About - January 9, 2008
The Democrats promise more personal freedom and less economic freedom. Republicans promise more economic freedom and less personal freedom. So what happens is Dems take away the money, and Repubs take away freedom (and money) — neither party ever repeals what the last one did. We are fast marching to either Communism or Totalitarianism. What can be done?
The mass media chooses a side. The public doesn’t pay attention. This situation makes me feel like my head is gonna explode. So SheeplePeople.com is here for me to rant.
Feel free to comment. Even if you think I’m Full of Sheep — I’ll keep your misguided comments on the blog.
Tags: economic freedom, pay attention, personal freedom
|
|---|
Stumble it!
Dear Sir, I can’t find your name posted anywhere on your site - I hope I have the right gender…
I need to apologize for the statement that I made on your page: Vote Libertarian Bob Barr - I was in reactionary mode and I made the statement in haste. It’s not something I usually do - I just got hot about it. Insults are uncalled for - You certainly did not deserve it and I feel that I owe you an apology. So… I’m sorry.
Would you please erase it and then allow me to change the comment to something more positive?
If you’ll notice I had just written something positive right before on another page of yours: Reduce Oil Prices by Regulating Speculators?
Regards,
Paul
http://igniteme.stumbleupon.com/
I take issue with your contention that the Republican party promises more economic freedom and the Democrats promise less.
You’ve bought the con.
The Republican party is not the party of business. The Republican party is the party of big business.
Federal Government intervention in the marketplace peaked during the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson years when the top tax rate on rich people was 90% then 70%. That was when we built an interstate highway system across this nation, landed on the moon, fought a war on poverty and in Vietnam, electrified every nook of America, and we did it all at the same time.
Now, after 25 years of deregulation and tax cuts for rich people, our bridges are collapsing, our schools are a mess and we can’t even win a war in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Put the progressives back in charge and make America great again.
Mark,
The Republican Party does promise more economic freedom — they just don’t EVER deliver on that promise. I haven’t bought any con.
However, it seems to me that you think government offers prosperity. That is the ultimate deception.
Government takes from the people. The money gets cycled through bureaucrat’s pockets and comes back to society at about 5 cents on the dollar. This loss of wealth is the reason socialist schemes ALWAYS do more harm than good.
Your point about the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson years is a good one. Yes, infrastructure was improved and we went to the moon. Yes, a ‘war on poverity’ was fought (was it won?).
But the costs of accomplishing those very small benefits was IMMENSE. Look at the stock market from the late 60’s to the 80’s. It was a catastrope. America entered a decade long period of stagnation.
By confiscating the wealth of the rich, economic growth came to a standstill. The ‘rich’ are the creators of jobs and builders of industry. Confiscate their wealth and the only beneficiary will be bureaucrats and politicians. The poor will suffer because there will be less jobs available.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
~SheeplePeople~
*** Question: Why is it ok to FORCE others to adopt your views?
If you believe government is a solution, then donate your money to them. Those of us that believe government is the PROBLEM can continue to do our own thing. FORCING people to give to any cause is wrong.
“Government takes from the people. The money gets cycled through bureaucrat’s pockets and comes back to society at about 5 cents on the dollar. This loss of wealth is the reason socialist schemes ALWAYS do more harm than good.”
Wrong. First of all, what socialist schemes have there ever been in America? None. Not a single one. Therefore wealth has never been lost to bureaucrats, but instead simply transferred from our pockets to the rich’s coffers, via the so called “free market”.
As for your use of the word “ALWAYS”, wrong again. Socialist programs and governments can and often work extremely well, just ask any Scandinavian country (highest living standards in the world).
