Why So Negative (Rights)?

[anthony]

I've no doubt, that with the hi-tech and advanced training at their disposal now, doctors would be able to work much more efficiently and economically than in the past - which means, cheaper, faster, and competitively. But Govts and Statism have very neatly and cynically cut off any possibility or avenue for a Capitalist "model"

This part of what you said is what people would find interesting, I think. The first sentence is about what people are missing out on... great, that evokes emotion. The second sentence tells them what's happening right now that's hurting them... great, that tells them where to place blame (people love blame).

Of course you would have to provide examples and make it easier for people to see what you're saying as truth.

Geez. If people don't recognize that a can of beans or a pc is cheaper because of the free(ish) market (despite regulations and interference, not because) how you going to convince them that healthcare, that most sensitive and intimate subject, will work better and more affordably? Giving examples and scenarios won't work now if they haven't worked on people by now. I don't mind your practical approach, it's just that capitalism first has to be recognised and valued by each individual as their and others' freedom, as well as being most effective - which is by ideology. It's a moot question anyhow, that most people actually want to be free.

[Brant Gaede]

I've no doubt, that with the hi-tech and advanced training at their disposal now, doctors would be able to work much more efficiently and economically than in the past - which means, cheaper, faster, and competitively. But Govts and Statism have very neatly and cynically cut off any possibility or avenue for a Capitalist "model"

This part of what you said is what people would find interesting, I think. The first sentence is about what people are missing out on... great, that evokes emotion. The second sentence tells them what's happening right now that's hurting them... great, that tells them where to place blame (people love blame).

Of course you would have to provide examples and make it easier for people to see what you're saying as truth.

Geez. If people don't recognize that a can of beans or a pc is cheaper because of the free(ish) market (despite regulations and interference, not because) how you going to convince them that healthcare, that most sensitive and intimate subject, will work better and more affordably? Giving examples and scenarios won't work now if they haven't worked on people by now. I don't mind your practical approach, it's just that capitalism first has to be recognised and valued by each individual as their and others' freedom, as well as being most effective - which is by ideology. It's a moot question anyhow, that most people actually want to be free.

People don't want truth; they've forgotten what it is. Do they want freedom? They have no idea anymore WTF you're talking about. Today they think they're free to be fed and feed is freedom. They're just being fattened up.

--Brant

oink!

oink!

oink!

oink!

oink!

(It's hard to oink and eat at the same time [and gruel is cruel--pass the ketchup please])

[anthony]

Yup and it goes without saying they won't abide freedom for the Capitalist pigs.

[Mikee]

Calvin,

Can you even imagine what slavery is? What it entails? Imagine being a slave holder, what are your requirements as a successful slave owner? Do you beat your slaves all the time and work them to death? Or do you try to keep them happy and healthy and well rested and not complaining? Are they no less slaves because they have intelligent self interested owners who practice good animal husbandry? What do you think of people who are satisfied with the life of a slave, no worries, someone else taking care of thinking about everything and making all of your decisions for them?

You say slavery is so far from anyone's life experience that it turns people off when it is mentioned. I say it's like a fish in water not seeing the water. Canada is worse than the United States in many ways. There is not a single decision I make in my life, work, home, thinking about retirement, where every single detail isn't proscribed in some way by some government bureaucrat regulation. We break the law daily, knowingly or unknowingly, because a law has been written governing every aspect of our lives. We mostly don't see it or bother with it because frankly government people are fairly stupid, they imagine they are like God and see every turn of every sparrows wing, but mostly they see little. Unless...unless you are like the tall bamboo and you stick up taller than your fellows. Or rock the boat or complain or criticize too loudly [heard of Mark Steyn?]. Then these laws and regulations have teeth and can get you put in prison. You're not a slave? You don't want to talk about slavery? Think again.

Mikee, I fully understand what you are saying. The public, however, is not going to be moved by this kind of talk. You blame it on them for not understanding how relevant what you say is?

