tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post7606185117269919696..comments2023-06-29T03:45:18.969-07:00Comments on The Constellation Hypothesis: Further Exploration of Universal Healthcare: A Rejoinder to Brandon's RebuttalLouishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-13545205798821814912008-02-26T15:04:00.000-08:002008-02-26T15:04:00.000-08:00A new article was posted over at MI that is releva...A new article was posted over at MI that is relevant to your discussion of the meaning of freedom.<BR/><BR/>"Is the Starving Man Free?"<BR/>http://www.mises.org/story/2888Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-58040526960164789042008-02-20T23:50:00.000-08:002008-02-20T23:50:00.000-08:00this is getting more fun as time goes on...this is getting more fun as time goes on...Elessarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12956279044420700357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-64487087267372190262008-02-20T02:45:00.000-08:002008-02-20T02:45:00.000-08:00"Austrian economists reject statistical methods an..."Austrian economists reject statistical methods and artificially constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, acting human beings are too complex for this treatment. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action - a discipline named "praxeology" "<BR/><BR/>-that's the sexiest thing I've read in a week.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-7900754162658374252008-02-20T00:04:00.000-08:002008-02-20T00:04:00.000-08:00Louis,Thanks for taking the time to read through a...Louis,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking the time to read through and consider my arguments despite my harsh tone. I didn't realize that you haven't really studied all the sides yet. I assumed from what you wrote that you had, thus my frustration. Your tone tends not to be that of someone who is ignorant of the topic he is writing about, thus the deception.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry my comment about the chart was not elaborated. Statistics are not a reliable means of discerning matters. Those numbers, specifically, tell us so little as to be useless in the discussion. As you mentioned, it is a very complex industry. Trying to widdle it down to a small chart of numbers completely ignores that complexity and it ignores the complexity of human nature. There are many factors contributing to life expectancy that may have nothing to do with the quality of healthcare services. Simply because health care is cheaper somewhere else doesn't mean its more desirable. Products have varying degrees of quality and their prices reflect that. Using the life expectancy of an entire country as the way to measure the quality of health care products and services is inadequate. In addition, I adhere to the Austrian school of economics.<BR/><BR/>From Wikipedia:<BR/>Austrian economists reject statistical methods and artificially constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, acting human beings are too complex for this treatment. Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action - a discipline named "praxeology"<BR/><BR/>You are correct in recognizing both a moral argument and a utilitarian argument. The moral argument is the true libertarian argument. It just so happens, by God's grace, that what is moral also works. There are some who advocate libertarianism because they see its positive benefits, but the true foundation of libertarianism is moral.<BR/><BR/>The reason why I don't find the author of your linked article to be a credible libertarian is because of what I have just written. He WAS obviously a small government conservative because he thought it worked best, but now he's willing to change since he thinks something else might work better. That's utilitarianism, not libertarianism.<BR/><BR/>For more on the problem with the government monopoly on currency, see:<BR/>"Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve"<BR/>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553<BR/><BR/>"What Has Government Done to Our Money"<BR/>http://www.mises.org/money.asp<BR/><BR/>"Gold, Peace, and Prosperity"<BR/>http://www.mises.org/resources/3150<BR/><BR/>(besides, if the government was so amazing at providing currency, then they wouldn't need to outlaw all competition).<BR/><BR/>I personally believe that state militias would be the proper way to defend the United States, not a standing army.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>[[Does the term "rights" in this phrase reference transcendent human rights, or "constitutional rights"? If the latter, your phrase is tautological and uninteresting.]]<BR/><BR/>The Consitution does not grant anyone rights, so you might have to more clearly define what you mean when you say "constitutional rights." The Constitution limits government and ensures that it will not violate the rights of individuals.<BR/><BR/>The Constitution defends life and property. The libertarian list of rights is very short. Knowing, however, that politicians tend to distort the obvious and twist it to their advantage, some requested that the bill of rights be added to make it more difficult for the federal government to grow beyond its clearly written role.<BR/><BR/>Saying that we should obey the Constitution is not vague. The Constitution is not vague. It is a very clearly written and short document that is disregarded by most today. <BR/><BR/>No I don't think my comment about Europe is "well-defined enough to compel, merit, warrant, or even provide for the reasonable rhetorical possibility of a response" because it was a side comment, not an argument of any sort. No I don't think you should waste your breath on responding to it and I never intended you to, sorry for the confusion.