You seem to believe government is the problem, but I think most people believe REPUBLICAN government is really the problem. Get Republicans out of government and all of a sudden government works. That’s just the way it is.
ok, I guess I’ll just try to clear things up for you guys. You really need to think through your respective ideologies, because for some reason, you truly believe they are different. “oh the left wing is the party of big government, while the right is big business.” The fact of the matter is, they are completely interdependent. If you push the right’s position far enough, they will and must concede that it is premised on what the left believes, namely if you believe in complete autonomy and the only point of government is to enforce rights and protect against coercion (and the like), then in fact, you do not believe in autonomy. Why you ask? Because of the principle of advantage taking. We are going to enter into a contract — I will hold a gun to your head and ask for your money and you will give me money in return for your head’s integrity remaining structurally sound. If you believe that this is wrong, then you are inhibiting my taking advantage of my superior robbing skillz to profit from this god given gift. Since this “gift” is my source of income, you are inhibiting my ability to make income. Since you are protecting one’s income production and restricting another, you are practicing income redistribution. Therefore, you don’t believe in autonomy, but income redistribution. I know, its a mindf*%k, but the point is clear. Your just like the other side because each position necessarily rests on and fails without the other side’s ideology. Some are just extreme believers and those are the idiots, because they don’t want to think. as an FYI, the argument is far more intricate than what I have written. I need to hit my stumble button now so I really don’t want to go through each premise of a 15 page argument. But here’s my point, just try to think through what each of your beliefs really rely on. You’ll find your dependent on each other and then you will feel an overwhelming urge to sing cumbayah (sp error).
MS — artificial standards of living decided by governments don’t translate to actual standards of living.
Those ’standards’ are heavily biased to big government. If a country offers universal health care, the standard is automatically bumped into the highest category.
For many, universal health care would be a nightmare. Why force everyone to adopt your views? If you want universal health care, give to charities that offer free health care to people.
Socialist schemes are common in America. The failed welfare state is an obvious example. More recently, government pressure on banks to give loans to those that would not have otherwise qualified has a socialist component.
There are plenty of socialist governments in the world. Why is it so awful to have one place left on planet earth where people can enjoy freedom?
tennisaddict - People should be free to do as they please…as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.
I’m hoping your comment was a sarcastic joke.
To Sheeppeople,
The 19th century surely epitomized your view about how gearing things towards total laissez faire freedom for an economy results in progress. And I do agree with you. Things were indeed better in the year 1900 then they were for common Americans than they were in 1800. So trickle down/small government, lassiez faire intervention does work for the greater good of society.
But please be real, the USA saw the biggest growth in wealth, lifespan elongation, education and every other measure of progress that the planet has ever seen did not occur under a libertarian model, it happened in the USA under the ascendancy of progressive politics. The largest growth in all spheres of the human condition happened when the rich actually paid real taxes, and when the corporations were much more regulated than they are today.
Circa 1920 to circa 1980 was the biggest explosion in all those spheres. You can talk talk talk about the need to stop constraining the rich with taxation or regulation, yet that was the time when America progressed the most. I don’t go by ideology as much as I go by history. By facts.
If you believe that the backbone of America resides in it’s elite, then go ahead and vote libertarian/Republican. But if you believe that the backbone of this nation resides in it’s common man, as I do, then you must vote and nurture those who tend to be Democrats.
More like the FDR Democrats than the Democrats of today, but still basically the Democrats. And we’ve got to start somewhere to get this nation back on track. Once the Chinese learn to set their populations free, and make the investments in their common people like we tried to do circa 1920 to circa 1980, it’s too late for us. It’s too late for all of us. Lets just hope they remain restrained by corporatism (fascism), Because heavan knows they don’t resemble communism at all.
