Re: Re: money and health - POLITICS

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:46:22 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>>Heidi wrote:

>>> >Go back to the good ol' days when the robber

>>> >barons owned the railways...

>>

>>Out of curiosity, Heidi, who were they robbing?

>

>I think they got that reputation because they

>overcharged farmers by running a monopoly ...

>they could also do things like decide not to

>stop at a certain place til the land was worthless,

>then buy it up. Your basic monopoly.

>

>http://www.myfreeessays.com/history/052.shtml

Heidi,

leaving aside this issue of determining prices, i.e " undercharging " and

" overcharging " and how you or anyone else makes such a judgement of

value, the " robber barons " got that name because they received and

wasted millions of dollars in *federal* subsidies on their railroads.

Leaving aside the true definition of a monopoly, not the popular one

generally bandied about, to whatever extent the robber barons negatively

affected the market, it was because they were aided by the power of the

state to do so.

>A government that actively destroys the means of survival of other people for

>>the sake of the " public good " is considerably more immoral than a government

>>that leaves charity to its citizens.

>

>So you are opposing:

>

>1. The pessimistic idea that government is bad with

>2. The optimistic idea that humans are charitable

>

>I totally agree that gov't can be bad ... and for the same

>reasons that humans are not generally all that charitable.

I don't think you meant to phrase #1 the way you did. Libertarians do

not oppose the idea that a civil gov't is bad. And yes, I believe that

humans are generally charitable. I think that is born out just by

observation.

But lets assume for a moment humans are Hobbesian by nature. All the

more reason not to concentrate monopoly force in the hands of the state.

People don't magically change when they enter gov't service and to hand

them a monopoly on force strikes me as rather foolish given your belief

about the general uncharitableness of human nature.

So a gov't gone bad will always be worse than an individual gone bad,

because there is a qualitative difference in the magnitude of force at

their disposal.

>Again, I'd love an example of a society where the

>poor are actually decently taken care of by charity.

You mean a modern example? Good luck. The reason is that tax payer

funded gov't charity is a failure. Remember all the stink about welfare

reform? I don't know the exact figures today but a few years back 70% of

every dollar earmarked for " charity " never made it out of the various

bureaucracies. Imagine a private group operating that way. It would be a

scandal of the highest proportions. They would be out of business too.

Not the gov't. They keep right on trucking.

I would argue that the poor are greater among us than they otherwise

would be because of the state and its pervasive influence in nearly

every aspect of our lives.

A case in point: with the advent of the Great Society programs of Lyndon

, poverty actually went up in the Black community after a long

and spectacular rise in living standards among American blacks. It was a

rise that started *long* before the civil rights movement grabbed the

nation's attention.

But even without examples like the one above, a minimal state or no

monopoly civil state would certainly make living far less expensive and

provide the opportunity for many to raise themselves up, and thus we

would have less genuine poor to begin with. In such a scenario, the $240 billion

or so that the American people currently give to private charities would

probably be more than adequate to take care of the genuine poor.

Of course there are many other factors as well, like a percentage

increase in the amount given to charity as a result of a freer and more

prosperous society. Some families would be in better positions to take

care of their own should the need arise. And on and on.

Your statement seems to assume that current gov't care is adequate. It

is not. Your statement seems to assume that it is ethical for the state

to steal from some to take care of others. It is not. Your statement

overlooks that many who are in need of charity are in such a situation

because of the state.

I think we need to stop making the assumption that the state is

adequately doing their job. That seems to be an underlying assumption

throughout much of these threads. And those of us who argue for a change

are seen as ideologues with no sense of reality.

The truth is no system is perfect and there are many falling through

the cracks right now. The question is which way would be more effective.

Contrary to what you may think, history is on the side of the private

provision of services. And as I answer some of the posts in the various

related threads, I will provides links demonstrating just that.

>

>If you read the older writings, there WAS a lot of

>starvation, illness, plagues. Fires that burned down

>entire cities (like San Francisco). Building codes

>have made earthquakes pretty survivable (when

>was the last time 100 people died in a US earthquake?

>I think the toll was only 50 on the big San Fran. one).

>Fires don't spread much, thanks to codes and

>fire departments. Plagues tend to be stopped in

>their tracks thanks to the CDC and quick

>intervention.

The rise out of the problems you mentioned above had little to do with

the state but more to do with economic development and other factors

like sanitation. The rise of the state and the bettering of living

standards is correlative but not causative. I would argue that the state

rose on the back of prosperity not the other way around.

It is not building codes that make the difference in America, it is

technology. Countries that have huge death tolls in earthquakes

routinely lack the technology and infrastructure to erect adequate

buildings. But wait a minute now. Far be it for us to import our

oppressive capitalistic technology and ruin that country's " simple " and

more " meaningful " way of life. <g>

Interesting is the fact the two California earthquakes I was in or

around, the only buildings that suffered any real damage were the gov't

built buildings. Both gov't and private sectors were up to the mandated

code, but the private buildings were almost universally built beyond

code, because private developers had determined that the gov't standards

were inadequate. Thus they were routinely built above code.

Something that people tend to overlook in these scenarios is that often

insurance companies will *not* insure houses and buildings if they are

not up to a certain standard. This provides a further market check on

the problem of " unscrupulous " builders.

