark energy". They call it "dark" because they don't know what it is, just that some missing form of matter & energy is needed to account for their observations on the expansion of the universe. Reich was onto something 60 years ago, but most of our medical technologists still focus 100% of their attention on that 4-7% of the universe, for material drugs.

If someone is destroying my small business,

Labor creates all wealth, not the other way around[.]

Actually, investment creates wealth. Labor is a resource which cannot be stored; it is always used up immediately. The result of labor can either be durable (an investment, creates wealth) or non-durable (instant gratification, does not create wealth). Subsistance living, for example, is quite labor-intensive, but results in little long-term wealth due to the near-total absense of investment. Without his investment in his small business those jobs would not exist in the first place. Further Information is available about the nature and importance of capital investments in the creation of wealth.

If you actually knew your history, in the United States big business WERE the ones that lobbied FOR anti-monopoly laws to ensure state protection OF their monopolies.

The gov't doesn't protect you from business, they are bought off by other businesses for state sponsored protectionism.

America's 20th Century industry was so obsessed with drugs ...

Seeking health is by necessity an individualized process. Medicine is a "practice" and not a "science" because everyone responds differently, sometimes radically, sometimes ever so slightly, to the same treatment protocol.

The obsession with drugs came about by certain interests hijacking the medical education process (AMA, Flexner report, etc), standardizing on allopathic modalities (suppressing or treating the symptoms with drugs - tylenol for a fevor, shot to boost red blood cell count, etc), and lobbying to to suppress all alternatives. This allows for moneyed interests on Wall Street to profiteer on an otherwise private transaction, by artificially making their high-priced product an integral part of the medical process.

Some professions have succeeded in counter-lobbying for their right to practice too, with Osteopathic being the only full-privledged of the alternatives (though most D.O.s have been subsumed into medical orthodoxy with only a handful today implementing Dr. Still's revelation in their practice). Chiropractic and naturopathy are two of the others. I'm not a big fan of chiropractic, but it has its uses. Not familiar with naturopathy, Osteopathic Manipulation is the greatest. (see my comment history :).

  100 years of Medical Robery
  Real Medical Freedom

Drugs and surgery have their places, but usually some other therapy is called for.

(I took my grandmother out to Mayo Clinic weekly for six months for a $1k injection of some drug to boost her red blood cell count. She had bone cancer, and was also undergoing various chemotherapies - her doctor was "practicing" on her. After 6 months and $50k+ spent on her behalf by Medicare/supplemental, she started hospice care, and finished in a week. Doctor: "oops, lost another one. Maybe these drugs will work on the next patient..." Total waste of money, time and effort.)

America's 20th Century industry was so obsessed with drugs ...

Seeking health is by necessity an individualized process. Medicine is a "practice" and not a "science" because everyone responds differently, sometimes radically, sometimes ever so slightly, to the same treatment protocol.

The obsession with drugs came about by certain interests hijacking the medical education process (AMA, Flexner report, etc), standardizing on allopathic modalities (suppressing or treating the symptoms with drugs - tylenol for a fevor, shot to boost red blood cell count, etc), and lobbying to to suppress all alternatives. This allows for moneyed interests on Wall Street to profiteer on an otherwise private transaction, by artificially making their high-priced product an integral part of the medical process.

Some professions have succeeded in counter-lobbying for their right to practice too, with Osteopathic being the only full-privledged of the alternatives (though most D.O.s have been subsumed into medical orthodoxy with only a handful today implementing Dr. Still's revelation in their practice). Chiropractic and naturopathy are two of the others. I'm not a big fan of chiropractic, but it has its uses. Not familiar with naturopathy, Osteopathic Manipulation is the greatest. (see my comment history :).

  100 years of Medical Robery
  Real Medical Freedom

Drugs and surgery have their places, but usually some other therapy is called for.