Instead of comparing what we have now, or could have soon, to slavery, why not compare what we have now (while using examples to illuminate the depravities of today, literally and without analogy or interpretation) to what could be? Forcing your conclusions on people doesn't work.

I detect a hint of smugness and having your cake and eating it too.

Thinking is hard, understanding what works and doesn't work is hard, even with centuries of historical evidence and the correct observations and arguments having been made about the evidence a million times. Read Hannah Arendt, read Ayn Rand, read Mises, read Thomas Sowell. You imagine to take force off the table? Think again. Force is the only answer to impenetrable ignorance. There is Ayn Rands way, the trading principle and non-coercion, or Nature's way, kill or be killed. The choice is to think or not to think. Simple, tell that to your friends.

[william.scherk]

If people don't recognize that a can of beans or a pc is cheaper because of the free(ish) market (despite regulations and interference, not because) how you going to convince them that healthcare, that most sensitive and intimate subject, will work better and more affordably? Giving examples and scenarios won't work now if they haven't worked on people by now.

In Canada, there has long been push-back against the socialization of medical care. I won't bore with too many details, but the first and most potent battle between individualism/capitalism and altruism/socialism took place in Saskatchewan -- a revolt, a strike by doctors. The CCF provincial government had tried to adapt local, community-based cooperative health pools (privately held mutual funds in the form of 'insurance') by force, force of law. Medicine was, as Mike might put it, nationalized, at the point of a gun, by decree: the CCF brought into full force legislation that mandated universal medical insurance and a single-payer dispenser of medical fees. This was 1962.

The subsequent doctor's strike lasted a month. The 'gun' won, with doctor's achieving only a few concessions from the state: basically, the freedom to 'opt out' of the Medicare, to co-administer fee schedules. They also had fees bumped. Not much else. During the strike the government had used strike-breaking tactics by importing 'scabs' to staff clinics and hospitals.

Within three years, the opposition was 'broken,' in that a large majority of doctors were by then in favour of Saskatchewan Medicare continuing. The other provinces adopted similar socialization laws, with opt-out and other crafty 'local' solutions. The feds waded in to establish common national standards of 'portability' and universality and opened a spigot from national funds to 'universalize' the level of care in each province, so that a poor province could afford infrastructure. This all took about ten years to be mortared in place. By 1975 the system of today had firm foundations.

Opposition is a constant in Canada, so an anti-medicare current has always existed in every province. Each interest group in each province has achieved a certain 'opted out' status, whether via private ambulatory clinic, or completely independent practice. In Canadian parlance this is a 'two-tier' system, with universal access guaranteed in the socialized systems, with the ability to queue-jump for services not deemed acute.

That opposition lives on and struggles on behalf of individualist/capitalist medicine to prosper in a mixed/socialized framework. IF we had a consistently capitalist government, a good ten years would be needed to retract and redraw and shrink and de-fund and de-legislate all the Medicare acts ...

The struggle has to deal with Canadian public opinion. En masse Canadian opinion strongly supports socialized medicine, universal access, single payer and provincial 'local' administration.

I think the challenge introduced by Calvin is noteworthy and realistic. How to help shift public opinion to a more rational universalism in laissez-faire medicine? You have to take note of the zombified masses and their shibboleths and their 'patriotic' attachment to Medicare. That mass of opinion, that entropy, that heavy-bottom, that bias in opinion -- it all needs special care and cunning persuasion.

While Calvin and Mike and Tony and I agree with the Canadian reality, I think we might all diverge on how best to break up the status quo. How to valorize the private and profit-making independent-minded doctors and clinics? How to expand the opted-out field of practice? How to make independent surgical centres and clinics and acute-care networks detach from the Medicare system?

There are a lot of medical folk up here who will keep pushing, year after year, to privatize the beast, or at least ratchet greater for-profit competition by increments. How to best advise them -- from an Objectivish point of view? How to turn Randian principles and precepts into practical, successful campaigns -- resulting in more laissez-faire, less beast?

