Getting back to school

Raising funds, talking to counselors, preparing discussion groups, and general hustling have slowed down my blogging, obviously. However, thanks to facebook I am easily stirred into a debate. Two happened today, I’ll post them here.

Part 1, Bill Mahr, Honest news and health care

The video in question, I suggest starting at 2 minutes in.

This was my initial response.

A.C.
I’ll preface this by saying I advocate self government, unfortunately more pejoratively referred to as anarcho-capitalism. I am not red team, or blue team, or an independent who switches back and forth based on issues.

There is a kernel of truth to what he said, health care was cheap and available to every social class in America, only as far back as the early 60′s. Where this idea turns into an abstraction is when he blames profit, not government intervention, for the increase in cost

Around this time the FDA took over health regulations in the pharmaceutical world and a few years later the AMA was given regulatory control over health professions. This was the beginning of unaffordable health care.

The cost to get a new product tested by the FDA for use in pharmaceuticals increases the cost to the consumer about 800%, at normalized profit. Turns out they aren’t as altruistic as you think.

Also, due to socialized medicine around the world, pharmaceutical companies rely on profits in the United States to fund their R&D, yet another cause of increased cost. But, if we adapt this program ourselves, research and advance in all medical fields will come to a crawl.

I.P.
. . . and R&D has given us so many advancements lately in the fields of . . . mood-altering drugs that kill difficult self-reflection in order to keep us in cubicles and watching Gary Unmarried.
Where Maher is inarguably right is in his critique of when network news became profit-driven. I really think that may have been the last gasp of any public truth in this country.

A.C.
Yea, but no one is forcing anyone to take them.

As far as profit driven news being a problem, I kind of agree. But it’s soon going to be mostly replace by the internet. Most people everywhere are more then happy to tell you whats going on for free. I think we are in a transitional stage. I think soon the internet will come together and form several branches with independent roots to bring people the most useful and honest news.

I.P.
No one is forcing them to take them? That wasn’t my point. My point is THAT is the focus. How’s cancer going? AIDS? How’s our morbid obesity that keeps us all sick?
And thinking the internet will solve everything is just as naive as anything else, I’m afraid. Despite what we think, many many people aren’t tapped in to the internet for news.
Also, I’m not a team-player either, neither is Maher. He’s been more critical of Obama of just about any liberal on television. And, of course, I don’t agree with everything he says either.
I think his point, while basic, is still valid and still needs to be heard just to remind people, “Oh yeah. Capitalism isn’t = Patriotism.”

A.C.
True, but thats people’s problem, they get what they want. If people start demanding better treatment for cancer or aids, that’s what will get researched.

I don’t think the internet will solve anything. It’s here to transfer information, that’s all.

People staying dumb is their problem, doesn’t stop the people who are paying attention from making the decisions

Also my preface was to point out I don’t agree with any form of coercive government, let alone blue team or read team. I get what you’re saying though.

That was about the end of that debate, but it looks like it’s going to get reheated, the sparked around a classic author Ayn Rand

NG
Objectivism is bullshit. This description is all fluff. “Rational self-interest” is essentially caring for no one but yourself and is an extreme form of libertarianism with no welfare or aid for the poor. Basically it’s do what you want and fuck anyone that gets in your way. It’s pretty much Ayn Rand’s way of justifying her rich, priveleged upbringing as a member of a Russian noble family.

AC
Welfare or aid for the poor hurts the poor.

NG
Misuse of welfare hurts the poor. An objectivist government would essentially be turn of the 20th century/Gilded Age America. If you thought the wealth gap was large during the Bush administration than pick up a book and read about the Gilded Age.

AC
Lol, I realize you don’t know me, but I’m up on my reading. An “objectivist” government could only be considered self government, and wealth gabs can’t be created by freedom, just by fiat currency and the cantillon effect.

NG
The objectivist philosophy espouses a laissez-faire economy which creates a marketplace free of government intervention. That means no regulations which will lead to the working class getting taken advantage of which equals low labor costs which means high profits for business owners which means a large wealth gap.

AC
This is a common misconception.

“no regulations which will lead to the working class getting taken advantage of”

If you found out someone doing similar work to you with equal experience was getting paid more, would you take action to make sure you get paid for you worth? So would most people. If you found out a store took advantage of it’s workers, would you still shop there? Didn’t think so. It benefits no business to pay their workers less then they are worth, you essentially get what you pay for. You cannot force people to work for your, so skilled workers (even lesser skilled workers) need to see the benefit in staying, or they will leave. There is never a need for the violence of government.

