[kenberg]

Blackie,

I at least partly share your distrust of government, but I am far less trustful of the alternatives. Perhaps I could put it:

Some have faith in government, some in a free market, some in God. I am skeptical of the first two, and totally reject the third. People are always going to push other people around, it's in our genetic code. I don't mean that I am a cynic, I don't think I am. I like people, most of them, most of the time. but care is needed. We need a Constitution backed by good sense to keep us free, we need a government backed by good sense to keep the wolves at bay. Getting it right isn't easy but I have no faith at all that if government would, except for a short list of the most essential functions, disappear then we would all be better off. I doubt it very much.

I am not so sure anyone can convince anyone else of their own views on these matters, we can only try to express them for others to consider.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 00:11, said:

Speaking of semantics, the US Constitution is not about a (pure) democracy, it's about a representative one.


The problem is that the more you let government do at the start, the more it grows and tries to do even more. While you may not find the government to be intrusive now (neither do I, personally, but I see the camel's nose peeking into the tent) but it's certainly growing more likely that will be a problem.

It may be a good idea for government to fund some things, but there's an awful lot that government funds today that need not be funded by that route. Pick any of the services you mentioned, at least, and if government did not fund it, the private sector would almost certainly find a way to do so. The result would be more choice for the citizenry, and less chance of… shall we call them "errors" on the part of government employees.

Governments are set up by men - men with the power to make their plan stick. The US Constitution was itself a coup, of sorts - the committee was tasked to find a way to modify the Articles of Confederation to avoid future problems of the kind they had - specifically that the States reneged on their share of the debt incurred by the Continental Congress in prosecuting the war. Instead the Committee tossed the Articles out the window, and came up with a completely different form of government.

(emphasis added)

This is straight from the Ronald Reagan playbook, and the problem with the idea is that it does not work in practice. The involvement of the government grew as the country's size grew and its interactions with the world became more complex. IMO it is simply idealistic wishful thinking to assume that at this point in the nation's life that a smaller central government would somehow improve our way of life. Perhaps, for a privileged few it would. Most, IMO, would suffer.

It is those who care little about the the weak that I mistrust more than government.

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2013-June-03, 06:27, said:

Getting it right isn't easy but I have no faith at all that if government would, except for a short list of the most essential functions, disappear then we would all be better off. I doubt it very much.

You may be right. Certainly there would be transition problems if we tried such a switch today. How long those would last, or how bad they would be, no one can know.

[y66]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-03, 12:20, said:

You may be right. Certainly there would be transition problems if we tried such a switch today. How long those would last, or how bad they would be, no one can know.

Well, we're 5+ years into the transition back to 2008 employment levels (ok, ratios) after that cute little switch to Greenspan style "flexibility" by the previous 2 administrations. So, pretty bad and pretty long, is my guess.

Employment-population ratio, ages 25-54

Quote

Moving forward, I trust that we have learned durable lessons about the benefits of fostering and preserving a flexible economy. That flexibility has been the product of the economic dynamism of our workers and firms that was unleashed, in part, by the efforts of policymakers to remove rigidities and promote competition. -- Alan Greenspan, October 12, 2005.

[mike777]

Risk-Averse Culture Infects U.S. Workers, Entrepreneurs


http://finance.yahoo...61RsF0AZDrQtDMD

---


here is a rebuttal article:

The headline alone raises the question of whether the Journal knows anything about real entrepreneurship, as opposed to fantasy version noisily promoted by management gurus and other folks in the fee-extraction business. While any class as large as “entrepreneurs” or small business founders is going to have a great deal of variability within it, studies have repeatedly found that business founders aren’t gamblers or risk seekers. They typically think hard about the downside of launching a venture and take steps to limit it, such as syndicating risks (like getting suppliers to supply financing or materials, as Steve Jobs did by taking his first purchase order for Apple and persuading vendors to give him parts against it). And the “infects” in the headline suggests that the former wild-man thrill-seeking new business types have been afflicted with a mad cow disease variant
Read more at http://www.nakedcapi...RIABpzDa2eB5.99

http://www.nakedcapi...isk-taking.html

[nige1]

You may believe rights are God-given but otherwise it's hard to argue their abstract existence. Anyway, in practical terms, no right is inalienable. Those in power endow themselves with "rights". They may vouchsafe "rights" to those whom they rule. Such rights can be exercised only while upheld by authority. Hence, in practice, "rights" are labile -- as legislation like the Patriot Act shows.

[blackshoe]

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

Hell of a world we live in.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-04, 13:15, said:

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

To say that rights evolve over time -- which surely they have -- does not mean that there's no such thing as rights. People have evolved over time too, and there's certainly people. Rights are what we the people define them to be, and we the people enforce those rights through the governments we choose.

[dwar0123]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-04, 13:15, said:

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

Hell of a world we live in.

That's an odd way of putting things.

There is no such thing as bread, it is only something made out of flour.

Where does this idea come from that because something is emergent it no longer exists?

Anyway, that is what power means, those in power have the right as a practical result of being in power.

Hence the idea of trying to found a country where the power is vested in the people. All the people, not just the people who agree with you.

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-04, 13:15, said:

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power. Hell of a world we live in.

IMO you can believe in "rights" -- even when they're denied you -- just as you can believe in God.

