ESCAPE VELOCITY

1 - @1 - No need to say that anonymously. I wouldn't have listed the option if I didn't think there was some truth to it.

@2 - "to care enough to elect a president that will take a stand on issues such as climate change, terrorism and fair trade."

I would love to vote for that candidate, Stuart. I don't see him or her on the ballot, though.

@3 - It's not my terminology, but I hope I didn't insult any of the other democratic nations of the world. That was certainly not my intent. { Link }

@5 - I definitely watch too much TV. It's usually not the only thing I'm doing at the time, though. It's more background than foreground.

However, with DVR, you can watch a 90 minute episode of American Idol in about 30 minutes. There's 10 contestants doing 90 seconds of song each, followed by 2.5 minutes of commentary from the judges. All the rest can be fast forwarded.

Out of the 10, 7 are genuinely talented and passionate singers, by the way. Idol got a bad rep in its early years, and there's still plenty of cheese, but at this point there are some VERY impressive singers in the running.

2 - Picking a new US president is like deciding which of your children you are going to have killed by a kidnapper. It doesn't matter what your choice is, your screwed.

However, as an Australian, I don't recall voting to change our constitution and agreeing to make the current and future US Presidents our head of state or for that matter the "Leader of the Free World". That must have been in the very small print on my ballot form!!!

3 - Maybe it's because you view American Idol as entertainment and American election as serious real world event.

The thing is that it sounds like you watch too much TV in general. :)

Do us all a favor and go out and vote. There are alot of people who do not have that priviledge.

4 - I used to assume that low turnout at the polls was due entirely to a combination of apathy and distraction... "bread and circus", if you will. But tonight's Democratic debate reinforced my recent suspicion that it's probably far simpler than that: politics are depressing.

In her last nationally televised debate with Obama prior to what her campaign is now essentially admitting to be her "last stand" (Texas/Ohio on March 4), Hillary's sole argument seemed to be that she's "a fighter". But I get the sense that most people are tired of the fighting. More and more, that's all we see when we do pay any attention to politics: people on either side of the proverbial aisle screaming at each other, nobody willing to admit that the other may have a valid point from time to time. Which is why nothing gets done, ordinary citizens receive no noticeable benefit from an incremental shift in power in either direction, and gradually the whole electorate tunes out and just goes on with life.

The trouble is that the more that the politicians sense that people are tuning out, the more they may deliberately take advantage of that. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that's what motivated the increase in vitriol in the first place: if most of the nation has tuned out, the only ones still paying attention are the most opinionated, the most passionate, the least willing to compromise. Which makes it even easier to keep the debate divisive, which causes even more people to tune out. Before long the entire conversation loses all shades of nuance, and legislation incongruous with the fundamental ideals of our nation barely makes headlines because nobody's paying attention anyway.

That's precisely why I'm pinning my hopes on Barack. We've seen a huge increase in primary/caucus turnout in comparison to previous cycles. Some of that is merely blowback from the debacle of the last seven years. But there's reason to believe that Barack's campaign has had something to do with that as well. Is he the raging liberal hippie I am? Nope. Strictly on the "issues", I'm a dead ringer for Kucinich... but I didn't want him to win, because anyone who agrees with me on every issue is far too liberal to lead. That would just swing the pendulum too far back to the left, in which case we're still in the same boat, just paddling in the opposite direction.

I had an idea the other day, and this will probably sound crazy, but I think this might actually work: I want the GOP to retake the Senate this year. There's a reason senators serve for 6 years, representatives for 2 - the Senate is supposed to be the smaller, more deliberative body of Congress; in a way, the House is supposed to be the "mob". The more I think about it, it just makes sense for the liberals to be in the House, promoting progressive ideas, wacky social experiments, etc... but conservatives in the Senate, saying "hold on, let's not get carried away here", and generally just keeping things in perspective. I'd love to see that kind of arrangement.

But there's only one way I see that actually working: if a moderate - actually, an independent would be even better, but I'm still not voting for Nader - is presiding. That is, after all, what a president does, right? Preside? If you're just dictating, you're a dictator. Our problem is that no matter who controls each chamber, presidents tend to pander to their own party and demonize the other; instead of governing based on sound ideas and arguments, they govern based on loyalty and stubbornness.

Barack doesn't do that; he wants everybody at the table. Hillary mocks that, and some of her supporters make "Kumbaya" jokes, but the reason she failed at her healthcare initiative in the 90's is that she was a fighter. She alienated the very people who could have helped make it happen. She admits now that was the cause, but has approached her campaign the same way. McCain (admittedly, to a lesser extent) has similar tendencies. So that's the primary distinction I see between Barack and the others. He's inspiring ordinary citizens to pay attention again, toning down the rhetoric to allow the screaming to die down and more voices to be heard. If he is elected, I believe he has a decent shot at getting both sides to remember that we're all on the same side, we aren't enemies, and we'll get a hell of a lot more done working together than we will fighting to the death over every single issue, no matter how inconsequential.

5 - 1 vote for "arrogance knows no bounds"

6 - The rest of the world is looking toward the one remaining superpower - you know, the one that has a larger and longer-distance weapons arsenal than all other countries put together - to care enough to elect a president that will take a stand on issues such as climate change, terrorism and fair trade.

And we now find out that "thoughtful and intelligent" folks like you care more about selecting the next "here today, gone tomorrow" pop star...

I know this post is probably very much tongue-in-cheek, Nathan, but if enough of US citizens think along a similar line then we really are in a worse state than I thought.

7 - @18 - "do you think your writing made a difference?"

We've had great dialog. Did it make a difference for you?

I hope so.

When I was young, all I wanted was for everyone to agree with me. These days, all I want is for people to ask the same questions. Maybe someday I won't care at all.

I hope not.

But for now, what seems important isn't the outcome, but the process. Yeah, I want to influence people -- just not with an answer or an order.

Simply with a different way of seeing the problem.

You don't get to that by pulling a lever. And you don't get to that by telling everyone that agrees with you they're right. You don't even get to that by telling them they're wrong. You don't get there by pain or by fear or by fueling hate. And you don't get there by empty affirmation.

You get there by engaging the thinking, caring mind.

But you can only do that one at a time. That's the downfall.

It's easy to make everyone agree with you. Just don't say anything important.

8 - @9 - "How I wish a serious candidate could run on the platform of "undoing government!""

Umm, yeah, like THAT's going to happen. You can't get either party to give up those earmarks. The Republicans are trying to do that now to some extent (probably some pandering in there too), but that's the first thing that probably needs to happen. We need to spend less money on earmarks and entitlements. Did you know that around 60% of the budget is on entitlement programs. Yeah, you let someone run who says they'll take away entitlements and see how far they get.

Then we have this messed up tax system. We see how far Huckabee got with the FairTax! (By the way, I would like to know Tim's views on that...)