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if I am not specific enough in addressing the exact points that you want me to. As you said, its a rather large, complex issue and I was hoping to point you in the right direction. I aplogize for not writing you an essay instead. If you would like me to be more specific on point #1 I can. I have no problem with "outsourcing." In fact, I love it. No one seems to have a problem when Californians outsource their webdesign work to Idaho. No one seems to have a problem when parents outsource their cooking to restaraunts. If other countries provide services/goods more efficiently then I don't want Americans to continue to produce them. It is time for them to move on to another service. Nothing the government does causes business to compete more, it simply interferes in the process and causes harmful consequences. <BR/><BR/>(for a great, short article about outsourcing written by a Chapman professor, http://www.lpoc.org/2007/03/13/outsourcing-my-haircut-by-tibor-machan/ )<BR/><BR/>I am not in favor of protectionist policies either, which is what you are essentially advocating. It is inefficient and immoral. For more, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2798161794328252652<BR/>(I recommend the whole Free to Choose series as well)<BR/><BR/>Regarding "balancing" health care use: 1. the answer to this is tied up in the rest of the discussion (is there such a thing as a free lunch? TINSTAFL) 2. If someone is abusing their employer provided health care, so what? It makes to difference to me. If the employer finds it to be a burden, they can discuss it with their employee or alter the form of their coverage. We certainly don't need universal health care to solve a "problem" like that. If you don't think they are abusing it, but simply going in too soon, then I still fail to see the "problem."<BR/><BR/>[[I don't recall making a bar-none claim about the inability of the free market to reduce paperwork. ]]<BR/><BR/>If the market can provide, then why involve the government? The government cannot do anything more efficiently than the market can.<BR/><BR/>I don't care how potentially enjoyable a government maintained database on my life (excuse me, apparently government will behave itself and limit itself to just my "medical records") may be, it is not worth the cost. Are you familiar with the REAL ID?<BR/><BR/>[[And you have to admit that universal heath care, regardless of what other complaints you raise against it, is a good context for developing such a database. These two facts ought to have some weight, however small, in one's consideration of the matter.]]<BR/><BR/>If there is a good reason to have some kind of centralized database of medical records, then the market will create such a databse. If it has not already, then apparently it is not necessary. Its really that simple (the only complication being that various laws may prevent businesses from offering services such as that).<BR/><BR/>[[I readily and passionately hail the virtues of free market forces, but fail to concede that they, left alone, are always the best, most moral and efficient, forces to see every task through in every situation.]]<BR/><BR/>Let me know when you get through the videos and articles I have linked to already, and I'll give you some more to rethink that statement.<BR/><BR/>[[On the topic of entrepreneurship however, I would like to mention the difficulty and expense of obtaining single or small-business heath care in today's America. This is a repelling force. Eliminating it would cause a net attraction to entrepreneurship.]]<BR/><BR/>I agree, lowering the cost of health care would benefit everyone. But again, we have to look at how that is done most effectively. I am arguing that the free market provides the best means of delivering the highest quality service at the lowest cost.<BR/><BR/>[[Keeping medical records all in one place, electronically summarized, would be a force toward mitigating fraud.]]<BR/><BR/>If its so obvious to you what the solution is, why hasn't it been done already? Ask yourself that. Is everyone else in America simply too stupid. Is every person working in the industry too stupid to realize they could be doing it more efficiently? What is preventing private businesses from using electronic files? Is leglislation the only solution?<BR/><BR/>[[Should the demos determine that America doesn't want to cover their health care, the centralization of information and resources would certainly help us to mitigate against their abuse of the system.]]<BR/><BR/>I've got a much, much easier solution. If they don't pay, don't provide them with service, just like everything else.<BR/><BR/>[[I demand an explanation.]]<BR/><BR/>Yes Sir! You said that illegal aliens are only one such class of people that "we" would agree should not be covered. What are the other clases? Who determines what those other classes are? The government. And just like everything else the government gets involved in, health care service would become a matter of politics.<BR/><BR/>Regarding private practices, it is a result of a universal health care system. Calm down, I never said you claimed private practices should be abolished, but it is the consequences of such a system (I sent you a link in one of your other posts to an article about it - did you read it?)<BR/><BR/>As for the distinction between communism and socialism, here is what von Mises has to say (in part):<BR/><BR/>"The fundamental fallacy that leads contemporary political thinking astray is to be seen in the fictitious distinction between communism on the one side and socialism and planning on the other side.