(I took my grandmother out to Mayo Clinic weekly for six months for a $1k injection of some drug to boost her red blood cell count. She had bone cancer, and was also undergoing various chemotherapies - her doctor was "practicing" on her. After 6 months and $50k+ spent on her behalf by Medicare/supplemental, she started hospice care, and finished in a week. Doctor: "oops, lost another one. Maybe these drugs will work on the next patient..." Total waste of money, time and effort.)

Excellent points but you are missing a bit of the government side of the equation. For one thing, people wouldn't have so many financial troubles if they weren't taxed so heavily (money stolen) to support programs which are unlawful (unconstitutional in the United States), not desired by the victims^Htaxpayers, economically inefficient because if they were efficient people would pay for them voluntarily, and immoral because the "services" are provided for stolen money rather than offered for voluntary purchase. When 50% of income goes to government (totalled across several levels), is it any wonder that kids with a parent at home are becoming a thing of the past?

Meanwhile, on the credit side of the equation, the government is busy inflating the money supply like crazy, which again amounts to theft. (Recipients of the newly created dollars possess a little bit of wealth generated at the expense of owners of the previously existing dollars.) All this money flows straight into the banking and credit system, which has lowered and lowered and lowered its standards for offering loans and credit, because the money is cheap. If the money supply were not subject to such constant inflation, credit would not be so easy to come by, and people would find it more advantageous to save their money for awhile rather than trying to spend it before it becomes worth less. Or worthless. Check out this free e-book on money for some really interesting facts about how government manages the money supply.

Actually, no they were not, although there seem to be many poorly educated people in the US who think they were.

I understand your point, although the ad hominem was gratitious. Whether or not the Nazis were socialists depends on the definition of socialism used. (I just finished reading something like this). The problem with the term socialism is that it can mean a multitude of different things, depending on who you are talking to. It can range from the original definition of "workers own the means of production," (a very narrow definition) to any economic system in which the government intervenes (a very broad definition). Socialism is also used as an umbrella term that includes almost all leftist ideologies (except communism, but it is sometimes hard to distinguish communism from socialism).

The Nazis weren't socialist if you use the defintion of "the workers owning the means of production"; however, one would argue that since "the workers" is sometimes codename for "the state" (there are state socialists who replace the terms "society" and "the workers" with "the state), they are socialists. To continue, the Nazis were strong opponents of social democracy (a form of socialism) and communists; in fact, they were another group of people who were rounded up and sent them to concentration camps. However, the Nazis did implement socialistic policies. Here are some articles from the Mises Institute, which looks at things with a libertarian/anarchocapitalist bent. Under their definition of socialism, they fit the bill.

It all depends on your definition of the word "socialism." I believe that you are using the original workers definition, or the definition that involves social democracy. However, socialism means other things, too. I, personally, would label the Nazis fascist, not socialist, but many of their economic policies were indeed socialistic.

Actually, no they were not, although there seem to be many poorly educated people in the US who think they were.

I understand your point, although the ad hominem was gratitious. Whether or not the Nazis were socialists depends on the definition of socialism used. (I just finished reading something like this). The problem with the term socialism is that it can mean a multitude of different things, depending on who you are talking to. It can range from the original definition of "workers own the means of production," (a very narrow definition) to any economic system in which the government intervenes (a very broad definition). Socialism is also used as an umbrella term that includes almost all leftist ideologies (except communism, but it is sometimes hard to distinguish communism from socialism).

The Nazis weren't socialist if you use the defintion of "the workers owning the means of production"; however, one would argue that since "the workers" is sometimes codename for "the state" (there are state socialists who replace the terms "society" and "the workers" with "the state), they are socialists. To continue, the Nazis were strong opponents of social democracy (a form of socialism) and communists; in fact, they were another group of people who were rounded up and sent them to concentration camps. However, the Nazis did implement socialistic policies. Here are some articles from the Mises Institute, which looks at things with a libertarian/anarchocapitalist bent. Under their definition of socialism, they fit the bill.

It all depends on your definition of the word "socialism." I believe that you are using the original workers definition, or the definition that involves social democracy. However, socialism means other things, too. I, personally, would label the Nazis fascist, not socialist, but many of their economic policies were indeed socialistic.