Obama and Clinton are going to just pound each other. It's mostly Clinton doing the dirty work right now with the despicable posting of that picture of Obama and her mocking him. Yeah, like her rhetoric has changed. She's floundering and is resorting to dirty tactics and it's going to ruin her candidacy if Obama can stay on the high road. I'm not saying he's fit for office either. He talks a good talk, but in reality he's one of the most liberal senators (right there with Clinton and Kennedy). Does he talk about balancing the budget? Because he's going to cost us $850 billion MORE dollars (which I'm sure will be balanced out when he pulls us out of Iraq): { Link }

And McCain - I sure hope he picks a seriously conservative running mate because while he is a Republican he's pretty "moderate". Maybe someone like McCain be a good pick, though. Is he the moderate Tim was asking about. He's not too conservative or liberal overall... hmmm

9 - @20 (Particularly the "YAH's)
that comes very close to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism
;) good to see that the thought lines of Mises , Rothbard and Spangler are still chugging away :)

As an Proto-Agorist myself I throw Spangler into the mix as a viable alternate idea of what to do next..

"Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.

In a market anarchist society, law and security will be provided by market institutions, not political institutions. Agorists recognize, therefore, that those institutions can not develop through political reform. Instead, they will come about as a result of market processes.

As government is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of government by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and therefore can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy — black and grey markets."

<tongue in cheek>
Which is why I can offer you the very nice 90" TV at a very reasonable price not currently available in the shops which if you purchase today will be another small step in the road to revolution and free beer
</tongue in cheek>
Steve

10 - @4 - Thanks as always for the thoughtful reply, Tim. This honestly becomes a matter where you and I disagree on premises, and you're lucky enough to have one that shares yours in the running.

"The Audacity of Hope" is on my bookshelf. (If we hadn't been so busy when you were here, you might have noticed it! hehe) I've read it. I get the "Yes We Can" message. I understand the concept of "we'll get a hell of a lot more done working together," completely.

The problem is that I'm diametrically opposed to that principle.

I don't want government that says "yes we can." I want government that says "no we can't and we know better than to try." Or perhaps, if you want to spin the marketing angle, "yes YOU can and we'll get the hell out of your way!"

I've seen this "change the way we work together" message before from a political leader. Did you read "Reengineering Government?" Pretty much the same idea. A lineage coming from Saint-Simon and Hobbes that says the solution to any problem is to put smart people in control, give them a blank check, and cross your fingers for the right "compromise." The idea that you invite more people to the table for the discussion just means to me that it's going to be more expensive.

I almost admire the ambition of such thinking, but I am depressed by its conceit.

Ah, I shouldn't have started my morning with this.

11 - so... you are saying that you are more interested in Idol than the election.

are you more interested in entertainment, in general, than you are in politics?

(this is me, kinda pokin' around some.)

can i make a leap from entertainment to consumerism?

ok here goes: entertainment is something we consume, usually passively. there is no requirement for any content to be present in entertainment, outside of advertising itself. your DVR'd Idol experience sounds like the one i am always after too, skipping over the ads. the argument could be made that, since tv content will be associated with the products it sells, then the only content that appears on tv is *never* controversial in any real way, to avoid guilt by association for the sponsors.

so we end up with insipid content, and the only content actually present is the ads. should we make an exception for Idol? i dunno, never watched it myself. this has a huge effect on the culture overall - all art forms get dumbed down, and we end up taking political and social positions that are generally favorable to corporate/marketing interests, since we ourselves are not used to anything complex, ironic, paradoxical, or controversial, ever appearing anywhere in the mass media. in other words, our general social stance aligns rather nicely with the universal marketing message, which boils down to: don't think, just consume.

sorry to go off on that bunny trail. but somehow your post ties a few things together for me, and i'm trying to show you the ends of the cords, and also, trying to gage where you really are here, and what you are actually saying.

is being a consumer more relevant to you in some fundamental way, let's say, in terms of participating culturally or economically, than being a citizen? (if so, i'd say you are in good company.) in other words, if you go out and spend 400 bucks on an iPod, is that action more relevant for you than voting, in an economic or cultural or political sense?

to what degree are your actions, the things you actually do, informed by how you feel, rather than how you think? is the surge of gratification in consuming an iPod more compelling than the feeling you get when voting, or whatever. and if so, has your thought process been hijacked by the "need" (a need inflicted on us by advertisers of course) to consume?

or is it the case that you are deadlocked or paralyzed by your intellectual framework, so that for you, civic participation is moot?

i know of no one (personally, anyway) who is more well read philosophically and politically than you are. there are real, thoughtful, i'd even say artful, foundations under everything you say. and yet it seems that your action or inaction might be inspired by feelings rather than thoughts, feelings that are connected to the consumer culture we all live and breathe in. in other words, the only thing that gets you to *move* is the consumer response. your intellectual foundations merely keep you at a stand still.

or am i reading too much into what you have written here? if you *are* indeed in some way admitting to your consumerist tendencies being a sort of blight on your civic tendencies, i'd say, welcome to the United States of America. you are saying a few things at once though. i suppose the question i have is, if you were to inject yourself with a serum that would make you impervious to all advertising all the time, would you end up being able to take civic action, or somehow move forward into the political arena, perhaps locally or whatever? or is your philosophical malaise too deep?

somewhere in the back of my mind, i can hear W asking us to go shopping after 9-11. if we stop shopping, "they win".

i hope this doesn't come off in a tongue in cheek way, or in a righteous way either. these are actually, in my mind at least, very relevant, crucial questions that we should all be asking ourselves, that go to the heart of whether or not we should or even can participate politically. it's as though, for many of us, we need to get rewired before we can even be normal human beings again.

and btw, kucinich rocks. i love that guy. but did i campaign for him? no. vote for him? no. have i ever volunteered to work for a party or a candidate? no. so i have no room on any soapbox to point fingers. this post is one more in a long line of attempts to rewire my own self.

12 - @12 - that's why I said there was likely some pandering involved. They probably want to look good for the elections rather than actually ending the earmarks.

13 - Ludwig von Mises - now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. (How long?) A long time...

Nice to see that some people still know who he is. If only... Nah, that wouldn't happen. People are too concerned with American Idol.

My senior year econ professor does some writing at the Mises Institute: { Link } I think I'm going to re-subscribe to that site's feed! Before I left home this morning I saw your comments and brought a book in that I think you'll dig. It's an 1827 Third American edition of "Traite D'Economie Politique" by J.B. Say!! Come by and take a look.

I really like your take on these things from an economic perspective that government programs are all socialistic. There's more truth in that than most people would like to admit.

14 - "the advent of the internet and 500 channel TV and Sat Radio, and all the other means of global communications -- have done amazing things to make quality culture available anytime, anywhere." - i do agree with this actually, i think a lot is in flux around this, and many changes for the better are taking place, no thanks to the FCC. but i also think that the damage continues to be done in many channels (i.e. general broadcasting, abc, nbc, etc), and the effect that corporate overreaching into art has *already* dumbed us down considerably, so much so that we may never recover fully. i have much more hope for the upcoming generations than i do for mine in this respect. i think that the internet is unwinding people from the tight mesh that the corporates have had around "consumers". on the other hand, i use gmail, and so i'm effectively renting out parts of my brain for the privilege of using google's email application, which happens to be stellar, or i'd have long since stopped using it.

hell. maybe i should put my money where my mouth is and dump gmail.

*srednop*

disappointment in the electorate is exactly my point, actually. if it is true that mass media and consumer culture in general has dumbed us down to the point where we can't be bothered to get out of our seats to vote... ya know? i'm not saying this is the case with you, but i couldn't help but notice you mentioning all of those things together.

so here's another question - does political discussion on the internet really affect anything? i'm wondering out loud about this because i've been thinking more lately about doing a lot more politically based writing. i've come to the conclusion that it might be the only thing i'll ever do politically, that could actually have some sort of impact.

what do you think? you've written several novels.... (hehe) do you think your writing made a difference? was "just getting out there" all you really wanted to accomplish, or were you at any point looking to influence people around you?