<BR/><BR/>The two terms socialism and communism are synonyms. Communism is a very old term, while the term socialism was first coined in France at the end of the 1830s. Up to the year 1917 both were used indiscriminately. Thus Marx and Engels called the program they published in 1848 the Communist Manifesto, while the parties they organized for the realization of this program called themselves socialist parties.<BR/><BR/>Before 1917 no distinction was made between the two words. When Lenin called his party "communist," he meant that it was a party sincerely aiming at the realization of socialism as distinct from the parties that, according to Lenin, merely called themselves socialist parties while in fact they were "social traitors" and "servants" of the bourgeoisie. Lenin never pretended that his Communist party had any other goal than the realization of socialism. The official name he gave to his government was?and is?the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. If somebody says he is opposed to communism, but cherishes socialism, he is no more consistent or logical than a man who declares that he is opposed to murder but cherishes assassination."<BR/>http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch21.asp<BR/>(pleaes read the whole article)<BR/><BR/>I don't mind being called an anarchist, did you mean it as a slur?<BR/><BR/>[[Again, I did not claim that private businesses are incapable of reducing costs, but that universalizing health care in America today would reduce costs]]<BR/><BR/>That's a somewhat irrational statement. If private businesses are capable of doing something that the government can do, then why have the government do it? (And as mentioned at the beginning, the chart does nothing to support your claim).<BR/><BR/>I don't claim that the profit motive "drives the most moral circumstances in every situation" but I would argue that nothing in this sinful world does. I do however argue that the profit motive most efficiently delivers what people want and the free market provides the best checks against any harmful effects. Any government intervention produces much more harmful consequences.<BR/><BR/>[[Again, the problem is precisely what we are arguing about; reiterating your position does very little persuasive work.]]<BR/><BR/>Once again, I'm sorry for not writing you an essay, please refer to the articles I referenced at the end of that post.<BR/><BR/>Its becoming obvious to me as I am reading your reply that you are responding to my extremely brief paragraphs about each topic rather than to the detailed references I provided. I would prefer it if you would consider everything I offered you before posting a "reply" to my arguments.<BR/><BR/>I misread your statement about insurance bureaucracies. When you said bureaucracy, I assumed you meant "a body of nonelective government officials." I assumed you were referring to government bureuacracts tied to insurance lobbyists. My apologies.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you recognize that freedom has many different uses.<BR/><BR/>[[By marrying Lindsey I gave up my freedom from the legal and relational contracts of marriage.]]<BR/><BR/>There you go, you VOLUNTARILY decided to enter into that relationship. You were free from coercion. If someone forced you to marry Lindsey and you didn't want to, perhaps you wouldn't be of the same opinion. If we admit that freedom is used differently, then lets be as clear as possible. Politically speaking, freedom refers to the absence of coercion. That is the definition the founders operated from and that is what liberty (you know "liberty and justice for all) means.<BR/><BR/>[[By committing my life to Jesus Christ I gave up my freedom from that commitment.]]<BR/><BR/>I think you mean when Christ committed Himself to you, He freed you from your enslavement to sin.<BR/><BR/>[[so far I remain willing to forfeit such freedoms in exchange for the benefits I will receive]]<BR/><BR/>That's absolutely fine with me, but don't you dare force me to make that same decision. I am not willing to forfeit those freedoms and the measures you are advocating would coerce me to.<BR/><BR/>[[which is why I will choose to freely vote for representatives whose policies most closely match my political ideals. ]]<BR/><BR/>We are a democratic republic bound by the Constitution, not a democracy. Just because a majority of people vote for something doesn't make that decision "free." Its simply mob rule. The Constitution limits what the government is allowed to do "in the name of the people." It limits what democracy can achieve.<BR/><BR/>[[In the mean time we are free to argue about which ideals are ideal.]]<BR/><BR/>Sure, in the mean time, but what about after that? Will we be allowed to discuss anymore? The free market allows each of us to voluntary choose whichever service we desire, socialized medicine does not.<BR/><BR/>You can't just reference your slippery slope fallacy everytime I use a reductio ad absurdum argument. You also seem to be misunderstanding my argument. I am not saying that one will lead to the other, I am saying that they are founded on the same principle, so to advocate one is to advocate the other.<BR/><BR/>[[Ok so you do like the United States' constitution. It seems you like it for the fetters it places on the men in government. Great. Why not exercise your freedom to vote, and use those reins to direct your representatives toward the universalization of health care?]]<BR/><BR/>That is a rather incoherent series of sentences. I do not have the freedom to vote for a policy that is unconstitutional. I think maybe you think that all the Constitution does is give us the right to vote, because thats all you have referenced it to. Have you read it recently?<BR/><BR/>[[Don't mistake my position for fascism.]]<BR/><BR/>Its hard not to.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.com