admin– that’s exactly what I said you thought/believed. Therefore, you believe in income redistribution. It’s ok; don’t feel bad about it. Some people just haven’t really thought about the implications of their belief and “badmouth” a vital part of their ideology like it was the plague. These are not hypocrites, as many would easily argue they are, but simply not willing to engage in analytical thinking. I’m not going to explain the entire argument because i’m not your professor. My entire point is that most of the arguments here are not thought through very much. Words like “freedom” are used without any thought to the implication. What is freedom to you? Perhaps, I don’t want to be emprisoned by my fear of contracting a sickness the treatment of which will bankrupt me? Perhaps universal healthcare gives me freedom? If you want people to be free, then perhaps for some, probably most, universal healthcare makes this country more free than privatized for-profit healthcare. I know I pose some tough questions and you may consider them ridiculous at first blush. That’s ok. When you choose to think, they will seem more relevant. But, until people start to think, these fundamental considerations will just be dismissed as “left-wing propoganda” or “neo-con talking points.” Perhaps the thought processes required are grounded in a higher plane than most people can think on to consider these valid and irrefutable truths. I can’t say. I’m just pointing out the obvious. Lasseiz faire is not freedom for those being taken advantage of. Perhaps you believe that those being taken advantage of are just weaker and don’t deserve economic protection. Well ok, but remember, I have superior robbing skillz that I can use to take advantage of you; still think you shouldn’t be protected? What is the difference between a gun to your head and me withholding a paycheck that can feed you and your family? In both cases, you are being coerced into acting. In both cases you have a choice, comply or do not. In both cases, non-compliance lead to unacceptable results. So, admin, perhaps my post is not as much of a sarcastic joke as you thought. Or perhaps you didn’t.
Mark,
Technology and science improve the human condition. Government does more harm than good.
It’s wrong to force people to give to charities/programs. It’s wrong to force others to pursue your goals.
If government is so great, let them prove it and ask for donations like thousands of other charities. If it’s so obvious that government really does improve the human condition, then of course they will rise to become the #1 charity.
Of course, that is just silly. No one likes dealing with government bureaucracy. Except of course for those well-connected elite than can manipulate it.
Government has gotten in the way in New Orleans, the city is still in ruins. Government has caused some of the most valuable real estate in New York to go unused for over 7 years (The World Trade Center). Government ‘projects’ in cities are some of the most dangerous places on planet earth.
Government is in charge of Social Security. How big is the fund now? How well have they managed it? If I created a savings plan for people that paid retirees and spent every penny of the fund would that be ok?
We should be throwing politicians and bureaucrats in prisons by the handful. Giving them more power and more money is reckless and will result in a catastrophe here in a America.
***************************************
~ you wrote “go ahead and vote libertarian/republican” — those 2 parties are in no way aligned. I am every bit against Republican policies as I am Democrat. McCain or Obama doesn’t matter to me. Either one will do immense damage to this country.
***************************************
You write rationally, you are obviously an intelligent thinking human being. Please answer a few questions for me:
1. Let’s choose a charity that is irrefutably an important cause. Let’s say: Darfur. If that doesn’t work for you, then pick something that does. Now, would it be justified for me to grab a shotgun and walk around my neighborhood collecting money for the cause by force? Let’s say your answer to that is: maybe..or it’s different if Government does it for me. Then, would it be ok if I pocketed 75% or more of that money before sending it to the cause? After all, I have expenses.
2. Did the policies of FDR pull America out of the great depression? If so, how? How can government possibly improve economic conditions without creating any products?
3. If government is working for the people, then why in times of hardship do they not take pay cuts, or work for free? Why do they constantly grow regardless of whether or not programs are working? Why do they get angry when asked about the effectiveness of their policies?
4. Why do places with the least government experience the fastest growth? The American West and Hong Kong are examples. Why does unemployment go up and growth go down under big government?
tennisaddict,
Freedom is the right to do as you please without infringing on the rights of others.
You have a right to work towards eliminating your fear of contracting a disease that could bankrupt you. You do not have a right to take by force from others to alleviate your fear.
You have a right to ask for help. You do not have a right to force it.
It seems an obvious distinction to me. I can see how society and current views of government as the answer for every problem could blur the line…but this is only one more reason to conclude we are taking the wrong path.
Mark,
I do not believe the backbone of this country resides in the elite.
I believe the backbone of this country resides in those striving to be elite.
Red tape, regulations, and codes that can only be deciphered by high priced attorneys are the road blocks government puts in the way of the emerging entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, inventors, and productive professionals.