This ignores the fact that these near-monopolies were created by bad legislation in the first place

http://mises.org/story/2139

The use of "diatribe" doesn't refute his argument at all.

Random Internet Libertarian(TM) here ...

I submitted this as a link about two weeks ago, and I think it speaks for itself. The government giveth, and the government taketh away.

http://mises.org/story/2139

Keynesian economics continues to infect much public debate, despite being debunked for decades by Austrian economists, some mainstream economists, and reality itself.
...
The planning class is not about to discard Keynesian economics for the mundane reason that it's wrong. Keynesian economics will evolve--just as Marxism has evolved into political correctness and welfare state socialism is evolving into "the third way"--but it won't die. The cause of expanding government power is too important for the planning class to let Keynesian economics die. So Keynes lives.

"Are you insane???"

No.

"What possible reason would polluting businesses have to install expensive scrubbers or stop dumping pollutants in the rivers instead of having them disposed of properly???"

Because otherwise they get sued out of existence, boycotted, have their foibles plastered all over the "ecologist" web sites, newspapers and broadcast media.

Or do you believe that an issue so important to you is of little or no importance to anyone else?

If you really feel that some vast majority of people are going to sit back and let pollution happen, then a representative government also has no power to do anything about it.

Reality is that people do care. Businesses care about how they are perceived, especially in relatively unregulated sectors (remember the free market?) where competition is far more about keeping customers than simply minimizing costs.

The greatest pollution has always been in the more socialist countries, or where governments enforce "commons" that no one owns, such as waterways, than then get horribly polluted because there is no private owner looking out for their property values.

Again I suggest http://www.mises.org/story/2120 if you are actually interested in doing more than insulting people you happen to disagree with.

Bob-

"Pollution doesn't cost anything in a "free" market"

Then you neither understand the word "cost" nor "free market".

Pollution is externalized cost. By violating the private property rights of your neighbors, the people down wind or down stream, you can "dump" your wastes on them to clean up instead of you.

Since it is a "free" market, there is no EPA to tell me that I cannot sue you if you pollute below their guidelines, there is no justice department to enforce a statute of limitations, there is no "pollution credit" you can wave in my face to allow you to get away with polluting.

If you are at all interested, try this: http://www.mises.org/story/2120

If you bother to read that, then come back and tell me what part you disagree with.

Bob-

Exactly. This article from November says exactly the same thing:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004345.asp

"In contrast, the CEO of Georgia Pacific explained that his company sold out to private Koch Industries in order to avoid mounting Sarbox costs."

and

"No doubt, a company that had poor controls may have improved them in order to comply with Sarbox. This does not mean that U.S. businesses in aggregate benefited from Sarbox. A law mandating a 45% increase in marketing spending might help some companies too, but it would cripple most others. Even companies with superior internal controls were forced by this perverse law to spend more money on internal controls."

Actually, the end goal is invalid too. Lots of research has been made into the many possible ways a communist state fully implemented would work if/when the dictatorial pre-communist transitional power structure were replaced by a democratic one. They all show that the thing just doesn't work, resulting in a progressive increase in poverty.

For an earlier but very good example of such studies, which unfortunately are not well known outside of scholarship circles, I suggest Ludwig von Mises book "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis". It's available for download at the Mises Institute website:

http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

By the way, keep in mind that althoug most anti-state libertarians see themselves as disciples of Mises, he himself was far from this extreme anti-statist rethorics. Reading Mises is an intellectual pleasure, a completely unrelated experience to what you "get" by reading a Lew Rockwell and the likes.

They don't do it by secretely communicating to all doctors that they should charge more, because due to the large number of doctors, that would not work.
So, again , government regulation is involved.

You sound more like a Minarchist than a Libertarian.