Edited September 26, 2015 by william.scherk

[anthony]

I've no doubt, that with the hi-tech and advanced training at their disposal now, doctors would be able to work much more efficiently and economically than in the past - which means, cheaper, faster, and competitively. But Govts and Statism have very neatly and cynically cut off any possibility or avenue for a Capitalist "model"

This part of what you said is what people would find interesting, I think. The first sentence is about what people are missing out on... great, that evokes emotion. The second sentence tells them what's happening right now that's hurting them... great, that tells them where to place blame (people love blame).

Of course you would have to provide examples and make it easier for people to see what you're saying as truth.

Calvin, if you want to go the anecdotal route of persuasion, getting to individuals via their emotions which appear to be always raised by 'injustices', nobody is going to stop you, and more power to you. If you compiled a dossier for instance, of cases like the one I related - and asked people how the hell a social system based on caring and equality, could boot an elderly patient into touch, effectively telling her to go home and die, in order to save money for a younger person's operation! Who says he is worthy of life, but not her? By which criteria? Is this not discrimination? Are some persons 'more equal' than others? Maybe emotions can get them thinking.

[anthony]

I think the challenge introduced by Calvin is noteworthy and realistic. How to help shift public opinion to the more rational universalism of laissez-faire medicine? You have to take note of the zombified masses and their shibboleths and their 'patriotic' attachment to Medicare. That mass of opinion, that entropy, that heavy-bottom, that bias in opinion -- it all needs special care and cunning persuasion.

While Calvin and Mike and Tony and I agree with the Canadian reality, ...

Please don't nobody ask me about healthcare in the South African "reality"!

I rather go for the higher-hanging fruit...

William, useful and reasonable comment.

[william.scherk]

Boulder has the best of everything that government has to offer [...] [Eggshell ms., p.88]

Be more generous with your readers, especially if your new manuscript recycles your old. I've already read this from the MailArchive (Boulder would kind of sound like a socialized Canadian city except for the no-growth weirdness. City-growth up here is Good):

Laissez Faire City Times

July 19, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 29

Editor & Chief: Emile Zola

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad Cop No Donut: Or, Why Libertarianism Has Croaked

"Boulderism"

For lack of a better term, I call this U.S. post-industrial suburban

realpolitik "Boulderism." The citizens of Boulder, Colorado put a stop

to growth years ago, tripling the price of homes and quadrupling traffic

congestion. Students and tenured faculty of Boulder's government

institutions (University of Colorado, National Standards Laboratory, and

a thousand nonprofits) were delighted with the result. They got a

"cost-of-donut" pay adjustment and ceased to worry about crime, since

newcomers have to be creditworthy members of the Public Servant ruling

class to afford a home there. Boulder boasts a citywide surplus of

abstract public sculpture, fifty miles of nicely-groomed "greenways,"

big empty traffic lanes for bicycles, and street barriers that force

Mexican landscaping crews (who commute from another city) to drive 5

mph.

Boulder has the best of everything that government has to offer: garbage

recycling, decorative streetlamps, educational excellence for toddlers,

paramedics, firemen, police, hospitals, prisons, and courts. Like most

overfed bureaucracies, Boulder has a wait problem. Their grand jury

investigated the Jon-Benet Ramsay murder for more than year, without

indicting anyone, and Boulder police spent $1 million collecting

evidence, without arresting anyone. Boulderism is 100 percent

representative of the American Dream, in its full-blown, Politically

Correct version. A newspaper columnist recently described Boulder as

"utopia" compared to an African village. Boulderism is the political

creed of suburbanites who elected Bill and Hillary and Chelsea, the

smiling folks next door.

Weighed in the context of the lives and fortunes of the Six Billion,

it's obvious to Boulderites (a majority of U.S. voters) that we already

live in a free society. The American people owe nothing to the

Libertarian Party, and constitutional institutions are too important to

tinker with.