This is why economic growth slows as government gets bigger and more intrusive.
Look at the extremes for confirmation: Zero government — rapid growth. Huge government (USSR/East Germany) — negative growth.
Less government = good government.
admin - I don’t know of any standard of living decided by any government, but I do know of standards of living agreed upon by non-government organizations which measure tangible benefits (as opposed to quality of life, which is more subjective) in accordance to a set of predetermined parameters.
You probably know a few –access and quality of health care, access and quality of education, poverty rate, etc.
Using words like “big government” to describe access to, for example, universal health care is a well known tactic for hard right, free market worshipers that has already been discredited. As for it being a nightmare… well, the current system of free-for-all that only benefits insurance companies and leaves people to die of preexisting conditions doesn’t exactly seem like a dream to me. Does it to you? You must be a CEO!
And again, socialist schemes have not and do not exist in America. What you talk about are at best pseudo-social programs that serve almost exclusively a very narrow segment of the population, leaving the vast majority to fend for themselves.
Believe me, I was born and raised under true government sponsored programs and what we have in the US is most certainly not. Back in my home country, I never had to pay a dime to get medical and dental care, hell even the medicine was free, but here even though I have health insurance, I’m always paying co-pays and getting bills in the mail for something that wasn’t covered, or paying $15-$20 for each medication I have to take, not to mention living with the fear that I might get dropped at any time because of a preexisting condition.
Does this sound like freedom to you? If it does then, to paraphrase the great George Orwell, freedom is indeed slavery.
MS,
The U.S. health care system is a mess. However, it is by no means a free market industry. Insurance company and drug company lobbyists have bought legislation that benefits their interests.
Would you want to drive a government made car? Fly in a government made plane? Shop at a government grocery store?
Government should not be entrenched in medicine or education. Choice will be eliminated. Everyone will have to settle for whatever level of service government delivers (which is likely to be terrible).
Why force this on people that don’t want it? How is it fair to force people to pay for something they don’t want?
If you want it, then by all means - work towards a system that allows some to opt-in and pay their own way.
Please consider that many would prefer choice and shouldn’t have to support your views. Choice is at the core of freedom. Government kills choice.
SheeplePeople - What you describe is Communism, where the state controls the means of production and the only choice is between a government-made sedan and a government-made coupe, and even under that assumption you still haven’t convinced me why that would be so bad.
But don’t confuse Communism with a mixed economy, in which government sets rules and regulations to protect citizens from unfettered capitalism, which we all know is toxic.
Universal health care in this country, as proposed by many people, would simply eliminate the for-profit middle man (insurance companies) and reduce costs by spreading the risk across a much larger pool. It would also mean the end of preexisting conditions and denied claims.
The biggest misinformation is the myth that you’d be standing in line, that you’d have no freedom to choose your doctor, that doctors would stop practicing, etc, etc.
Hey, if you and other people still wanted to pay for your own insurance then I’d have no problem with government making sure that stays an option, but for the vast majority this would make perfect sense.
Also, I’d much rather have a government-managed water supply under strict regulation than privatized water systems with profit-motivated corporations looking to cut costs at every turn in an effort to maximize the bottom line.
I guess my point is simply this, there are things that government can do better than the private sector and we should focus on finding what those things are. I love freedom as much as the next guy, but freedom is meant to be for the individual, not the corporation.