NG
I’m hoping you mean of violence of government metaphorically otherwise I have no idea where you could have gotten that from what my point is.

History has proven on more than one occassion that limited to no government regulations on business leads to greed and the mistreatment of the working class. I’m not really sure how anyone can argue against that. Also, by your reasoning it doesn’t benefit businesses to hire illegal aliens for a lesser wage, try to block unionization or outsource jobs to foreign countries. But yet businesses do all of these things. Guess they’re doing it for the hell of it.

AC
Sir, name one time there has been no government intervention on the economy in an industrialized nation.

Also, assuming the government you speak of is funded by taxes, government is by nature violent. If you are forced to pay taxes or, at end result, be forcefully imprisoned ,then it is inherently violent.

Outsourcing jobs, anti-unionization, and hiring “illegal aliens” are all consequences of government intervention. If business were able to pay what they thought was a just wage for the labor in this country, they wouldn’t have to give it to people in other countries who are more then happy to accept a small amount of wealth for unskilled labor. Low wages doesn’t cause poverty, no wages does.

Even if you don’t agree with me, then you have the choice to no solicit these business’ instead of using the gun of government to force them to stop doing business how YOU see unfit. If enough people agree with you, then it will be profitable for the business to stop doing those things.

This even has real world examples. Any institute, no matter which one you chose, that has done research comparing economic freedom to poverty shows that they are inversely proportional. A time chart in the United States would show you the same thing.

Socialization and welfare programs have never decreased poverty. If anything, it serves as a distraction from larger issues (increased taxes, fiat money, fractional lending) that flow wealth upwards, things that are caused by the government you seem to think is altruistic.

NG
While I respect your opinion it seems to me you are basing it entirely on the philosophy and not factoring in the human element. There are greedy people who will take a mile when given an inch. There are many philosophies, objectivism included, that would be great if executed properly. Unfortunately thats not the case. We can dream about our own idea of the “perfect society” all we want but we must be rational and pragmatic. While I agree that our current welfare system is greatly flawed that doesn’t mean that all welfare is evil. My idea of welfare is similar to the training wheels on a bike. One needs a helping hand to acheive self-reliance and then should be let go. But unfortunately our current welfare system creates a dependence and perpetuates the problem instead of fixing it. It seems that you have your opinion and I have mine so instead of wasting time, bandwidth and blowing up Cassie’s inbox I’m willing to call it a spirited debate and say farewell.

I leave remarks about why he ended the debate to myself, because I chose to end it as well to not inconvenience the host of the debate.

Let me know what you think, who you agree with, or anything you want to add to any of the arguments.

Solo articles are going to get heavier as soon as I make the transition back into dorm life.

I think I accidently wrote an article.

It’s amazing how the words just flow when you believe in what you’re saying. This is why it’s such a problem that most political speakers used a teleprompter. If they really agreed with and understood what they were saying, they wouldn’t need one. Anyways, on to the meat and potatoes.

I was criticizing public health care on facebook (which is really easy to do since I found a big poll about it and 75.9% of the about 250,000 questioned voted against it) and somehow found a link to something I found very offensive and childish.

If you know the entertainment I enjoy, then you know that it’s very hard to offend me. What caught me with this article was two fold. One, clearly it’s a website that put’s red team vs blue team before any real issue, and secondly, they spoke for a dead man. If you think that’s bad, it gets worse. The dead man they were speaking for was Martin Luther King Jr., not only that, but the author proposed the idea that liberals should stop “claiming” him as their own, and that conservatives should be able to truly “claim” him. Of course, I was furious. After reading the article, which was more or less an argument for why conservatives can “claim” him, I, as I tend to do, responded.

“I’d like to start out with the the childishness of being able to “claim” someone, or the idea that everyone in American political history falls into either conservative or liberal camps. The truth is narrow-minded collectivism is just as bad as any collectivism, be it the collectivism that Martin Luther King Jr. fought against or the collectivist red team vs. blue team game that you so seem to love playing. At the root of this issue is the problem with democracy, two party or otherwise.  A lynch mob is democracy in action, and certainly not freedom. If 10 collectivist white guys vote to hang the one black guy in the community, democracy is satiated. Is that black man free due to democracy? Certainly not. The problem is, as soon as victimless crimes can be legislated against and/or legislation and enforcement are paid for in coercively gained tax dollars you have lost freedom. This can easily be explained with two brief examples. What if I don’t care if someone drives without a seat belt on? Am I free to withhold my tax dollars from the public enforcement agency if I disagree with the things they enforce? Certainly not. Therefore, the man without the seat belt is not able to live freely as long as he is harming no one else because he is forced to do something that affects only himself, just as I am not free because I am forced to monetarily support an organization that enforces things I don’t agree with by threat of fines, theft, or imprisonment. I suppose if I didn’t pay my taxes and they came to issue aforementioned threats, and I made the choice to resist, the final threat is that of a gun. Comply with what we say, or perish.