That's all pretty cool, Wolf. Now work in the Medicare angle. I am also intrigued by the entire 'keep out' aspect of Boulderism, sounds like a NIMBYish, whole-grain, no-growth approach to urban planning. How would that kind of civic charter deal with health care, private and not? Don't they know they are fucking themselves with a no-growth plan?

I am wondering if Boulder changed out of its carefree but hideous bourgeois rut since Wolf first gave it sardonic eye.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry, no new work, nothing further to say. Eggshell includes "Dreamland" (2012) and "Say No To Zombie Woofs" (1998, which Orlin particularly enjoyed). The rest are obscure LFCT and G21 articles and a few personal blog posts.

I archive and quote old stuff, because my creative power is kaput. Life in the fast lane.

[Selene]

Free market health care needs a serious enemy.

Therefore, the doctors should name the evil cabal of big insurance, big pharmaceuticals and big corrupt government and their unholy cabal to prop up exorbitant prices and repetitive procedures that steal money from you hard working citizens.

And name names.

A...

[Dglgmut]

I've no doubt, that with the hi-tech and advanced training at their disposal now, doctors would be able to work much more efficiently and economically than in the past - which means, cheaper, faster, and competitively. But Govts and Statism have very neatly and cynically cut off any possibility or avenue for a Capitalist "model"

This part of what you said is what people would find interesting, I think. The first sentence is about what people are missing out on... great, that evokes emotion. The second sentence tells them what's happening right now that's hurting them... great, that tells them where to place blame (people love blame).

Of course you would have to provide examples and make it easier for people to see what you're saying as truth.

Calvin, if you want to go the anecdotal route of persuasion, getting to individuals via their emotions which appear to be always raised by 'injustices', nobody is going to stop you, and more power to you. If you compiled a dossier for instance, of cases like the one I related - and asked people how the hell a social system based on caring and equality, could boot an elderly patient into touch, effectively telling her to go home and die, in order to save money for a younger person's operation! Who says he is worthy of life, but not her? By which criteria? Is this not discrimination? Are some persons 'more equal' than others? Maybe emotions can get them thinking.

You don't need them to think. There are never going to be enough thinkers in the world for democracy to produce well reasoned decisions, but it will produce decisions based on conviction. Answer for them the question: Why should they believe me?

[anthony]

If you think that reasoning and convictions are separate entities, then you have given up rational argument, Calvin. It is to reality you have to point people you want to persuade -- and that it is always an individual who pays and an individual who takes. Not :- Us vs.Them. (One day those roles might be reversed). The question to ask of anyone is, by what right and who's decree may someone make a claim on another's ideas, skills, time, energy - his money? It is a claim, not a right.

(I think "Human rights" has become that corrupted as to mean that citizens must be given whatever the State feels they need to be 'human' (by bureaucrats' definition), and so have partly destroyed the concept of rights).

A "claim" is always at some other person's cost, an appeal to his coerced complicity or his sacrifice. To do so, to claim your 'right', he has had his rights undermined. One has the 'right' to education? No, you have the right to seek education where you see fit, at your expense and by whoever consents to educate you. The 'right' to healthcare? You have the right to care for the health of your body any way you please, but cannot 'claim' the expertise of a medical practitioner as a duty to you.

[Brant Gaede]

Free market health care needs a serious enemy.

Therefore, the doctors should name the evil cabal of big insurance, big pharmaceuticals and big corrupt government and their unholy cabal to prop up exorbitant prices and repetitive procedures that steal money from you hard working citizens.

And name names.

A...

Socialized medicine is doctor enslavement sanctioned by the doctors and the would-be beneficiaries. Most people don't seriously--acutely--need doctors. I'm talking about the heavy shit. So they agree to the freebies from the government. The nurse practioners more and more are seeing in lieu of an MD seem competent enough. In fact, if the np concentrates on only one or two things, doctors may prefer her for their own personal care and treatment for that or those, but that's something of an anomaly.