I've always considered myself a minarchist (somebody who believes in minimal government); perhaps I should go by that label. I'm not a full-fledged libertarian or anarchocapitalist (although I am admittedly sympathetic to both). I do read articles from the Mises Institute often (which has speakers ranging from classical liberals to libertarians to anarchocapitalists), as well as Reason magazine, articles from the Cato Institute, and from Milton Friedman. My views on economics are a mixture of Austrian and Chicago economics, with some anti-trust regulation (I believe that anti-trust regulation keeps the markets free).

Now, I know the difference between anarchism and libertarianism. In fact, if I understand correctly, anarchists don't like anarchocapitalists because most anarchists want to get rid of capitalism along with the government. Now, about anarchosyndicalism, I think Noam Chomsky subscribes to this ideology, as he is just as fearful (if not, much more fearful) of big business and big government. However, I don't know if anarchosyndicalism is workable, mostly for the same reason that I don't know if any form of anarchism (including anarchocapitalism) is workable. I haven't studied it in depth, but how is anarchism different from libertarianism in regards to government? Explain.

How is democratic control over corporations socialism?

Main Entry: socialism
  Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
  Function: noun
  1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Just because the politicians are elected doesn't make it any less "socialism". Either I retain the power to dispose of my property as I see fit, and face the consequences for my actions, or I do not truly own my property, my production, my labor, my life.

It's just not laissez-faire.

Exactly. The opposite of "laissez-faire" is "socialism".

I'm certainly not going to give up all my rights to a swindler in a suit because I think the government is bloated.

You've already given up all your rights to a swindler in a suit, the politicians themselves.

Abusive corporations have always depended upon government coercion for their positions to abuse. The myth that big government opposes big business is one of the most successful "Big Lies" in America, likely in the entire world.

If you're interested in how big business and big government work together to fleece you, I can suggest you wander through the articles on http://www.fff.org/ and http://www.mises.org/ , LewRockewll.com, or just for one example notice that Enron had based their entire business model on leveraging government "energy credits". Abusive big business *loves* big government, and abusive big government *loves* the campaign contributions of big business.

Bob-

USA through their puppet governments are crushing down hard on any popular movement for social improvement, democracy or worker rights. Socialists, union activist, academics or generally any on the left side are hunted down and prosecuted.

And what makes you think that the leftist movements were good? (Before you continue reading, I define leftist as socialist or communist). What makes you think that they would have made social improvements? As far as I know, most major leftist countries (USSR and Cuba, for example) have been total economic failures. The only ones that I can think of that have some level of success are some Western European countries, but they are social democratic, not outright socialist. (As far as I know, the US never tried to topple any social democratic countries like Austria or France, but give me a link if I'm incorrect). I still don't think it is right for the US to intervene in other countries' politics, but don't think that the rulers that the US displaced were angels. In Chile, for example, Salvador Allende basically placed Chile on the fast track to becoming another Cuba. He nationalized everything that he could see in sight, implemented socialistic/communistic policies everywhere, and basically destroyed the economy within 3 years of being in office, which made the people even poorer. Pinochet is no angel either (he is an authoritarian and basically killed off any leftists, censored the press, and did a lot of very bad things), but he did save Chile from becoming another communist nation and implemented many free-market policies that led Chile to become an economic success story. (I wish that the United States would take a more free-market direction). Even though Chile is once again run by socialists, they are socialists in name only; they haven't touched Pinochet's free-market policies, simply because they work. Read more about Chile's recent policies here

I still agree with you with the premise that the United States shouldn't meddle in other countries' business. That's how we got into this Iraq situation in the first place.

Environmentalists don't want renewable energy. Their support of "alternative" energy is just a pretense for their attack on industrial civilization itself. As soon as alternative energy becomes viable (as nuclear power has been for decades, and wind power is becoming) they oppose it.

Critics say that this rabid anti-human dogma is only representative of fringe groups. But the core of the environmentalist religion is that nature (from which man-made objects are excluded) takes a moral precedence over human life. Anyone who implicitly or explicitly accepts this moral premise must ultimately reject humanity as having a right to exist at all, since man's method of survival is the use of technology - the application of reason to change the elements of nature to achieve our values. Though only a minority ever admits or even realizes it, the goal towards which all environmentalists are working towards is the total elimination of the "unnatural" human race.