This is the point in the argument where Government has reached it’s moral end, and either side of the statist blue team red team coin with start slinging their favorite cliches.

1. Well Freedom isn’t free, you’ve got to pay your taxes.

2. Without coercive government who will keep the order? build the roads? You like roads don’t you?

3. Without the government, who will protect us from foreign invasion?

4. What of the poor? Without taxes and government control, who will help feed and educate them?

These are all foolish, faith based idea’s that the government actually does these things or provides a marketable service. At the end of the day, if it is the will of the people, human nature via the free market will provide anything the government does yet more efficiently, at lower cost, and most importantly without violence. As I have already spoken my piece, I will refrain from specific free market examples.”

I am awaiting a response, to read the article mentioned and follow the argument (even though responses to my argument will be posted verbatim here) you can here in the comments section. Feel free to join in, or let me know how you feel by commenting this article!

Capitalism.

This is going to have a long preface, but it was a really interesting back and forth. I find my self at my best frequently when I’m debating with someone. This video was posted December 27, 2008 and man is it a duzy. You’ll find that, up to about the 1:10 mark, that the video seems to defend capitalism and acknowledge that we do not live in a capitalist society today. Which, is shocking to see since most people (foolishly) blame capitalism for the  current economic problems. However as soon as he is done explaining what capitalism is, (a fine definition at that) he calls money an abstraction.  After seeing this jump in logic, I start the debate. (Myself labeled as AC, the person in the video labeled PP)

AC:
Stock markets and currency are not abstractions, the problem is the over taxation of the lower class. They are taxed on their income, and what they use their income on. Smash government spending, dude.

PP
No, restructure taxation so that the rich pay their fair share, and stop corporate welfare. Welfare for the lowest class only puts money back into the economy, and money goes one direction -up. Back into the pockets of those who own the means of production. Simple logic and basic economics.

AC
Neither the rich, nor the poor should be forced to pay for goods and services involuntarily, “taxes”. The effect you speak of happens prominently through what’s called the Cantillon effect, a product of fiat money and central banking tied to government spending. Corporatism and Socialism create a vicious incesetuous cycle that flows wealth upwoards. However you’re economic theory, wrought with keynsianisms, seems to blame capitalism and will never serve the people you seek to help. Rothbard.

PP
Goods and services, maybe not, but public infrastructure, yes. No individual has the profit motive nor the means to create a well maintained highway system to facilitate the movement of goods and services. If they were private, not only would people have to pay to travel to visit friends, but there be an infrastrucural monopoly. It’s clearly advantageous to put this into public hands– which requires public funding. You’re using Keynes’s name like it’s a bad word when it’s not.

AC
Oh, but it is. As you’ve pieced together, it seems, I’m an anarcho-capitalist. The fact of the matter is, we pay for roads now. We pay for inefficient, wastefully built, under serviced roads. It just happens to be through gas taxes (mostly) so it’s not as evident. There is a demand for roads, we all want to travel. Competition will arise to maintain convenient, safe, and affordable roads to be used by the masses, just like any product with a demand. Private roads are used in places like amusement parks and are well maintained and secure. Escape the idea of “public infrastructure”.

PP
Why is it a bad word? Keynesian economics has been proven to work in the real world. Milton Freidman’s chicago school of thought has proven to be bullshit. I never said you don’t pay for roads. What I said is that the burden of cost is spread over the whole of society, and the whole of society benefits. Competition cannot arise if you own the only road between point A and point B. And roads are too costly to maintain to ever be run privately AND be used by the public.

AC
The current popular and executed economic theory is Keynesian. You made a video about the problems with the economy….
I don’t consider Friedman principled enough to exemplify my ideals. Frédéric Bastiat however is, and his style of philosophy of economic freedom brought the industrial revolution. What would you have done to someone who refused to pay the taxes for roads he didn’t use? Have you ever traveled? Is there ever only one way between A and B? And if there was, bad owners would be forced out.

PP
Actually no. The economic theory practiced by our economy from the New-Deal on to Eisenhower was Keynesian. What started with Reagan was Friedmanism. The reason we are in the mess we are today is because of the implementation of Freidman’s theories of economics, which fail every time.

AC
We’ll we finally agree, Reagan’s economic theory was and is an issue. However, he talked a big free market game, but doubled the size of government. This may have agreed with some of Friedman’s later concessions, but it certainly wasn’t a departure from Keynesian theory. Reagan did remove some regulation and tinkered with the tax code (the laffer curve nonsense) but he was all talk in the long run, just a statist like everyone else. Which, according to Lord Keynes, works. But, here we are. The reason the “deregulation” that Reagan and eventually Bush implemented didn’t and wont work is because truly free markets are free of more than regulation; they are also free of subsidies, privileges, and guarantees. Lightening up on regulation may please business, but if it is done while keeping the subsidies, privileges, and the guarantees in place, it is not a move toward the free market.

PP
You’re a Friedmanist cult member. These arguments have no basis in reality. Read any book on the recent history of South America, and of Russia in the post-soviet period. Unemployment does not correct its self. Inflation does not correct its self. Free Markets don’t correct themselves. The more you slash spending, slash social services, slash infrastructure, the further into 3rd world poverty your nation slides. That’s just a fact.

AC
I’m a Rothbardian, no matter how much you want to tag me as a Friedman and use pejorative terms like “cult”. There has been no recent example of a true free market.The last time we got close, the industrial revolution happened until Lincoln came around and raised tariffs to their highest point in American History. The boom of the early 1900′s happened pre-new deal, and before there was even one federal law on the book. That’s the wealth that made America sustainable until today’s bubble burst.

PP
Two little detail you’re leaving out– the boom and bust cycles previous to the new deal, and the Great Depression. If you’d done any investigation into this current crisis at all, you’d know that it’s this “cut social spending, deregulate everything” attitude that got us into this mess. Do research into the fire departments of early NYC. They were private, and they failed miserably at doing what they were supposed to. Further “freeing” the market will only result in greater depression. I’m sorry, but Rothbardian, Friedman, whomever, your espoused ideas have been proven to be false in the real world on multiple occasions, and not once proven to be correct. In south America they thought that the economic depression after the Keynesian development there was destroyed would be solved by further cuts and further deregulation. In fact, unemployment skyrocketed, wages went through the floor, inflation went out of control.

AC
By admitting there was inflation in those markets, you’ve admitted that they were not a free market, and thus irrelevant. I already made the argument that if you only cut regulation (something that never really happened in the past 8 years) but kept other government interventions, it’s not a step towards a free market. If you think inflation was out of control now, talk to me a year from now when this money have gone through the system.

And scene. After waiting a month for a reply, he either got tired of arguing or realized that he was talking in a circle, ineffectively I might add. If he continued the debate I would have started reminding him that government is inherently violence and, no matter who is taxed, is morally unjust.

More coming later today. Also as soon as the almost hour long appearance on the David Angelo show is up, I will have a link to the mp3. Don’t forget to comment here and send you friends. But most importantly, comment!

A facebook conversation about a Bill Maher clip.

This is the clip which was posted by someone (as all the people who joined in the conversation) who will remain anonymous. The clip also had the disclaimer from the person who posted it of  “Doesn’t care what you think of Bill Maher as a person/comic/whatever, it was nice to hear this said on television. Start at 2:00″. After watching the video’s and reading the previous responses, I entered the conversation.
People will be reffered to by the following generalizations for clarity, yet anonnimity.

AC: me

C: Cynic

OAC: the other anarcho-capitalist in the conversation

L: Liberal

PI: Progressive Independent (also the poster of the video)

C:
Bill Maher isn’t the answer. Give him his bowl full of money and he’ll be as meaningless and cowardly as the next asshole.

OAC:
Though it’s not the perfect answer to government, it is definitely a refreshing statement to hear. Wake up Republicans, it’s time for your daily anti-psychotic and shot in the ass.

L:
He was way too soft on Meghan McCain during this episode!!

AC:
Oft, can’t believe you went with this one OAC. When was the last time a corporation did something negative to the American people that wasn’t made possible by the American government? And it’s a ballsy move to complain about names being misused, because they took classic liberalism from us and gave libertarian to Glenn Beck and Bob Barr. Is Progressive the PR term for socialist now? Universal health care and high taxes? Not that the republicans, neo-cons, and fascists are any better. No matter how perfect you think the people you sit behind the levers of power are, they will one day die or move on. Then those shiny new levers you built for them to control the world the way you saw fit will now be controlled by someone who you might not agree with. The problem is the levers. But this tag team of government growth where one “team” raises taxes and public spending and the other restricts our freedoms and and sends our people off to war will eventually lead to some wacky socio-fascist mess before it comes crashing down on itself like every government in history. The sooner people realize that the system they feel obligated to continue running is what strips people of the ability to afford their own health care, the sooner they’ll think outside the box of government control.

OAC:
hahahahaha, I thought the jokes were funny, I would never agree with it being put in place. Don’t worry, his “universal health care” can go suck my dick, if I even had one. I heard what he said, and some of it was good to hear, but not all of it. I would never feel comfortable with someone replacing one government party with another, THAT’S THE PROBLEM. We need to get out of the government system because it just doesn’t work. And it’s true, Obama is a fucking socialist, so just say it and get it over with Maher. Some of the things he said stuck out like huge red flags, ie the taxes and universal health care, there is no way I would agree to that. But he mentioned cutting the military budget, legalizing marijuana, etc. There were some good things there as well, but the problem is the answer to this isn’t to create another party.

AC:
I suppose I take what he says too seriously, but I guess I have to because of the ideas he perpetuates. Silly Pseudo-intellectuals, ruining the country with their false idealism. I agree with ending the war and legalizing marijuana but you can’t support someone who is half right. Check out, if you haven’t already, Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” . In chapter 15 he talks all about the subject of who people for true liberty should be looking for, and Mahr certainly doesn’t make the list. Anyways, anarcho-internet high five.

OAC:
Word, brotha! I’ll definitely check it out. I’ve been meaning to check out the Freedom Book Club. I bet that book is on there. I can’t find any of those books at Chapter’s here. You’re right about taking it seriously when I think about it, because really, if he actually thinks that way, that is extremely disturbing and would be just another bullshit scheme if it was put into place. He just dumbs it all down with the jokes.

AC:
Idk about the freedom book club. It sounds like a nice idea, but the classics never change and I’d suggest catching up on those before going there. If you want some recommendations let me know, preferably somewhere else besides Jame’s status.

PI:
It’s so funny when kids say “Obama’s a socialist!” Awww…who’s a widdle Glenn Beck. You are!

AC:
I prefer widdle Wothbawd, but if you think I’m wrong I’d be happy to debate.

L:
Obama’s not even close to a socialist..he is barely a democrat people!! Come up with something new to say about that guy!!

AC:
*sigh* “Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full … Read Moreproduct of the laborer.”. Democracy, and perhaps it’s loose advocates, Democrats, have no specific tenets as it is a manner of government, not an ideal. So I’m not sure what you mean by he isn’t a Democrat unless you’re suggesting he doesn’t operate in that system of government. Certainly sounds like a socialist. Also, you have to realize that the description of socialist applies to most presidents since Martin Van Buren.

PI:
Right AC:, but meanings of words do change, and we know what people *mean* when they cry “Obama’s a Socialist!” –hell, most people interchange it with facists, commie, whatever.

AC:
I’d agree with that, but it doesn’t make it untrue, or him undue of criticism. It needs to be made clear that when you criticize blue team, doesn’t make you red team.

PI:
And that’s the whole opening point of the posted clip above, no? I just called Obama Neve Campbell onstage for an entire week.

L:
just b/c you want universal health care and for tax payers who will be using that system to pay doesn’t mean you are a straight out socialist, as per your googled definition. You do realize that we already have socialist aspects in this country that seem to work just fine and that you take full advantage of (public schools, fire/police dept./public libraries, etc..) I love how everybody thinks socialism is a bad word…way to let the extreme right brainwash and scare the crap out of you!!

AC
Yea, PI, I think my original argument was more relevant to the part of the video you asked to be regarded, everything was more a responses to a response. L, I’m against public schools, public fire and police, and public libraries. They’re all inefficient and would be better handled by a free market. Especially the schools and the police as I am forced to pay for them to take away my liberties. As I said before, I am neither left nor right, I am an anarcho-capitalist. The reason for the “googled… Read More” definition was for expedience and clarity. If you want to continue this debate, send me a message because I don’t want PI to have to deal with irrelevant notifications.

L:
no need! I am a public school teacher, so I am sure we will just have to agree to disagree

AC:
Sounds good, glad we can be civil.

OAC:
I’ve read the rest of this argument…and of course.. agree with AC. And socialism is horrible. End of story, and yes, I also agree to disagree.

That is the conversation verbatim as it played out yesterday. There are afew things I would’ve like to have said to L, but I didn’t want to bog down PI with notifications. I would have mentioned the fact that I think in a free market she would be better off then in an oppresive mandatory teachers union with large restrictions on class curriculum and focus on standerdized testing.