>

>Probably people weren't " starving in the streets "

>in the 1800's -- they mostly kept to the privacy

>of their rooms -- but lack of food is still an issue

>for a big chunk of Americans.

A big chunk? What size is that chunk? I would like to see some stats for

this claim.

Food stamps helped

>a lot, so there is a basic kind of safety net. I did hear

>one of the surviving Roosevelts talk about how his

>Mom would make him take baskets of food to " the

>poor " and how it moved him. I doubt that there was

>enough food taken to the poor to keep them fed

>as well as food stamps can, plus it wasn't very

>efficient.

If there is a model of inefficiency, it is the state and charity. See my

first paragraph.

In the state of Washington, especially in the Greater Seattle area, it

is very difficult to go hungry whether or not you have food stamps

because of the network of private charities/churches.

I remember when a friend of mine was staying in a battered woman's

shelter. I would go visit her and her kids and the one thing that stood

out is that she could always get a meal every night. It surprised her

and me the number of places that were feeding people every night.

>

>So you are going to say, well, if people just didn't have to

>pay taxes they would all become suddenly charitable and

>pay for accident victims. I'd love to see this in real life. My

>guess is, you lower taxes and people will buy bigger TV's.

It is an interesting guess and probably a good one given your

pessimistic view of human nature, but I think that it is reasonable to

assume that with a dramatic lowering of taxes many activities would

increase, including charitable giving and the purchasing of accident

insurance policies.

> " Government " is picking up the tab for a lot of things

>no one wants to deal with .. my guess is that if they landed

>in your personal lap you might change your mind!

This is actually backwards. Many things that people have historically

done themselves have been abandoned because the gov't competed with and

ultimately took over that function.

Why should we plan for and take care of our elderly? Isn't that what

Social Security is all about? That's why I have been paying taxes all

these years, right?

Why should I leave anything for my family when I die? After all, 55% of

my estate is going to the gov't when I die, let them provide for them.

Why should I be personally responsible for the genuine poor in my own

family let alone my community? They can get food stamps, right?

I believe that it is only human nature to give up our responsibilities

when someone else is offering to take them over.

The common thought is that too many people were falling through the

cracks and so the gov't had to step in. It is exactly the opposite.

Gov't creates a problem through their intervention and then turns around

and tries to create a solution to the problem they created in the first

place. And it just escalates from there.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:00:52 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>What I'm basically saying is: give me an example of a successful

>state that has both weak government and a strong society.

>I can't think of one. The best societies I've seen have strong

>social programs AND are sometimes coercive to their members.

>

>Can you give me an example?

>

>All the ones I can think of had

>lots of very, very poor people and violence and rampant

>disease. Since our rise in technology, the rise of social programs,

>and our rise in wealth all happened together, it's not

>real provable which was the cause and which the effect. But

>countries that are trying to rise out of poverty are doing so

>by spending money on social programs to help their poor,

>or giving loans to the middle class, etc.

Since I am a latecomer to all this, I won't answer whole posts because

I'm sure others have, but I will tackle a few things here and there.

I don't agree with your premise in the initial question and I think your

economic analysis is mightily flawed but I will throw in a few examples

just for the heck of it. And in passing will mention that social

programs and the like come after economies are developed enough to be

fleeced with increasing impunity.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

a sample:

" Second, medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and

interesting

characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist

to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in

its most fundamental functions. Killing was a civil offense resulting in

a fine paid to the survivors of the victim. Laws were made by a

" parliament, " seats in which were a marketable commodity. Enforcement of

law was entirely a private affair. And yet these extraordinary

institutions survived for over three hundred years, and the society in

which they survived appears to have been in many ways an attractive one .

Its citizens were, by medieval standards, free; differences in status

based on rank or sex were relatively small;[5] and its literary, output

in relation to its size has been compared, with some justice, to that of

Athens.[6] "

Here is a short review of the above and an answer to one of his critics:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

Below is a link to a modern example:

http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_stateless_somalis.htm

Sample:

" Almost ten years ago, the Somali nation abolished its central

government

and thus became a stateless nation. As a result, the Somali people are

now more peaceful and also becoming more prosperous than before. This

unique event in the political history of the world deserves all our

attention. This is particularly true now that everywhere people are

asking for an alternative to democracy. That system became popular

because it promised less taxation and more freedom than existed under

monarchy. But it failed to deliver on that promise; taxation now takes

on average half of every-body's wealth without rendering much in

exchange. And its regulations severely limit the freedom and

productivity of the citizens. It is estimated that people would create 4

- 8 times more wealth without these democratic regulations. "

" Almost ten years have passed since the Somalis changed their political system.

Peace has been established in most of the country and prosperity is

slowly but surely increasing. This peace has been achieved by upholding

the Somali customary law. Therefore, it is of interest to analyse this

law in some detail.

The five main characteristics of the Somali law are:

* No punishment for crimes, only restitution or compensation.

* No public prosecutors, no victimless crimes.

* Fines are limited and must be paid to the victim or to his family.

* Every person is insured for his liabilities under the law.

* Judges are appointed by the litigants, not by 'society'. "

Enjoy or hate...

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6