There is no evidence that less government = growth and prosperity. Without government, the logical course of things, economically speaking, for a rational profit maximizing firm is to become a monopoly (in some cases an oligopoly — see Adams & Yellen on monopolization). In a perfectly competitive market, which is what so called freemarketeers imagine, without justification, is synonymous with deregulation, there are no profits. In fact, a perfectly competitive market leaves only “non-profit organizations,” but I digress. These companies, if they owe any duty to shareholders to make profit, have to restrict output and/or collaborate to restrict output and increase price. So, you will pay more for less stuff, which of course, is the opposite of a perfectly competitive market. Well, what about walmart you ask. Perhaps the firm decides to push out competitors by simply being more efficient. Then you end up with many cheap things coming from one location. The problem with that is that you end up with one firm, which becomes too big to fail. I believe you know what I’m referring to or perhaps you live under a rock. Then you are dependent on a government to bail this company out if it fails or deal with severe economic consequences. Unfortunately, deregulation and less government are not the answer. Privatization does not lead to efficiency; this has empirically been demonstrated time and time again. We require a balance of privatization and government regulation. This of course is common sense. You don’t have to be an economist to figure this out, all you have to do is think. You must ask questions about what your theory results in and whether that is good. Unfortunately, even here, there is a blurry line where the distinction is unclear. It is not because of some modern view, but because that is the world you live in. Your position isn’t correct because the distinction seems clear to you; in fact, that is exactly why you are wrong. The distinction is clear to you because you haven’t thought about it.
Anyways — admin’s idea that current views that government is the answer blurs the distinction is a non sequitor (it doesn’t logically follow). The blurry distinction is there because it logically follows that if you want to keep people from infringing on the rights of others, you rely on the government to do so. If I come to rob you, then you need the government (police) to protect you. You could try to use your 2nd amendment, but my robbing skillz are superior and you will fail. If you are bold and do rely on your personal arsenal and by pure luck are successful, then you rely on the government to protect you from jail. You rely on a government document, a fictitious conjecture, called the constitution, which is a pretty cool fictitious conjecture by the way, to say that you had a right to shoot me. Therefore, you rely on the government to keep me from infringing on your right to be secure. Well, perhaps I want to be secure from your diseased body, which is contagious, and infringes on my right to be healthy. Why can’t I rely on the government to prevent you from infecting me with your diseases? You don’t have an answer because the line is blurred. Well, I’ll answer it for you. The reason is that transaction costs are just too high. It cost too much money for me to prevent your disease ridden body from blowing germs on me in the subway. I would have to identify all of you diseased selfish people and hire someone to protect me from you. Why should I have to pay because you are diseased and threatening me bodily harm? Perhaps, you should pay? (I know this hurts but it will be over soon). Anyways, back to high transaction costs. How do you minimize these transaction costs tennisaddict? You do like a business might, you spread the fixed costs among a large output. In otherwords, you set up single payer healthcare system that everyone contributes to (not necessarily everyone, but for argument’s sake, lets just say everyone). This is no different than a single payer policing service. Why don’t you hire your own security to protect you from my superior robbing skillz; because the transaction costs are too high to justify the risk. This analogy seems pretty clear. You may ask, well, why can’t we just have one business do it as a free enterprise? Refer to the beginning of this post. The benefit of having a government do it is that government doesn’t have to profit and in fact can operate at a loss. You do not necessarily run the risk of paying a high price for restricted output like a profit maximizing firm must end up doing. If they try, you elect different commissioners or whatever and you change who runs the operation. In a private corp., no one cares what you think, you don’t own stock.
All in all, it seems clear that when you say “the distinction seems pretty clear to me,” its because you haven’t thought about it. You have no reasons to say the distinction is clear. Your reason is that the modern view that government is always the solution is blurring the line. Hows that? Where did you come up with this modern view and how do you know that it is the modern view? And if it is the modern view, how does it blur the line? Perhaps my position is that your view that government is the problem blurs the line? Why am I wrong and you are right? I’ll answer this one for you. I’m right because I gave reasons, logical ones, that support my conclusions. On the other hand, you have not provided any reasons. As a result, your argument is weak and doesn’t really prove anything or demonstrate anything. In general, you can’t just say a conclusion over and over again and say it’s true because you say it over and over again. That is what people who don’t think do. You need reasons that make sense according to rules of logic. Though, most people avoid logic because you have to think to do it. Thinking is hard and you might not like the results.
social democracy? Seems like a healthy left-leaning balance to me. Europe does it, and generally they have less human rights issues than US on the whole. Not to mention, more money.