15 - @7 - "the truth is either one of them would be better than what we currently have."

On this point I can agree. I just don't see how one is going to be better than the other.

How I wish a serious candidate could run on the platform of "undoing government!"

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." - Alexander Tytler { Link }

16 - Like it or not, these people make decisions that affect our lives all the time. And it's not just the presidents, but the people they surround themselves with that set the tone of public debate and determine policy. They are spending our tax dollars and influencing how we can make and spend our income.

I encourage everyone to become more civically involved. Don't just show up at the voting booth on election day, because the decisions have been largely made for us by that point. This may be one reason people are so apathetic about the General Elections here in the US. We need to be involved in our local government and local politics, because that's where the selection process really starts. Every one of the presidential candidates started in politics locally. They got involved at a local campaign office or ran for state legislature or won a city council seat. By getting involved locally and helping to promote or elect the right people (whatever your concept of “right” may be), you will be shaping the future of national elections.

If you’re waiting around for your perfect presidential candidate to show up on the General Election ballot so you can feel good about voting for them, it’s not likely to happen. Maybe that’s why more Americans care about who wins Idol than who gets elected president. We feel like we actually shape the outcome of the Idol contest by voting each week for our favorite of the 24 final contestants. How successful would Idol be if we had to watch Randy, Paula and Simon vote off our favorite contestants week after week until the final night, when there were only two contestants left? Somewhat indifferent about the outcome, I suspect.

17 - @13 - Ah, the magic of Congressional representation and the electoral college.

Here's a question for you: in a world of communication at the speed of light, and CNN, and the Internet... why do we need representative democracy at all?

18 - @16 - Well, John... I don't think my intellectualism has frozen me historically. If you Google my name in the right way, I have a LONG history of politically charged conversations visible on the internet.

You suggest that I'm driven by my feelings in response to culture. That's probably quite true. But I feel pretty strongly about politics, too. Strongly enough to conduct a two year experiment in being an ex-pat. And strongly enough to have written at least several novels' worth of content on the internet in general on the topic.

But I'm not inspired by politicians. Hell, I'm almost jealous of people that get excited about Obama or Dean or even Bush! How delightful it must be to not see the man behind the curtain; to feel inspired by the rhetoric; to not see the nature of the process and how it can't escape doing anything but shattering dreams.

I would consider campaigning for Ron Paul, honestly. But there's such a sense of despair even in that. Even though I'm certain we would agree on so many issues, I'm stymied by the fact that if he were elected, he'd probably never be able to do anything.

Which I suppose means my real disappointment is in the ELECTORATE. And that's basically true. *sigh*

That being said, I wouldn't be one to slam on popular culture so much. There's a lot of garbage out there, but I have to say that the advent of the internet and 500 channel TV and Sat Radio, and all the other means of global communications -- have done amazing things to make quality culture available anytime, anywhere.

Record tonight's episode of American Idol. And when it's over, skip all the ads and the "interest spots" and other crap, and just watch the vocal performances. Then keep watching long enough to hear Randy's response (he's the only actual musician out of the judges.) Then skip to the next one.

If you finish that, and you don't think that's a group of singer any one of whom you'd be happy to share a stage with, then we didn't watch the same program. They were all hacks in the first season, but at this point, the show draws REAL TALENT.

19 - @10 - I'm all for it. I think it makes a lot of sense. I don't fully buy the idea that a scaled tax system "punishes productivity"; for example, ask any blue-collar if, hypothetically, he'd rather make $30K and have to give back 10% or make $300K and have to give back 40%, chances are they'd pick the latter, since that would still leave them with nearly 7 times as much money. I myself am in a higher bracket than I used to be, but I'm not planning to ditch my consulting job and go back to Chick-Fil-A just so I can pay less taxes. So I think the notion that our current tax system acts as a deterrent to motivation or innovation is ludicrous.

However... one that targets consumption does seem infinitely more fair. Wipe out income tax entirely, and bump up sales tax on anything that could be considered a luxury; food, clothing, and shelter: tax free; iPods, video game consoles, boats, concert tickets, cigarettes, laptops: jack the tax up. That way no matter your income, if you choose to live simply, you allow those who choose to indulge in things they don't really need, but still want, to fund the government. I'd LOVE to see that put in place. I think it makes so much more sense than an income tax.

Both taxation and charity were discussed in response to a recent post of mine. Some argue that no tax dollars should be spent on social programs, because that should be left to charity. What I feel this argument ignores is that all government spending consitutes a social program. For example, I don't personally know of anyone who thinks we shouldn't have a military (though some of the founding fathers thought standing armies were a very bad idea... but that was a much different time). We feel a need to be protected, and military strength offers one form of protection (diplomacy another). But lately I've heard a lot of people talking about our "volunteer army" to underscore the premise that we do not currently have a draft. While it's true that we no longer force citizens to choose between military service and incarceration, those who choose to serve are not volunteers in a fiscal sense; they do get paid (though, in my opinion, not enough). For 2008, the federal discretionary budget includes a total of $553.8 billion for defense, homeland security, and veterans affairs. This is 58.8% of the total budget. Education, health and human services, housing and urban development, environmental protection, social security administration, and the national science foundation have a combined budget of $188 billion, which is just under 20% of the total. At $17.7 billion, we've budgeted more for NASA than the EPA and social security combined.

Some of these things could be considered necessities, others luxuries. I'm sure if you drilled down into line items for each category, the same distinction could be drawn. But our elected officials have decided that this is how our money should be spent. Which brings me back to the topic of charity: if our belief as citizens in the need for a military that costs half a trillion dollars (roughly $1,850 per citizen... so, $7,400 for every family of four) were deep enough that we donated a combined total of half a trillion dollars - on our own, without it being deducted automatically from our respective paychecks - then we wouldn't need to allocate tax dollars to that expenditure. If, on the other hand, each of us donated $20 a year to a fund that provided private grants for scientific research that the government currently funds, we could eliminate the entire federal budget for science.

So why does the government fund science at all? The only explanation I can think of is that they've identified a potential benefit in an expenditure additional to existing private donations. Similarly, HUD helps poor people afford housing. Seems like a perfect candidate for relying solely upon charity... yet we've budgeted $37.4 billion for that. So there must be something the government thinks we should do that exceeds the capacity of charitable organizations. There is a shortfall, in other words, in charity. We may wish away any given tax burden on the premise that charitable donations "should" pay for those efforts... but apparently they "don't". In these cases, taxes make up the difference.

Another perspective entirely is the sense that some things shouldn't be privately funded. It'd be wonderful to have non-profits receive spontaneous donations equal to the task of eliminating (or even measurably reducing) homelessness, without any assistance or funding from the government. A couple years ago, Bush also seemed rather keen on privatizing social security. But what about a privatized military? Corporate mercenaries handling all aspects of intelligence and defense, lead by CEO's looking to make a profit, even if that means cutting corners? I submit that that would be a horrendous mistake. So I know that it's easy to make "universal health care" sound insidious by calling it "socialized medicine", because a lot of people think "socialism" is the same thing as "communism", and "communism" is "bad" (though I bet a fair few would be hard pressed to explain why in anything other than broad generalizations)... but I'd love to hear arguments against a "socialized miliitary", which - in the sense that people refer to what they think the Democrats want as "socialized medicine" (even though neither Barack nor even Hillary is suggesting that the insurance companies go away, merely that we subsidize citizens' premium payments with tax credits) - is precisely what we have.

