After I hit the submit button on this post, I am going to enlist in a school for JACK BOOTED THUGS and learn how to approach doctors as one in a group of MEN BEARING GUNS in order to force them in a position of affordable, state subsidized healthcare. Finally, I will realize my dream of becoming a STATIST.
Who sets the prices, and who decides who will receive what services, and who decides who will provide them to whom?
Who cares? The goal isnt to make a few people rich, it is to make all people well. You seem to have a problem with public goods and services, those goods and services that a free market well adapted to selling widgets and fribbles has never provided nearly well enough.
"extreme capitalism": the obsessive, uncritical penetration of the concept of the market into every aspect of American life, and the attempt to drive out every other institution, including law, art, culture, public education, Social Security, unions, community, you name it. It is the conflation of markets with populism, with democracy, with diversity, with liberty, and with choice---and so the denial of any form of choice that imposes limits on the market. More than that, it is the elimination of these separate concepts from our political discourse, so that we find ourselves looking to the stock market to fund retirement, college education, health care, and having forgotten that in other wealthy and developed societies these are rights, not the contingent outcomes of speculative games.
People took the message from their forebears that "government should represent the people," and forgot all about the restraint and individual rights message those same people brought with them, so today, we have irresponsible governments - merely a reflection of the irresponsible people they represent.
-- James K. Galbraith ( <-- economist. trhurler? windbag)
Yeah, it's the height of irresponsibility to recognize positive rights in other people.
Do you stay up nights wondering why after 25 years of handing out pamphlets to blue haired old ladies, the Libertarian Party hasnt managed to elect more than a handful of dog catchers?
The intellectual bankruptcy
Your intellectual bankruptcy is that mantle of chastened certitude that insists on subscribing to the rank fallacy that recognizes coercion in the State alone, denying without justification, intellectual, cultural and, most importantly, economic coercion. Guess what? The overwhelming majority of people are unaffected by the State to anywhere near the same degree as they are affected by decrees made by their employers during their employers' pursuit of profit.
Do not preach to me about modern government; I know it all too well.
You know nothing except willful obtuseness to the reality of economic coercion.
Evidently it has escaped your notice that barely 1% of corporate conglomerates exercise a near controlling influence on investment priorities, wages, interest rates, and conditions for workers and smaller businesses; or that these same corporate dogs routinely wag the state tail, financing politicians who do their bidding on economic and foreign policy while threatening to withhold credit and move jobs from any community deemed insufficiently compliant.
I dont share your moral certainty that these people should control public health. Do you understand this? I am impervious to your petitions for their increased wealth.
You can not justify any of your dogma. A baker's dozen of European countries the size of Vermont, in excellent economic shape every last one of them, have better healthcare than the mighty USA.
You are now firmly in denial of reality.
No, I am not in denial of history. You said:
Throughout human history, degree of prosperity of a civilization has been directly correlated with freedom to trade as you will, absence of oppressive taxation, and individual liberties.
Bullshit. Slavery and imperialism financed the precipitation of capitalism. Capitalists plundered foreign lands of material wealth, bought and sold their human inhabitants for a profit, and then they exploited the labor of those human beings in exchange for 40 lashes and rock soup.
Your grasp of history is firmly stuck in some imaginary, pastoral, primitive past where everyone supposedly lived an idyllic life trading horshoes for corn insead of instead of disease for occupation. Even if that were so -- which it isnt -- that aint capitalism.
Compare the US to China, or Russia
I am not an apologist for socialist dictatorships. However, I'd like to see the USA do better if it were arrayed against globe of hostile communist countries. And guess what? The USSR was in worse economic shape before and after their revolution, comparable to modern day Pakistan instead of the global power it once was.
That's odd. I know more people than that who take it seriously myself,
Yeah, well, maybe you should make the acquaintances of economists. I already gave you a link, here's further testimonial from a neoclassicist.
But you know what? If you want to listen to a bunch of cranks who accuse Adam Smith of being a proto Marxist and not a theorist of "real" capitalism, be my guest.
Despite your obvious religious fervor for majority rule, might does not make right.
Typical libertarian rhetoric.
No, "Might makes ability to make something", Right or Wrong. You can't even try for Right until you have Might to back it up in the real world. That's the reason that some real governments have survived and all utopian governments that have tried to abolish force have failed.
However, government is not alone in requiring might. All property is based on might as well. Nobody is beholden to your notions of what constitutes your property. Property is just as "involuntary" as the social contract. There is no moral obligation for anyone to respect your property: only a practical one.
Recognition that the fundamental nature of property is based on force is essential to recognition that there are costs and benefits to the principle of property. It is not as negative a "right" as libertarians like to portray it.
[ Parent ]