Price gouging is not "responding to market forces", it's intentionally eliminating the market by leveraging your resources (cash reserves) against the weaker competition.

Quick question: how many of the links off that Google search that I linked to did you read before responding? Read this one and tell me if Jason McBride managed to eliminate any markets. Can you provide for me a mathematically rigorous definition that distinguishes price gouging from responding to market forces?

Anyway, this thread is days old, and I'm pretty much done unless you have something spectacularly new and interesting to offer me. I'm sure we'll cross paths again with another chance to discuss the same subject.

Are you saying the total number of elected officials should be capped at 60k or that governments shouldn't govern populations larger than 60k?

Maximum constituents under an elected official is capped at somewhere between 20K and 60K people. Preferably with representatives rather than one king.

The first is when the Constitution was written the nation was tiny and no one envisioned it ballooning to 290 million people.

So? If the Constitution was followed, the Federal government would still be tiny, taking in less than 1% of GDP. State governments would be more powerful and give people more choice -- letting people with similar interests live together. The way it is today, the US is not a Constitutional Republic, it is a Democracy, the worst form of government.

Also our nation is more efficient this way. With one federal government and only 50 state governments things get done much faster than they would then if there were say a few thousand micro-governments.

I think the democracy in the US is terribly inefficient -- instead of having freedom of choice, we criminalize many non-violent fully-consenting actions in order to maintain "integrity" and "harmony." Why is drug use or sale illegal? Why is prostitution illegal? Why is self-defense illegal on your property? Our country is an inefficient, paternal cronyist country, nowhere near as efficient as the states in Switzerland or many other countries where Federalism is prefered to Nationalism.

People don't want to deal with that level of beauracracy and red tape....something I assumed an anti-statist would instinctively recognize. It would be crazy for a company to have to deal with a thousand different laws just to work across the nation.

So? This would reduce the chances of there being paternally approved megacorporations, and it would increase the ability of people to buy what the want to buy by living in a government created by like people. The Independent State of Potistan might have maryjane legal, where the Independent State of Holistan might make skirts illegal. Let the people decide. Much more efficient dealing with a local representative government than one who ignores the people completely, even in voting.

About Marx, I don't understand how our republic has been weakened by democracy. The most successful states in the world today are democracies, republic or parlimentary or whatever.

I disagree, I believe the biggest failures were democracies. The Third Reich was a democracy.

Hans Herman Hoppe wrote a great book called "Democracy: The God that Failed" and it is a worthy read. Here's a link to an essay by him. Even some Congresspeople realize that democracy is failure.

Perhaps if America had a national health service, like the rest of the civilized World, companies wouldn't need to embark upon such ridiculusness in an attempt to lessen health insurance bureaucracy.

Oh hell no! Socialized medicine only works in small, collectivist countries (Western European nations and Cuba, for example). Socialized medicine won't work in a large place like the United States; it is much too big and the costs are too great to support that type of health infrastructure without heavy tax increases (that would probably spark a riot, especially in less populated areas of the country).

And about that "civilized world" comment, well we divorced the Old World for a reason. Ideas that may work well for small, European countries may be a total blunder for the United States. Remember that the focus of the United States is supposed to be about the states. A state in the US is about equivalent to one country in Western Europe, minus the sovereignity. Socialized medicine may work well in one state, but might not work well in another state. But don't try to force that idea onto 300 million individuals. The United States is a federation of states; that is how the country should work (alas, sadly, the country has far removed itself from its constitutional roots since 1933).

However, I still admit that there is a problem with healthcare in this country. In fact, it is worse than socialized medicine; we have fascist medicine. What I mean by that is the doctors and medicine companies have gotten in bed with the government (much like how the **AA and other special interest groups influence the government), and now we are all paying for it. This article explains my viewpionts of why healthcare in the USA is so expensive.