In the end, though, aside from attempting to contact our "representatives" directly (I sure am using a lot of "quotation marks" in this comment... sorry about that... and for rambling for so long), our current system only provides two options for telling them we disagree with their priorities: elections and outright rebellion. I'd personally advise against the latter, but to each his own.

20 - I tend to share Nathan's view on this...im not too hyped over either candidate or the state of US politics in general. It bothers me when politicians use negative tactics. It bothers me that they are more likely doing this to become more powerful than because they want to lead the US and help make it a better place. It bothers me that the size of the US debt is what it is... so many negatives, so many unkept promises, i dont even want to think what kind of world my (now age 5 & 6) children will live in when they are my age.

Lately I have been thinking on whether the implementation of single term limits across the board would be a good thing. I'm not saying it would, i've just been thinking about it.

21 - @4 - For a left-winger, you certainly do make some good points.

Admit it; late at night, when you're all alone writing code, you get an occasional urge to cook up some spotted owl soup and drive a 4x4 Suburban over a crowd of hippies, don't you?

At this point I think it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that the Democrats are going to put up Obama, the Republicans are going to put up McCain, and the truth is either one of them would be better than what we currently have.

(NOTE: Technically, I still haven't said anything disparaging about our current administration. I'm still the same lovable right-wing gun nut I've always been. And yes, I'll be voting in November.)

22 - Oh, and a quick note... if you're thinking "man, maybe socialized health care isn't a great idea, but surely what we have NOW isn't good either" you won't get much argument from me. My response is simple: do you make choices based on price? I bet you don't. In fact, I bet you have NO IDEA what your health care costs. I know I don't.

I know my co-pay. And I know what's deducted from my paycheck as a premium. And I can make broad decisions based on that, which is good. But I don't make choices about health care at the margin based on actual cost. Because I'm shielded from that by a 3rd party payer system, though my "insurance" provider. (It isn't insurance, by the way.)

Why would I ever say no to a doctor about a purchasing decision when I've already paid for the service through my premiums? I wouldn't. It's free to me -- AT THE MARGIN. So I might as well grab everything I can.

This is called the "tragedy of the commons" and it exists wherever goods or services are provided without payment.

So if you go "why do Americans pay 30% of GDP on health care?" my response is: "they don't. That's the COST, but that's not what they SPEND. They SPEND whatever the co-pay is, which is usually pretty small. The rest is completely hidden from them, which is why it's so damn expensive."

That is the economic calculation problem laid bare. And rational decisions are impossible in health care precisely because you don't have inputs for comparisons. Anyone with medical 'insurance" doesn't ask "should I spend money on this MRI?" If you're covered, there's no spending decision -- you just do it because it's a sunk cost. So a doctor can sell you ANYTHING. And because you buying more protects them from liability, why would they ever stop selling!??!? The dumbest person on earth would still say "get a free MRI and give me more information because even if I screw up, at least I can point to the image and say I had evidence!"

And what do you get? Economic irrationality. Because no one spends someone else's money sensibly.

23 - @20 - "our current system only provides two options for telling them we disagree with their priorities: elections and outright rebellion. I'd personally advise against the latter, but to each his own."

I don't think you understand what it is like to be a citizen of a country whose government passes laws that discriminate against you. How would you react if there was a law prohibiting all red-haired people from getting married and the justification given was that it is offensive to someone else's religion?

I'm not an anarchist like Nathan, but I do feel very strongly that our current system isn't serving the public's interests and it never will. A little anarchy on the way to something more "of the people, by the people, for the people" -- and I mean all people, not just the ones with money -- would be a good thing.

@21 - If all socialism is wrong are you suggesting that we go back to pure survival of the fittest and let everyone fend for themselves? Are you advocating advocating social as well as political anarchy?

24 - @20 - To be clear.... YAY! for no government spending on scientific research! There's a patent system for a reason, and that already costs us trillions of dollars a year.

YAY! for no spending on HUD. Just lift zoning regulations and watch the cost of housing plummet (which is why it'll never happen... every homeowner in America will vote with their wallet. Greed wins.)

YAY! for privatized funding of military adventurism. If you can't get people to volunteer money for it, that's a damn good sign that you shouldn't be fighting that war in the first place. Certainly not including troops that thought they signed up to defend Montana from invading Canadians so why the HELL are they in Baghdad!???!?!

As far as socialism being bad.... well, that's easy. (And I'm paraphrasing von Mises in "Human Action" chapter 5.)

Let's pretend for a moment you go to the local grocery store one day. And when you walk through the door, the grocer says:

"We have a new policy: nothing on the shelves has a PRICE. We have done away with pricing. When you walk in, you tell us how much you want to spend. As you place each item in your cart, we'll deduct that amount from your account. But you don't have to make decisions based on price -- we'll just figure that out for you. When you've used up your amount, an alarm will sound and it's time for you to leave the store."

How would you decide to feed your family lobster or oatmeal? How would you choose between chicken or beef? Sure, you could decide that A is healthier than B, but how would you know the relative cost without prices?

You wouldn't. The data point is eliminated. You have no idea what you're giving up when you put Ahi tuna in the cart instead of butterfly pork chops. How many pounds of one gets you how many pounds of the other? You don't know unless you have a PRICE.

That's why a market is important. Not just so someone has a profit incentive (though that's important) but because prices are information -- they indicate a social net cost. They tell you the complete cost to the cumulative market, plus profit, minus externalities. (Wiki that last if you don't know the term.)

Without prices, you have no means by which to compare heterogenous options. Can you feed your family better by putting a turkey or a duck in your shopping cart? How would you know without a price?

Costs still EXIST. It's simply that you don't know them. The grocery store could say "take whatever you think you need" but they'd be out of business in a day. (That's the communist model, and that's why it's basically insane.) But even if they tell you not to worry about cost, it's not as if it isn't there. You just don't know it.

This is what's known as the "economic calculation problem" and was first identified by von Mises in 1920. { Link } No thinking person should allow themselves to be unfamiliar with his argument, particularly engineers who look at the overall result and think "we should be able to just run a giant spreadsheet." (I know you're already thinking that, Tim.)

It seems like we should, until you factor in one simple element. Even if you know the COST of steak vs. chicken, how do you figure out whether people want more steak or chicken? Cost is only half the equation, isn't it? The other half is desire (DEMAND in the formal vernacular.) How do you compare relative demand for steak vs. chicken in a world where people can't compare the cost of one versus the other?

If you just select it off the shelf, and cost has nothing to do with how you compare, then what DOES have to do with it? Flavor? Nutritional content? Every person makes a choice between filet mignon and bulk poultry. How do you give them a means of comparison in the absence of prices? There is no mechanism of calculation. The spreadsheet has no input, no matter how good the formulas are!!!

That's why stuff like universal health care tends to fail. And make no mistake, socialized health care systems fail to provide the care that people demand. It's just that instead of rising costs, you have month-long lines. It's 70's era gas lines all over again. (You can't CONTROL demand. You can simply manipulate it in such a way that people have to spend time instead of money. That's the fact.)

So you'll never for a minute hear me saying crap like "universal health care is bad because it's socialism and socialism is communism and communism is bad, m'kay?"

You WILL hear me say "any government-provided solution is bad because it's socialism and socialism is an economic system in which purchasing decisions are made without the calculation of cost, which means alternatives cannot be compared, and rational decision making is, quite literally, impossible."

If this is in any way unclear, Tim, please let me know. I'm writing at 4am, so clearly I CARE! (You are noting this, right, John?) It matters very much to me that you understand I'm not just hand-waving on the topic. "Communism is bad" is not an adequate explanation.

"Planned economies are logically impossible -- you cannot PLAN in the absence of prices" is the answer I'll give and if that's in any way not clear, I'll go out of my way to provide clarity.

25 - "Did you know that around 60% of the budget is on entitlement programs."

Yes, although I'd really rather not turn this thread into a discussion on what constitutes "entitlements." I'm pretty sure that what you mean is "handing out cash to individuals or corporations," whether that's in the form of farm subsidies, welfare programs, Medicare or social security.

What else did you think Tytler was talking about? That's exactly what all those are.

Chris, if you really think the Republicans are trying to reduce that, by all means, vote your conscience. But I'd urge you to look a little closer at their actions rather than words.

26 - This has been a very educational thread, but now my head hurts from swimming through myriad of economic and governmental systems.

I am hereby invoking Godwin's law by pointing out that Germany had National Health Care from 1933 - 1945.

27 - @31 - I think it's a little cold to say "I know my neighbor had major medical problems and couldn't afford fire insurance, and it sucks that her house burned down but them's the breaks."

Is it colder than saying "I know your neighbor wasn't responsible enough to get a job and pay for insurance, but now we're going to take food off your table to pay for her medical bills and her new house, 'cause them's the breaks?"

I mean, I realize that your objective is to be compassionate, Charles. And while I can admire wanting this person to not waste away in pain, I don't see how it's compassionate to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO PREVENT IT. You're just shifting one person's pain to a bunch of other people. That's not compassionate at all.

If you're absolutely convinced that other people would WANT to help this woman, then why do you have to force them? Just provide them with the opportunity to volunteer. People do this all the time!

But if other people don't want to help of their own free will, how is it compassionate to force them to do it? I just don't get that.

28 - @46, no, it was Nathan that brought up steak.

29 - @25 - Charles there is nothing wrong with perhaps a bit more than a little bit of anarchy :) back in the days when I was less cynical (and more open to ideas that were more utopian than utilitarian) anarchy particularly anarcho-syndicalism I found to be quite attractive... (@Nathan - and that was after the knicker invasion campaign) The idea that the consensus of the "syndicate " was passed on by temporary heads of state that were given the power just for the purpose of actioning the mandated consensus was very attractive, esp in the politics of Northern Ireland of the 60's and 70's.

Anarchy like socialism is immediately painted with negative connotations when mentioned but whilst i wouldn't advocate
a anarchistic state, there are things that some countries use that flirt on the edges of the theory. Like Ireland and Italy where voting is done by Proportional Representation (PR).This has opened the system up to be REALLY multi-party and make the Gov more representative of the peoples desires and less likely to be skewed by "tribal" voting. On the other hand itt also leads to more hung parliaments which then leads to more plebiscites when the gov can't make the hard choices without asking "the people" for their view. Still democracy, still the "tyranny of the majority" but seems to make people more in-tune with what as a nation do both to ourselves and to others. Not real anarchy, but a nod in the general direction that power when given is transitory .....

Steve

30 - nathna, @19 - great response. yes, it made a difference for me. you are right, "one at a time". that's the difference between an "answer" and a real conversation, isn't it? you've given me something to chew on here, thanks.

31 - Fact check: The USPTO is actually one of the federal government's very few *profit centers*. It costs $700 or so to file a patent, and the vast majority of them - thousands upon thousands - are rejected out of hand. Let's face it, it's hard to find an original idea these days, and even harder to find one with no "prior art". The USPTO profit goes on to fund a lot of other government expenditures. So, if some of it goes to research - specifically, university-based research on cures for diseases - all the better.

For me, the (relatively) simple solution to the medical insurance conundrum that you present is to open up the books to people. That way, they know the price. The fact is, pooled resources (specifically, for medical costs) are far more economically advantageous then having people "go it alone." The other fact is that, even if it isn't "insurance" in the classic sense, the Law of Large Numbers protects people in the event of catastrophe. As long as "healthy" people - more specifically, people who perceive themselves as being healthy - buy in. And, unfortunately, they must be compelled to do so. The truth of the matter is that none of us is healthy enough to assume that we can risk not having purchased mitigation against illness. But, most people don't see it that way. It's one thing not to buy the "extended warranty" on your new HDTV. But, if it's your body that gets cracked down the middle, you don't get to go to the market to buy another one.

Just food for thought. I'm sure that Nathan will punch plenty of holes in this hastily-scribed stream-of-consciousness. :)

32 - @33 - I think we would go far if we could just get back to this:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

33 - Nathan, you appear to be advocating for the elimination of all government, period. Or at least all taxation? Is that true? Involuntary redistribution of wealth is the issue, right? Because all taxation benefits some people at the expense of others; that's how the whole social contract works. You may not want to pay for public libraries (chosen deliberately because you haven't mentioned it one way or the other), while I may not want to give tax cuts to oil companies (because of a debatable judgment call about whether they "deserve" them or not, yes, guilty as charged), while my wife would insist that we do away with the military completely (yes, really). In the current model, each of us suffers a certain amount of pain, paying for things with which we don't agree. It appears that you don't agree with paying for much of anything, so you're certainly feeling more pain than a radical liberal like me (Hi, Tim! You're not alone, sir!).

If I've understood it correctly, what do you predict would happen to a society that followed your anti-tax approach? I am too concrete for the philosophical elements of this debate, so I'm afraid I have to get very specific about things - I apologize for lowering the tone to boring details like this:

You would have no military, no police, no fire departments, no interstate highways, no internet (you did away with government-only research, right? Then now what we have is AT&T Notes Net. heh), no traffic lights, no public schools (I know you're on record as saying that would be a good thing, just summing them all up), and no snow plowing or other emergency services? All of those things require taxes, so you would have to believe that either private industry or charitable organizations would cover them? That seems extremely naive, which I know you are not, so I'm confused by how one could take your high-level approach and apply it consistently across the pragmatic elements of a working society. I'm sure I'm missing something here, no doubt due to the fact that I'm taking theory and trying to apply it to practice under my own ruleset, so if you have a better way to explain things at the lower level I'd be interested in seeing it.

Idle aside: states and countries would no longer exist, either, by the way. Borders are enforced by armies, not the good will of all mankind. This is the "every man for himself" sort of reality, where very small fiefdoms are ruled by force of arms and people steal from each other directly rather than using the indirect government-based theft common in the modern world (though in this model, the beneficiary of the theft is always the strongest person present, as opposed to the result being distributed among those less fortunate). I say very small fiefdoms because no larger state can exist without taxation, which breaks the rules. I *must* be missing your point, because this sure doesn't seem appealing.

Anyway, back to your original point about politics vs American Idol, if you're looking for a politician who wants to put himself/herself out of work, you're never going to be happy voting. You're not disillusioned with the American political process, you're unhappy that there *is* a political process. After all, we vote for politicians who make up a government, and government by its very nature requires taxation to pay for itself. A system without taxes is a system without politicians, and I don't see how it can be considered a government. On Idol, you're voting among candidates you like - you've said that they're generally very talented (I don't watch, but I believe you), so you get to choose one of several good options. In elections, you're stuck with candidates who would all disagree with your underlying premise, so you're choosing between two people you consider to be lousy options. Don't get me started on the two party system, though, because really your choices are dramatically limited by the parties' drive to remain in power.

34 - @38 - "Bush at the helm?" That's pretty lame man. Then in the same sentence with Hitler. I guess you proved it: { Link }

Regarding trash service, we don't have municipally-run pickup in my town. The private service our neighborhood was using started to get slack - leaving cans in the driveways, overturned, etc. So the neighborhood (pretty large - maybe 700 homes) association told the current company to can it (pun intended) and went with another private service that's been much better so far. So, yes, I will say that this is a case where you should go back and read comment 35:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Many of the things you're talking about are things that really ARE for the "general welfare" of the citizens - police and fire. Trash service is as much a constitutional right as an abortion, but I digress.

And a privatized military could take over the way things are now. Maybe once there's a clone army of Bushes we can start to worry.

DDT? Perhaps if we allowed it some in Africa, the blood of millions of dead people there wouldn't be on the hands of those who shunned it's use...

35 - The first fire insurance company in the US was founded in Charleston in the early 1700's. Prior to fire insurance people relied on bucket brigades of neighbors to combat fires. When a fire was spotted an alarm went up, and all the fire insurance companies would dispatch firefighters. They would check the marker on your house; if it wasn't theirs they let the fire burn.

This is more of the "every man for himself" mentality I was referring to. Should we go back to only privatized infrastructure? Is there no value whatsoever in the idea of civic services that support the entire community, versus wholly private services for which each person must pay? I think it's a little cold to say "I know my neighbor had major medical problems and couldn't afford fire insurance, and it sucks that her house burned down but them's the breaks." I also think there needs to be a government in place to oversee these services centrally, and enforce codes of conduct and standards of safety and performance.

If you do away with the government oversight you end up with a bunch of rogues doing whatever they please. Not that the current system of government we have is much better, which is why I'd like to see it shaken up, but at least it's somewhat predictable.

36 - @Devin ROTFLMAO!

37 - @46 In comment #36, Nathan said:

"The burden of proof is on the guy that claims he's justified in stealing, kidnapping and murdering millions and millions of people, because that's the only way geeks living in their mom's basement will have access to downloadable lesbian porn."

Steak, of course, is a different matter entirely. Wasn't somebody in the Domino blogosphere recently stuck with some unexpected (and unwanted) venison? I thought I saw it on Planet Lotus? Mmmmm, venison steaks...

38 - @33 - Nathan, you appear to be advocating for the elimination of all government, period. Or at least all taxation? Is that true?

No. And it only appears that way to you because you jump right to a conclusion.

As I replied to John, first comes asking of the right questions.

I'm not necessarily advocating the elimination of government. But I'm definitely advocating taking a MUCH closer look at its nature.

It appears that you don't agree with paying for much of anything, so you're certainly feeling more pain than a radical liberal like me

Nonsense. I pay for lots of things, everyday. I pay for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, iTunes downloads, books, movie tickets, electricity... believe it or not I even make the occasional charitable donation, particularly when a friend or colleague is participating in a fund drive.

What I don't agree with is being FORCED to pay for much of anything. I'm pro-CHOICE, in the most absolute sense.

If someone wants to steal my wallet under a threat to kidnap or shoot me if I don't give it to them, they'd better have a damn good reason. And if it's such a damn good reason, then why can't they simply convince me to hand it over of my own free will?

You would have no military, no police, no fire departments, no interstate highways, no internet, no traffic lights, no public schools, and no snow plowing or other emergency services?

Really? Would we have no pizza delivery, no recording studios, no enterprise email software, no NASCAR races, no dishwashing machines, no lasers and no anesthetic? Why would we have these things and none of the things that you mention?

Why don't you just say "without Microsoft, we wouldn't have graphical interfaces, or word processors, or spreadsheets, or TCP/IP communications or open standard specifications that are 6000 pages long?" Except we WOULD have all those things. And we even had those things before Microsoft started doing them, didn't we? (Well, okay, no one made specs 6000 pages before MS did.)

Just because government does something NOW, doesn't mean it's the only way to get that thing done.

We had telecommunications before government was involved, and we'll have them without the government being involved. There were and still are thousands and thousands of private schools, libraries, research institutions, even police and firemen! The government need no more have a monopoly on these things that it needs on pizza, music production, messaging servers, automobiles, home appliances or medical treatments. You claim that these things "require taxes" is neither logically nor empirically in evidence.

And frankly, I'd expect anyone reading this blog to think enough on the matter to realize that just because you get a thing from one vendor now, doesn't mean you have to keep getting it from the same vendor tomorrow. I'm pretty sure that's a reality that every person in this conversation faces at work EVERY DAY.

It's the cry of the unimaginative utopian who says "oh yeah? Well you tell me how everything is going to be exactly the same if government doesn't do all this stuff!" I can't. Because I don't know. And frankly, I don't care.

I don't know exactly how Boeing manages to build an airplane and how Southwest manages to buy it and then fly me all over the country, either. I don't have to. The beauty of the market is that smart, creative, entrepreneurial people such as yourself can come up with ideas and then try them out, and they succeed or fail on their own merits by virtue of whether other people volunteer their time and money on them. Nobody has to be forced to do anything, and yet the vast multitude of social coordination required to put milk in your local grocery store, gas in your fuel tank, and a high speed computing device with access to the sum total of human knowledge on more than one desk in your home and office, all JUST HAPPENS.

And nobody has to be forced into it! INCREDIBLE!!

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that governmental taxation is required to provide, say, the internet (almost every wire of which is privately owned and operated, by the way.) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, so get cracking, man. The burden of proof is on the guy that claims he's justified in stealing, kidnapping and murdering millions and millions of people, because that's the only way geeks living in their mom's basement will have access to downloadable lesbian porn.

Ready? Go.

39 - Yeah, Nathan, and I also have no problem with laws that require people to have a license before they drive cars. And driving without a license means you get arrested (or fined, and not paying the fine means you get arrested, it all leads to prison eventually). And escaping from prison means you could get shot. So I guess that means I approve of stealing, kidnapping, and murdering millions and millions of people just to make sure everyone knows how to parallel park, too. As I said, twisted and unbelievably extreme. Your extension of a debate about taxes into the enforcement mechanisms used by governments is ridiculous.

40 - @38 - Do you seriously think the free market and non-profits can effectively provide the same number and quality of services governments do?

Can you tell me why they can't? We have, for instance, a nationwide distribution system for food, that bring fruits and vegetables from all over the planet to your local Publix so you can drop in on the way to work. And yet government doesn't have to be involved. So why do they have to be involved in, say, educating children? Is there some reason, other than the fact that they're already involved, that they HAVE to be involved?

Instead of one trash service you have 10, clogging streets with trucks.

LMAO. Yes, because if there were 10 service offerings for garbage collection, there would suddenly be 10 times as much trash.

Should I point out that Waste Management Corp is not a governmental institution?

Instead of one fire department you have 5, but who controls the infrastructure that tells them there is a fire?

Ummmm... the phone company? That's who controls the infrastructure that tells them today. Of course, we could also use a cellular network, a TV cable company, or even CB radio if you'd like a bit of redundancy in the network.

Instead of municipal police you have Blackwater, beating down anyone who disagrees with them.

Yeah, I always have such a problem with mall security guards beating me down and sending me to Gitmo every time the beeper goes off at The Gap.

@39 - Yes, Rob, I'm being naive, because I claim I don't the solutions to all of civilization's problems. But you're being good and wise, because you claim you do know all the answers, and you make anyone with disagrees with those answers comply with a gun.

Right.

"the concept that my government should get to steal, kidnap, and murder millions and millions of people"

Well, you have no problem coercing money out of people, or locking them in jail if they don't comply, and shooting them if they leave early. Sounds like theft, kidnapping and murder to me.

But, y'know, I'm naive, 'cause I think hurting people is wrong.

41 - @43 - you brought up the steak, kidnap, and murdering first...

@44 - good point Devin!!

42 - @all

Now now chaps! Deep breaths everyone ... this is a thread which proves politics like religion is one best taken when in benign temper ;) I am jumping in at comment 50 with a virtual.. ok lets have a beer and perhaps a wee shot of Bushmills so without further ado @beverage("Beer";"Cold") for youse all. :)

Steve

43 - @25 - To be clear, by "socialism" I am referring to the economic system whereby distribution of wealth is decided by a collective authority, rather than individual actions. { Link } Typically that authority is the state, though it's certainly possible that it could be something else. (Although how that entity avoids being called a "state" I don't know.)

I'm not sure what "pure survival of the fittest" means in this context. I'm not, in this thread, advocating any system of morality one way or another. So I'm not trying to suggest that non-compulsory mechanisms to support certain people shouldn't exist. I'm a big fan of the United Way, and the American Cancer Society, and the IAPAC. These institutions don't require government to operate, and no one is forced to comply with their requests to "please give." Yet they do exist, and do an enormous amount of good, and people give generously even though they don't have as much money available to them as they should because so much is already being taken away.

That doesn't really strike me as the kind of "everyone fend for themselves" picture you suggest. But perhaps it is. There is certainly a class of people that have a problem accepting hand-outs when they come from charitable organizations, but are just fine with them when they come from the tax base. Those people might find that an open market economy means "social anarchy." I'm really not sure. I've never grasped those people's motivations.

44 - Nathan, you're being naive.

First off, the examples I gave do not generate PROFIT. The examples you gave ALL DO. Funny how that happens when one tries to claim that things currently in the private sector can be used as an analogy for the public sector. The private sector is interested in making money, and ONLY making money - that's why businesses exist, after all. The public sector exists to provide laws and structure and order to a society. You can debate exactly what items should be provided by the public sector, of course - that's what we all do constantly.

Second, I never said government funding was required to PROVIDE the internet, I pointed out that government-sponsored research (military research - DARPA, as we ALL know) led directly to the creation of the Internet. Without the initial funding from the government, we might very well have connectivity, but it would be provided by a monopoly power like AT&T, as I specifically pointed out.

Aside: Please don't throw out twisted and unbelievably extreme analogies and expect me to believe that they constitute a reasonable argument. "he's justified in stealing, kidnapping and murdering millions and millions of people" Yeah, because that's EXACTLY what I was defending, the concept that my government should get to steal, kidnap, and murder millions and millions of people. ??? Dude, lay off the high-test coffee or something, 'cause that's not even in the same universe as the rest of this discussion.

Third, you're the one making the extraordinary claims here. You're claiming that there is no need for government to provide (What, exactly? You still won't say) some large percentage of what it currently provides. You claim that it would all happen automatically if we just trusted the market and the overall good charitable nature of people. That is the extraordinary claim here. You are making an extremely radical suggestion. So, in your own words, get cracking, man. I await your logical and detailed proof with baited breath.

45 - Do you seriously think the free market and non-profits can effectively provide the same number and quality of services governments do? Instead of one trash service you have 10, clogging streets with trucks. Instead of one fire department you have 5, but who controls the infrastructure that tells them there is a fire? Instead of municipal police you have Blackwater, beating down anyone who disagrees with them.

What's to stop a privatized military from just taking over the country? They've got the manpower and firepower, all they need is a Stalin, Hitler or Bush at the helm. Who decides how much DDT is safe in food? Who decides whether thalidomide is safe? Do you leave that to industry to self-regulate?

By the time the free market comes up with checks and balances for all the abuses that are sure to spring up thousands of people will be dead or maimed. Who cleans up that mess? The Fantastic Four?

46 - @nathan
As an outsider looking in on both AI and your Prezzie bun-fight which is on nearly (every news program over here) there seems to be precious little difference tween the two, except you don't have that heap of excrement that is Simon Cowell as a judge in the presidential race. (by the way any chance you would like to keep him over there?). If I see another commentator wax cynical about the "womens vote" "the black vote" and what happens if you are a woman and black it will be too damn soon!

Ho hum There is a malaise in the "west" where the % of the population that votes gets smaller and smaller. I think this is because the choices we get are now too damn tight. The difference tween right and left is now blurred as we circle the plug hole of political mediocrity. Rob you should not hold back on the 2 party system.. you have a very valid point.. politics should take a leaf out of the free market text books. Lack of competition causes stagnation. Deregulate politics :) Infact joking aside this has been an issue in Euroland since the 80's as the EU is a "hyper state" made up of the worst(imho)traits of all the member states... something HAS to change ...have a read at "institutions in transistion" at { Link }
which was one of the ideas posited over the last couple of years.
I don't agree with much of it, but then I am an unreconstructed fecking-red-lefty-scum-bucket :) But it is an interesting read .. and addresses some of the points Nathan has raised for example ...

"The concept of deregulating politics differs fundamentally from the other politico-economic reform proposal. It is strictly process-oriented. It proposes new rules for the "game of politics" which strengthen the incentives of the suppliers of politics to cater for the citizens' preferences. But it does not give any recommendation on the content of politics. Thus, it does not demand "more market, less government". However, the deregulation of politics goes a decisive step ahead of federalism and direct democracy..."

Time for another beer .. then bed.

47 - @29 - Good to know about the PTO being a profit center, Brian. But that wasn't really what I meant by costing trillions. What I mean is: patent protection existing AT ALL costs the general public trillions of dollars. You take away patent protection, nobody has to pay licensing fees to duplicate or leverage technology, prices fall, and consumers reap a windfall surplus.

The reason patents exist at all is to incentivize research and invention. If it's incentivized, then why does the government ALSO have to shell out cash? They already subsidize it by making everybody pay to use it!

I can't agree that opening up pricing books solves the medical problem. Even if you know how much something costs, do you care if it's not your money? People know how much the government spends on lots of things and still are willing to pay it, because they don't think of it as their money. (And for a good portion of the population, it ISN'T their money! You don't have to be a taxpayer to vote!)

I can even think of scenarios where I might opt for more expensive choices precisely because they're more expensive. Conspicuous consumption is just as likely in health care as it is in any other industry.

Now, if you want to start talking REBATES for not filing claims, I could get on board with that. Auto-insurers can do it, so why not health-insurers? It would dramatically change my treatment decisions if I could get a portion of my premiums back if I rejected expensive treatments.

I think you're in a good position to know more about actuarial science than me, so I'll concede every point about risk pooling. But I think we'd disagree on what the consequences of not joining the pool are. I am, quite frankly, totally ok with the idea that some people just don't get treatment at all unless a doctor just decides to give it away. I don't think that's a scenario that we must avoid.

48 - @40 - love the post Nathan!! Y'know, you have to really watch out for the guards at the Kennesaw mall, b/c they are on Segways!!

And you're right on about what happens if you don't comply with the tax laws... steal, kidnap, and murder...

49 - @48 - LOL... my bad... Yeah, that was Mitch Cohen that had the deer in his backyard.

50 - @34 - Heh. Believe it or not, I kinda like Simon. I like that he's unreserved about telling contestants that they don't deserve to be in the competition.

However, Randy is the only one of them qualified to actually judge a musical performance. Out of three judges in a singing competition, they have ONE actual musician. It's quite funny, really.

And yeah, American political commentators LOVE to tribalize the country. That's one of the reasons I just refuse to watch political coverage in the States. Hell, I moved to Africa in 2004 precisely because I didn't want to listen to the campaign and "analysis" rhetoric.

51 - @53 - Oh man, can we avoid that last particular topic? We'll be here 'til doomsday.

52 - Yeah, sorry... If anyone else talks about it I won't any more - so don't expect a reply from me if you talk about it...

53 - @51 OK, show me where Bush has killed MILLIONS of people just because they were who they are. Show me.... You can't because there is no comparison between Bush and Hitler/Pol Pot/whoever. The closest you can get is a few hundred people locked up and a war in Iraq that he inherited a plan for from Clinton. Heck, FDR was closer to Hitler than Bush was with the Japanese internment camps...

Re: trash - I can haul my own trash off if I want to without paying a dime for a service. I can also choose to use a different service. But we were not happy with the previous one as most of the neighborhood wasn't. So I went with this other one. Capitalism...

And if it were socialism, I wouldn't be paying the waste management company - it would just be confiscated from my taxes.

Re: ddt - maybe ddt IS the answer to killing the mosquitos in Africa. But government and "environmental" intervention has sidestepped it. I would much rather have millions more humans not dead than a few species of animals. It always bothers me that those who are first to stand up for the rights of the spotted owls are also those who probably wouldn't think twice about letting a woman kill the unborn child growing inside of her.

54 - Seriously though, I think that you all are closer together than perhaps you think you are. I believe that we all think that it is in the common good for society to be somewhat ordered and regulated to a greater or lesser extent. It is only the modus operandi of the administration of that common good that divides us at the highest level of politics.

When we move away from the politics of "power and influence" to the politics of the local community an entirely different picture arises. Yes there are local gov representatives who would find number plate assembly difficult but they are in the fortunate position of being closer to "the people" and as a result have to more accurately reflect the will of the people in their actions and duties, be they of red, blue or green. What I believe we need, (in Ireland, the UK, the US and the rest of Europe) is to find a way to reflect that common-sense, utilitarian dare i say collaborative way of doing business back up the chain to the big knobs at top.

If that were to happen, Nathan's expectation that the gov would not spend his tax $ in a particular way AND Rob's conflicting expectation would be both be addressed in an adult rational compromise rather than partisan finger waggling.
If the Shinners (Sinn Fein) and the Ultra-Protestants (DUP) can sit down in the same room and have a go at this very idea after 30 years of violence i ask .. is it too much to expect the same from the bigger countries. Be different but work together :)

God that sounds like naive hippy shite, and in a way it is .... but F**K it ... if we can do it on the mirco level ... why not? Now where is that bottle of Ouzo I brought back from Greece last year?

55 - @51 - "Today if I see a house on fire I call the police, not the phone company."

Wow. How do you contact the police again? Stick your head out of the window and yell "POLICE!!! HELP!"

Uhhhhhh... yeah.

56 - Boy, I picked the wrong week to travel on business and be pretty much offline.

57 - You could always go Bill Wheaton's route and vote for Eugene V. Debs.

58 - @Chris - I picked Hitler because he is a known figure. Replace him with Pol Pot, Andrew Jackson, Idi Amin Dada or Nicolai Ceausescu if it offends your sensibilities less. They all still have the same connotation as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding the trash service, do you pick the trash service individually for your home based on what you want? It sounds like it's a group decision that fits the majority of the needs of the community. An awful lot like socialism, come to think of it. Can you choose not to participate and therefore not pay for the service? If not you're back in the same place where it's basically a form of taxation that you can't opt out of.

I don't know how DDT would impact the environment in Africa. I know in the US it lead to the extinction of several species. To me that's not acceptable collateral damage and we should find a different way to achieve the same results. If it were a problem people were sufficiently incentivized to solve someone would have done it by now. That it hasn't been is a testament to the free market. That is the ultimate goal, after all, isn't it?

I don't disagree with you regarding what the scope of government should be. But Nathan seems to be going a step beyond that, so I'm trying to find out how he thinks a free market will address the real day to day issues.

@Nathan - It's not that you would have 10 times the trash, it's that every individual would potentially choose a different company until eventually the free market whittled them down. Today if I see a house on fire I call the police, not the phone company. In your lawless wonderland who would I call? Which set of police? And how would they know that 123 Oak Lane is protected by Two Guys And A Bucket and not Super Friends Fire Fighting?

It seems like this discussion has taken a different turn, and now I'm just extending it to be contradictory, so I'll let it drop. :)

59 - @51 - Now you're just being intentionally obtuse and argumentative, something I know a lot about.

@52 - Between 80,000 and 90,000 civilians have died in Iraq. You can say Bush inherited the situation, but ultimately he's the one who got us into it. The blood is on his hands. I don't see Clinton's name on the executive orders or war authorizations so stop blaming him for what Bush has done. This is just ridiculous. Do you blame Clinton and/or the Democrats for everything that's gone wrong in Bush's administration? Is Bush not responsible for any of the debacles that have happened?

If you want to get into a discussion about Bush specifically, I'm not interested. I'm not rational on the subject.

60 - It's Friday, it's 22:10 .. I have been listening to King Crimson and drinking beer ... and forsooth I feel a parable coming on. draw near brethren and i shall impart words of wisdom and insight.

A son asked his father one day "what is politics?"
A little boy goes to his dad and asks, 'What is Politics?'
Dad says, 'Well son, let me try to explain it this way:
I am the head of the family, so call me The President.
Your mother looks after the cash, so we call her "the Government"
We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you "the People"
The nanny, she does all the work.. so you can call her "the Working Class"
And your baby brother, we will call him "the Future."
Now sod off to bed and and give my head peace.
So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said.

Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up
to check on him.

He finds that the baby has done a BIG pooh in his nappy.
So the little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep.
Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room.
Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny.

He gives up, changes his baby brother himself and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy say's to his father, 'Dad, I think I understand this politics thing now'

The father says, 'Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is all about.'

The little boy replies, 'The President is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep shit .

61 - @54, 55: Darn it, I had a good spotted owl rant all dialed up, too! *chuckle*