[mikeh]

 blackshoe, on 2013-June-04, 13:15, said:

In practice, then, you're saying there's no such thing as "rights", there are only privileges to be granted or taken away, or simply ignored, by those in power.

Hell of a world we live in.

Those in 'power' have no inherent monopoly on the invention of those societal conventions that we call 'rights'. Revolutions come about at least in part from the belief in those who revolt that they ought to be able to exercise 'rights' that those in power refuse to recognize. Any theory of 'rights' must account for how such beliefs, in 'rights' can arise.

[helene_t]

 nige1, on 2013-June-04, 09:24, said:

You may believe rights are God-given but otherwise it's hard to argue their abstract existence.

Yeah. I believe it would be good if everybody had access to clean water and didn't have to fear FGM. Some might disagree and then we can argue about it. Or about which other goods would be worth sacrificing in order to achieve those aims. Some arguments on either side may be illuminating. Just stating that clean water is a "right" isn't very illuminating, though. It would just amount to a reiteration of my opinion.

[Winstonm]

I am one of those who happen to believe that society should deem basic healthcare a right of all - what good is the information gained since the enlightenment if not used to aid all - and provide it. I have difficulty understanding why this causes consternation with those whom oppose the idea.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2013-June-05, 00:53, said:

Those in 'power' have no inherent monopoly on the invention of those societal conventions that we call 'rights'. Revolutions come about at least in part from the belief in those who revolt that they ought to be able to exercise 'rights' that those in power refuse to recognize. Any theory of 'rights' must account for how such beliefs, in 'rights' can arise.

Just my opinion FWIW: Wrongs (like killing, theft and so on) came first. Individuals, instinctively and selfishly jealous of their own life, freedom, family, and property formed societies that protected these as rights, on a tit-for-tat basis, by outlawing corresponding wrongs. Initially, rights were deemed to be God-given. Minority rights came later, when individuals realised that each of us belongs to some minorities. In any case, rights are unprovable hypotheses, like the existence of flying spaghetti monsters. although, arguably, with a more direct effect on us. Nevertheless, we can choose to believe in rights and can use them to guide behaviour.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2013-June-05, 10:37, said:

I am one of those who happen to believe that society should deem basic healthcare a right of all - what good is the information gained since the enlightenment if not used to aid all - and provide it. I have difficulty understanding why this causes consternation with those who oppose the idea.

I agree that we should define this as a right, and am pleased to see movement in that direction, albeit too slow.

[mike777]

health care is important but I would put the right to access clean drinking water as a higher priority if we are going to create rights.

Druin Burch argues Via negativa such as getting rid of smoking provides more benefits than being able to cure cancer. Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali (Ennius)

[awm]

There are some sticky points about healthcare as a right though:

1. What is "basic healthcare"? Does it include abortion? contraceptives? gender reassignment surgery? gay-to-straight conversion? psychologist visits? faith healers? chiropracters?

2. What about people who want/need some service that is not covered?

3. Some people make life choices that lead them to require much more expensive medical interventions (i.e. smoking, eating unhealthy food, extreme sports). If we provide medical care as a right, aren't we effectively subsidizing these choices?

4. There will inevitably be some rationing; now this is based mostly on ability to pay. How will a single-payer plan make these calls, and is it better?

5. What will be the effect on doctors? We cannot really trim payments to providers without getting med school debt under control, else no one will want to be a doctor...

Anyway I agree that we should have some form of single payer but there are a lot of non-trivial issues.

[Winstonm]

 awm, on 2013-June-05, 15:33, said:

There are some sticky points about healthcare as a right though:

1. What is "basic healthcare"? Does it include abortion? contraceptives? gender reassignment surgery? gay-to-straight conversion? psychologist visits? faith healers? chiropracters?

2. What about people who want/need some service that is not covered?

3. Some people make life choices that lead them to require much more expensive medical interventions (i.e. smoking, eating unhealthy food, extreme sports). If we provide medical care as a right, aren't we effectively subsidizing these choices?

4. There will inevitably be some rationing; now this is based mostly on ability to pay. How will a single-payer plan make these calls, and is it better?

5. What will be the effect on doctors? We cannot really trim payments to providers without getting med school debt under control, else no one will want to be a doctor...

Anyway I agree that we should have some form of single payer but there are a lot of non-trivial issues.

These are all certainly valid concerns but I don't see them as that big of impediment to rational discourse. Even with a single payer system there could still be an area for expanded coverage insurance for those unsatisfied with the basic coverage.

Personally, I think a dividing line about what is covered should be based on the ability to objectively verify the nedical treatment's success whereas mental health would have to have a different standard of care. Non-standard care (naturopathy, accupuncture, etc.) would have to be outside the scope of basic care.

And, yes, rationing care would occur and that is the point of a triage system.

[mike777]

With single payer, the unanswered question remains will that negatively effect innovation and entrepreneurs and as a result impede medical care. There is much more to a healthy life and the health care industry than just access to a doctor and hospital.

For example would a rational trial and error approach rather than a one size fits all, single payer, approach be more open to innovation? Of course such an approach would also mean accepting failure as an option. I don't know, just asking.

[awm]

In fact the loss of employer-provided health insurance is a big deterrant to potential entrepreneurs! A single payer system would sever the link between employment and health coverage and be a big help to small startups.