The degradation of doctor quality and availability is proceeding in slow motion. The "Death Panels" are already at work. That's a third party deciding if you get X or Y or palliative care only because of your age or whatever other criteria they use. Some yo yo pushes a button and down the chute you go to the Solyent Green factory.

--Brant

[Mikee]

I've no doubt, that with the hi-tech and advanced training at their disposal now, doctors would be able to work much more efficiently and economically than in the past - which means, cheaper, faster, and competitively. But Govts and Statism have very neatly and cynically cut off any possibility or avenue for a Capitalist "model"

This part of what you said is what people would find interesting, I think. The first sentence is about what people are missing out on... great, that evokes emotion. The second sentence tells them what's happening right now that's hurting them... great, that tells them where to place blame (people love blame).

Of course you would have to provide examples and make it easier for people to see what you're saying as truth.

Calvin, if you want to go the anecdotal route of persuasion, getting to individuals via their emotions which appear to be always raised by 'injustices', nobody is going to stop you, and more power to you. If you compiled a dossier for instance, of cases like the one I related - and asked people how the hell a social system based on caring and equality, could boot an elderly patient into touch, effectively telling her to go home and die, in order to save money for a younger person's operation! Who says he is worthy of life, but not her? By which criteria? Is this not discrimination? Are some persons 'more equal' than others? Maybe emotions can get them thinking.

You don't need them to think. There are never going to be enough thinkers in the world for democracy to produce well reasoned decisions, but it will produce decisions based on conviction. Answer for them the question: Why should they believe me?

Calvin,

If you do believe in free markets and liberty, why do you believe it? If you can explain why you believe the way you do sincerely and make it obvious you've thought about it all the way down that is the best chance of convincing anyone. I personally believe there will never be peace in the world until people stop trying to coerce other people and instead let them think for themselves and plan their own lives. Adam Smith had the so far irrefutable insight, published the same year of the founding of this country, that people create the greatest good for their fellow man by following their own self interest. Socialist's dreams are like giant pyramid schemes, you end up with less and less from a more and more dependent and ignorant populace. The only possible end result is tyranny and ultimately war.

One of the reasons I support Carly Fiorina is she talks sincerely about making people great, getting the government out of the way so people can live their own dreams, fulfill their own personal destinies. I think of the founding principles, Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Selene]

One suggestion, can Calvin provide us with another example of a Senator, or, other serious candidate out there that has explained it in the same inarticulate manner that Rand Paul expressed it?

By the way, has anybody commented by the fact that Rand Paul sucks on a national stage as a speaker and a closer?

He was a good speaker when speaking to his supporters.

However, now he is almost incoherent, petty and confused when he speaks.

His kinesics suck. The slouch, the tilt of the head in a condescending manner, the smirk. It does not play well with that sing song squeaky voice and spastic uncoordinated hand motions.

Sad as a speaker and I like the guy.

A...

[Peter]

How about them boys? Dallas is ready to score again . . . . they nearly walked it in. Jerry Jone’s team has a dominant offensive line and I have the Dallas logo on my cap. 14 zip.

From my inbox. Response action network: Dear Reader, On Friday, January 20th 2017, Barack Obama will leave the White House for good. And if his successor turns out to be a republican, it looks like bad things are coming for Social Security… Here are some of the frontrunners and what they plan to do to Social Security should they get into office: Jeb Bush will increase retirement age by up to 4 years for Seniors. Ted Cruz will raise retirement age AND cap increases to benefits for Seniors. Rand Paul will raise the retirement age for Seniors. Mike Huckabee wants to increase taxes for Seniors. Marco Rubio says we need to cut benefits for some Seniors. In short, the only ideas these republicans have to fix our current Social Security system are to tax Seniors, increasing the retirement age for Seniors, or lower Seniors’ benefits!
end quote

I don’t send our direct deposits back but I know something needs to be done. People 20 to 40 are really wondering why they are contributing to my retirement if they will not receive SSI. Social Security and Medicare – they do make life better. I also have supplemental insurance and I RARELY pay a co-fee. I show my card and they practically wave me on. it's like a special knock at the door to the speakeasy. A Socialized Society is insidiously attractive even to Randians, but I don't fear free market people like Cruz. I wonder what Trump and Fiorina have said about SSI?
Peter

[tmj]

A..

It's like I'm seeing Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, sans wig and glasses

[Selene]

A..

It's like I'm seeing Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, sans wig and glasses

Lol very nice...

Geez this IS scary..................

[Peter]

I think Rand Paul is a good speaker when he is being interviewed solo on the steps of the Capital, from a studio with an ear bud and a microphone but I have not appreciated his debate performances. Perception in a political campaign is important, and that includes height, speaking voice, and looks, which sounds frivolous. But it is true since the Kennedy Nixon debates and it may go back to newsreels before the movie. Well, a few people heard Lincoln speak in person and then sometime after the Gettysburg Address it was printed, reprinted and talked about.

Rand Paul should be advised to get a speaking coach. I would not advise him to get lifts in his shoes, wear stage makeup, or dye his hair blond. Now that would look like the Church Lady.

Peter

[Selene]

Oh, by the way did anyone hear a final on the Cowboy game?

[Dglgmut]

The question to ask of anyone is, by what right and who's decree may someone make a claim on another's ideas, skills, time, energy - his money?

Three sentences into your post and you're already justifying your principles. You can't spoon feed people philosophy. They need more information... not rhetoric.

[Dglgmut]

If you do believe in free markets and liberty, why do you believe it?

The answer is not simple. Why does someone switch from being a liberal to a conservative or vice-versa? It could be any number of reasons, and you have to take into account the person's life experience.

[Selene]

Calvin and tmj should consider taking a look at:

National Review Charles Cooke The Conservatarian Manifesto Book Review

The Conservatarian Manifesto is one that needs to find its way onto your essential reading list. The little red book written by National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke provides a tangible framework for a prolific, but largely ignored segment of the political right — the conservatarians.

Artfully weaving hard data (without descending into pedantic statistical lists) with relevant history, Cooke produces several compelling arguments covering an array of topic. Unlike books that dabble in theory but provide no realistically applicable suggestions, The Conservatarian Manifesto goes beyond thoughtful ponderance and illuminates a pathway forward.

In sum — it’s a great book, an enjoyable read, and you should buy it.

Without further ado, our chat with Mr. Cooke:

I saw this guy interviewed on C-span Saturday - it was only a 15 minute clip.

However, he had some very interesting ideas about where to improve messaging.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/03/national-reviews-charles-cooke-chats-with-us-about-his-new-book/

A...

[Mikee]

If you do believe in free markets and liberty, why do you believe it?

The answer is not simple. Why does someone switch from being a liberal to a conservative or vice-versa? It could be any number of reasons, and you have to take into account the person's life experience.

Objectivism

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

The moral answer is simple. As far as the utilitarian considerations, few will disagree with Adam Smith: people pursuing their own self interest create the most public good.

I would like to know why you personally believe in free markets and liberty. Quite a few people have gone to the trouble to try to answer your question, I would like you to make a well considered and honest attempt at explaining your own views and why you hold them. Aren't you a student? Surely this can't be harder than writing a paper on something you don't feel as passionate about. By the way, would you feel less offended by Rand Paul's characterization if he had used the word serf instead of slave? Overtaxed and over regulated and being denied ownership and control of your own business is a form of serfdom. Did you know that both Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul are medical doctors?

[Dglgmut]

Adam, I've been aware of Charles Cooke for a while. I saw him on Bill Maher where he was arguing for gun rights. He seems like a smart guy, but I don't think he has any appeal to a lot of people...