The best approach for healthcare, IMO, is a free-market solution to the problem. Get the federal government out of health care, dismantle the AMA from all levels of government, and let other doctors compete. The costs of medicine and doctors will go down, individuals will finally afford healthcare for themselves again (just like in the old days), and our health care services will be more efficient and of a higher quality. Now, if a company or a state government wants to pick up the healthcare bill, more power to them, as long as they don't interfere with the market. But let's divorce big medicine cartels from the government first.

Socialized medicine might work some places, but the "S" word is derogatory in the U.S. and I don't see a good solution in either privatized or public health plans.

Any form of socialism works best on small geographic areas where almost everybody believes in some sort of collectivism; that's why Western European countries hasn't dumped its socialist programs. However, it completely falls apart in very large nations (the USSR is a great example). It is much easier to convince 35 million people of the same culture/beliefs to raise their taxes and shift their wealth around than to convince 300 million people who are mostly individualists to do the same.

I do not advocate socialism at all; I am a staunch free-market supporter. I believe that the problem with American healthcare is that the doctors and medicine companies have gotten in bed with the government (much like how the **AA and other special interest groups influence the government), and now we are all paying for it. We don't have socialized medicine in the USA (closest thing we have is Medicare and other programs); we have fascist medicine. This article explains my viewpionts of why healthcare in the USA is so expensive.

If someone else is paying for my healthcare, why should I care what it costs?

For example, when my grandmother was dying of cancer, Medicare and her supplemental picked up 95+% of the tab. Her doctor sent her to a nutritionist at first, as a way of acknowledging the mountain of research that proves nutrition is an important part of health. Grandma later said, "she wanted me to eat 5 servings of vegetables a day. She's CRAZY!" The doctor never mentioned nutrition again, and stuck to the high-tech/high-cost treatments he'd been trained in. She died after six months, after having spent $50k+ of other people's money.

A year ago I started seeing a Doctor of Osteopathy in the Cranial Field for some Osteopathic Manipulation. He works from a home-office, has an answering machine for an assistant, answers all his own messages, and basically does everything himself. He gives me a receipt that I can submit myself for insurance reimbursment, if I so desire. He doesn't accept insurance because a) he'd need an employee to handle the billing b) his practice is full regardless c) many insurances are likely to disallow his kind of therapy, or pay him pennies on the dollar.

In January I decided to see a homeopathic M.D. to see if there was something I could do about my cold hands. After taking an extensive history, he decided that my autonomic nervous system was probably out of balance, and injected me with novocain (same as what dentists use to numb the mouth) in a couple locations. He also gave me a couple of homeopathic remedies, and some fish oil/vitamin E at the next visit. I'm out $400 or $500 for his services, and am totally pleased with the results. He doesn't bill insurance either, also because it's not worth his time.

If I'd gone the conventional route, my insurance would've had to spend $2000 or $5000 on diagnostic tests (an MRI goes for $1000, and CAT scans aren't cheap either), $20,000 on hand surgery/whatever, and I still would've had the problem. As it is, I've spent approx $5,000 with the D.O., and I'm totally satisfied because the treatment program works.

Health Insurance should be carried for accidents, because you never know when you might have a $40,000 medical bill (like me, 8 years ago: a helicopter flight, a plane flight, a cat scan or two, 10 days in the hospital, etc...). But we should all pay our way, for the costs associated with living.

Modern Medicine has evolved with almost univeral insurance coverage, so our doctors have the mindset of "if cost were no object, what would I do?" (this is not a concious thing, but a mindset that gets passed from generation to generation of medical professionals) Which explains why there are so many $60,000 heart bypass surgeries being done, even though some researchers say that bypass surgery belongs in the medical archives, because it is almost universally incompatible with the patient's long-term outcome. I clipped a story from the paper a few weeks back about a guy who died in his 50's, 3 weeks after having a bypass operation. Re-plumbing the heart while ignoring the rest of the vascular system seems like a foolish way to go about attaining health. But it makes the heart surgeon wealthy, so why should he do anything else?

See also:
100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom