I’ve been very busy recently, so I haven’t been able to comment on this… but, let’s get this party started!
First of all, I am disappointed that this is not Moore vs. Paul, and it’s Larry King interpreting Moore vs. Paul instead.
Paul: “It’s a fallacy to say that people have a right to somebody else’s services. You have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, and you have a right to earn a living–You ought to have a right to keep it, but you have a responsibility to take care of yourself.”
Who can disagree with that?… The problem here the interpretation of “a right to your life”. If you have hereditary diseases, is it the person’s fault they developed? It’s pretty safe to say that everyone wants to be healthy. Who enjoys having a cold, or going for radiation treatment? Sure, you have a responsibility to take care of yourself, but what if you can’t afford to?
The ambulance argument is stupid. Larry King needs to start asking some real questions because libertarians love talking about how we give away “free health insurance” in the ER.
—2 minute mark – corporatism vs. capitalism
Here’s what Larry should have asked:
Does capitalism not lead to corporatism?
–swine flu vaccine problems
People are dying; that’s not a problem? The flu will kill more people, but it’s not a problem yet. The seasonal flu has not struck. The stupid thing is that people are panicking and/or refusing the vaccine. High-risk groups need the shot. If you’re not high-risk, then it’s business as usual.
One thing about vaccines people don’t realize: anyone can be a carrier. If you don’t get vaccinated, you could infect a child that has not reached the proper age to have the vaccine (i.e. you could kill babies). So, if you’re around kids, you need to get vaccinated if possible.
Of course, that’s not to say some doctors don’t give too many vaccinations and drugs out. That’s another problem. Not all vaccinations are necessary and not every little sniffle deserves medicine.
Paul: “If he doesn’t like we have, he has to look what we’ve been doing for 30 or 40 years.
Paul: “It’s a fallacy to say that people have a right to somebody else’s services.”
Andrew “Who can disagree with that?”
- He was responding to Michael Moore when he said that universal health care is everyone right. If you side with Moore on this then you are saying that people have a right to health care services provided by someone other then yourself.
“Sure, you have a responsibility to take care of yourself, but what if you can’t afford to?”
- So you don’t have the right so someone else’s services unless you can’t afford them?
I don’t believe free capitalism leads to corporatism. In my ideal society you wouldn’t have government subsidies and regulations that favor large corporations.
Ron Paul was asked this question in the Jon Stewart video a few posts back.
“People are dying; that’s not a problem? The flu will kill more people, but it’s not a problem yet. The seasonal flu has not struck. The stupid thing is that people are panicking and/or refusing the vaccine. High-risk groups need the shot. If you’re not high-risk, then it’s business as usual.”
- Not quite sure what your point is here. Ron Paul was giving an example of how government is inefficient and that the free market would do much better. Nothing to do with whether we need it or not.
“One thing about vaccines people don’t realize: anyone can be a carrier. If you don’t get vaccinated, you could infect a child that has not reached the proper age to have the vaccine (i.e. you could kill babies). So, if you’re around kids, you need to get vaccinated if possible.”
- This could very well be true but I don’t think that justifys the government making decisions an individual should be making. With freedom comes risks.
Paul: “If he doesn’t like we have, he has to look what we’ve been doing for 30 or 40 years.
- Right after he said that he listed a few things that I don’t think Michael Moore talks about. You are correct that Moore does look at history but Ron was talking about how the government involved has caused these problems.
I think they both agree that what we have now is a problem but they both have different reasons and solutions for our current problems.
Corporatism is the problem and would not exist in a free society where government doesn’t have the right to intervene and distort the market.
The solution is not more government intervention it’s much less.
Also note that Ron Paul said that free care was also given back in the day. But it was at the free will of the person/organization giving it.
Paul: “It’s a fallacy to say that people have a right to somebody else’s services.”
Andrew “Who can disagree with that?”
Dave “He was responding to Michael Moore when he said that universal health care is everyone right. If you side with Moore on this then you are saying that people have a right to health care services provided by someone other then yourself.”
I guess it’s a matter of definition here. When I hear “right to someone else’s services”, I think of using someone else’s car to go to work, borrowing a neighbor’s lawnmower without asking, or telling a neighbor’s maid to come over and clean your house because it’s dirtier. In my mind, giving to a shared pool of money through taxes and then having services provided to the people who need them isn’t taking someone else’s services; Instead, it’s using money to protect, defend, advance and provide basic needs to our citizens.
Not quite sure what your point is here. Ron Paul was giving an example of how government is inefficient and that the free market would do much better. Nothing to do with whether we need it or not.
I understand what you’re saying– but, he did make one quick comment about the seasonal flu killing more people. He seemed to blow it off.
Corporatism is the problem and would not exist in a free society where government doesn’t have the right to intervene and distort the market.
The rest of Paul’s interview is just free market talking points. I have to laugh when Larry cuts Paul off when he starts spinning his wheels into a tirade. It’s my belief that unfettered capitalism leads to corporatism.
One question, as I start digging into Economics in One Lesson, would monopoly law be eliminated in a free market system? Has a successful free market system existed without monopolies? Don’t monopolies equal corporatism?
I consider healthcare a service and to say that someone has a right to healthcare that is the same as the right of someone else’s services.
How would unfettered capitalism lead to corporatism?
I believe monopoly law would also have to be eliminated. What would stop an ambitious person from coming up with a better product or the same product at a better price? I don’t mind if companies get big but only if they are getting big because they offer the best product at the best price and the best customer service. Any company lacking in any way could be beat by a company that can do it better.
I consider healthcare a service and to say that someone has a right to healthcare that is the same as the right of someone else’s services.
That’s the root of our disagreement (hey, at least we found it!). At this point, I don’t think we convince each other. From my understanding, your view is that in a true free market, everyone would have affordable care. I think that sounds great, but the free market would not ensure that everyone has quality health care. History has shown that immunization and preventative care will lead to increased life expectancies. If we let some US citizens go without health care, it actually endangers us all. For example, if some children are not vaccinated, they could infect children that have not reached the suggested age to be vaccinated. Also, diseases would spread more rapidly because they would be harder to contain.
What would stop an ambitious person from coming up with a better product or the same product at a better price?
A monopoly. The best, and most famous, example of a monopoly not enabled by legislation is Standard Oil (Rockefeller). Monopolies are not prevented by the free market. Monopolies prevent competition.
We may or may not be more safe from disease spreading in a free society when people have the option to vaccinate or not.
We could also assume that shaking hands spreads disease. Why not make shaking hands illegal? People would be a little less free but it would benefit the health of the population.
“A monopoly. The best, and most famous, example of a monopoly not enabled by legislation is Standard Oil (Rockefeller). Monopolies are not prevented by the free market. Monopolies prevent competition.”
I don’t think he is the only one with oil. And even if he owned most of the oil what right is it of a third party (government) to say to a private individual that they must give up a portion of their oil to someone else?
We may or may not be more safe from disease spreading in a free society when people have the option to vaccinate or not.
The choice is not the issue. I believe in choice as well. The issue is whether or not people can afford healthcare or not in a “free market” system. I would argue that it shouldn’t even come to that, since a lot of diseases are genetic and, even if citizens act irresponsibly in regards to their health, the government has a duty to protect its citizens from disease. For example, smokers largely do not care about their health, and its government’s duty to protect us from the proven dangers of second-hand smoke.
Obviously, banning shaking hands would be ludicrous but there are actually things that we could do along those lines… I would personally like to see regulations for hands-free operation of sinks, hand-dryers, doors, and soap dispensers in bathrooms. I was a huge fan of the relatively recent implementation of sanitation scores in MA of restaurants (MA was actually very far behind in doing this. Surprisingly, NC has had sanitation grades for a long time).
Well, Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 under monopoly law. In 1890, they controlled 88% of refined oil flows in the US. Free market advocates argue that Standard Oil was actually a good monopoly. But, I would argue that you should look at history and you would see that they were broken up because of shady practices. Shady practices, while not required by a monopoly, are often undertaken by monopolies so that they can control the marketplace and earn more profits (in a capitalist system).
I do like capitalism though–Paul is right that we all don’t like corporatism. However, I would argue that unfettered capitalism naturally leads to corporatism. I would not dismiss the fact that government can also encourage corporatism. I think that’s pretty apparent as well.
So, basically, I would argue for continuing our mix of regulated capitalism with socialism. I don’t think there’s any debate whether parts of the government have been, and are, corrupt. But, I would argue for reform rather than radical anarchist-esque libertarian practices.
“The choice is not the issue. I believe in choice as well. The issue is whether or not people can afford healthcare or not in a “free market” system. I would argue that it shouldn’t even come to that, since a lot of diseases are genetic and, even if citizens act irresponsibly in regards to their health, the government has a duty to protect its citizens from disease. For example, smokers largely do not care about their health, and its government’s duty to protect us from the proven dangers of second-hand smoke.”
I believe that health care would be much more affordable in a free market.
I don’t know what you mean by it shouldn’t even come to that.
I am not sure of your point but I agree that we should be protected from second hand smoke as well. I see that as entrenching on my right of clean air.
“I would personally like to see regulations for hands-free operation of sinks, hand-dryers, doors, and soap dispensers in bathrooms. I was a huge fan of the relatively recent implementation of sanitation scores in MA of restaurants (MA was actually very far behind in doing this. Surprisingly, NC has had sanitation grades for a long time).”
This sounds like a good idea but I don’t like how it implicitly bans other types of sinks. It is interfering with the free hand of the market. I think the market will always make better decisions in the long run verses politicians.
“Well, Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 under monopoly law. In 1890, they controlled 88% of refined oil flows in the US. Free market advocates argue that Standard Oil was actually a good monopoly. But, I would argue that you should look at history and you would see that they were broken up because of shady practices. Shady practices, while not required by a monopoly, are often undertaken by monopolies so that they can control the marketplace and earn more profits (in a capitalist system).”
I guess a good monopoly would be where the price is very low and the quality is very high. If the oil company did anything illegal then it should be punished. In a free market I don’t think there would be no laws. I am not an anarchist. I think laws against fraud are good and protect people.
“I do like capitalism though–Paul is right that we all don’t like corporatism. However, I would argue that unfettered capitalism naturally leads to corporatism. I would not dismiss the fact that government can also encourage corporatism. I think that’s pretty apparent as well.”
How would corporations become so powerful without the aid of government? How would corporatism develop from a free market society?
I don’t know what you mean by it shouldn’t even come to that.
My argument is that we shouldn’t hedge our bets on a free-market system providing affordable health care for all. Also, I was continuing my argument that health insurance should be provided by the government, since it will keep the public healthier and not hurt individuals/families that have rare illnesses/diseases they couldn’t prevent against.
I am not sure of your point but I agree that we should be protected from second hand smoke as well. I see that as entrenching on my right of clean air.
But, one could argue that it entrenches on one’s right to smoke. There are two sides to every coin.
This sounds like a good idea but I don’t like how it implicitly bans other types of sinks. It is interfering with the free hand of the market. I think the market will always make better decisions in the long run verses politicians.
How is it different than banning second-hand smoke or requiring food workers to wear hairnets and gloves? Hands-free bathroom facilities would help curb diseases.
My idea is to ban other types of faucets, and only in public spaces. Hands-free faucets and water fountains everywhere (even at home) would be great… there just needs to be a way to gesture to control pressure too when you require it.
I guess a good monopoly would be where the price is very low and the quality is very high. If the oil company did anything illegal then it should be punished. In a free market I don’t think there would be no laws. I am not an anarchist. I think laws against fraud are good and protect people.
I agree.
How would corporations become so powerful without the aid of government? How would corporatism develop from a free market society?
By controlling the marketplace in an area. I think a lot of modern companies have organically evolved that could become a monopoly if it wasn’t for government regulations preventing them from doing so… Google is one example. Though, I would argue that they are already a monopoly in online advertising. Sirius/XM is another example, but I don’t view them as a bad monopoly since there is still competition from FM/AM/digital audio devices.
I think that Google and Sirius/XM were in the right place at the right time. They embraced a new technology early in order to create their respective monopoly.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I’ve been very busy recently, so I haven’t been able to comment on this… but, let’s get this party started!
First of all, I am disappointed that this is not Moore vs. Paul, and it’s Larry King interpreting Moore vs. Paul instead.
Who can disagree with that?… The problem here the interpretation of “a right to your life”. If you have hereditary diseases, is it the person’s fault they developed? It’s pretty safe to say that everyone wants to be healthy. Who enjoys having a cold, or going for radiation treatment? Sure, you have a responsibility to take care of yourself, but what if you can’t afford to?
The ambulance argument is stupid. Larry King needs to start asking some real questions because libertarians love talking about how we give away “free health insurance” in the ER.
—2 minute mark – corporatism vs. capitalism
Here’s what Larry should have asked:
Does capitalism not lead to corporatism?
–swine flu vaccine problems
People are dying; that’s not a problem? The flu will kill more people, but it’s not a problem yet. The seasonal flu has not struck. The stupid thing is that people are panicking and/or refusing the vaccine. High-risk groups need the shot. If you’re not high-risk, then it’s business as usual.
One thing about vaccines people don’t realize: anyone can be a carrier. If you don’t get vaccinated, you could infect a child that has not reached the proper age to have the vaccine (i.e. you could kill babies). So, if you’re around kids, you need to get vaccinated if possible.
Of course, that’s not to say some doctors don’t give too many vaccinations and drugs out. That’s another problem. Not all vaccinations are necessary and not every little sniffle deserves medicine.
He hasn’t been looking? http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/capitalism-love-story
He spends a good amount of time in his latest film explaining how today’s wealth gap was caused.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Paul: “It’s a fallacy to say that people have a right to somebody else’s services.”
Andrew “Who can disagree with that?”
- He was responding to Michael Moore when he said that universal health care is everyone right. If you side with Moore on this then you are saying that people have a right to health care services provided by someone other then yourself.
“Sure, you have a responsibility to take care of yourself, but what if you can’t afford to?”
- So you don’t have the right so someone else’s services unless you can’t afford them?
I don’t believe free capitalism leads to corporatism. In my ideal society you wouldn’t have government subsidies and regulations that favor large corporations.
Ron Paul was asked this question in the Jon Stewart video a few posts back.
“People are dying; that’s not a problem? The flu will kill more people, but it’s not a problem yet. The seasonal flu has not struck. The stupid thing is that people are panicking and/or refusing the vaccine. High-risk groups need the shot. If you’re not high-risk, then it’s business as usual.”
- Not quite sure what your point is here. Ron Paul was giving an example of how government is inefficient and that the free market would do much better. Nothing to do with whether we need it or not.
“One thing about vaccines people don’t realize: anyone can be a carrier. If you don’t get vaccinated, you could infect a child that has not reached the proper age to have the vaccine (i.e. you could kill babies). So, if you’re around kids, you need to get vaccinated if possible.”
- This could very well be true but I don’t think that justifys the government making decisions an individual should be making. With freedom comes risks.
Paul: “If he doesn’t like we have, he has to look what we’ve been doing for 30 or 40 years.
Andrew: “He hasn’t been looking? http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/capitalism-love-story”
- Right after he said that he listed a few things that I don’t think Michael Moore talks about. You are correct that Moore does look at history but Ron was talking about how the government involved has caused these problems.
I think they both agree that what we have now is a problem but they both have different reasons and solutions for our current problems.
Corporatism is the problem and would not exist in a free society where government doesn’t have the right to intervene and distort the market.
The solution is not more government intervention it’s much less.
Also note that Ron Paul said that free care was also given back in the day. But it was at the free will of the person/organization giving it.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I guess it’s a matter of definition here. When I hear “right to someone else’s services”, I think of using someone else’s car to go to work, borrowing a neighbor’s lawnmower without asking, or telling a neighbor’s maid to come over and clean your house because it’s dirtier. In my mind, giving to a shared pool of money through taxes and then having services provided to the people who need them isn’t taking someone else’s services; Instead, it’s using money to protect, defend, advance and provide basic needs to our citizens.
I understand what you’re saying– but, he did make one quick comment about the seasonal flu killing more people. He seemed to blow it off.
The rest of Paul’s interview is just free market talking points. I have to laugh when Larry cuts Paul off when he starts spinning his wheels into a tirade. It’s my belief that unfettered capitalism leads to corporatism.
One question, as I start digging into Economics in One Lesson, would monopoly law be eliminated in a free market system? Has a successful free market system existed without monopolies? Don’t monopolies equal corporatism?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I consider healthcare a service and to say that someone has a right to healthcare that is the same as the right of someone else’s services.
How would unfettered capitalism lead to corporatism?
I believe monopoly law would also have to be eliminated. What would stop an ambitious person from coming up with a better product or the same product at a better price? I don’t mind if companies get big but only if they are getting big because they offer the best product at the best price and the best customer service. Any company lacking in any way could be beat by a company that can do it better.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
That’s the root of our disagreement (hey, at least we found it!). At this point, I don’t think we convince each other. From my understanding, your view is that in a true free market, everyone would have affordable care. I think that sounds great, but the free market would not ensure that everyone has quality health care. History has shown that immunization and preventative care will lead to increased life expectancies. If we let some US citizens go without health care, it actually endangers us all. For example, if some children are not vaccinated, they could infect children that have not reached the suggested age to be vaccinated. Also, diseases would spread more rapidly because they would be harder to contain.
A monopoly. The best, and most famous, example of a monopoly not enabled by legislation is Standard Oil (Rockefeller). Monopolies are not prevented by the free market. Monopolies prevent competition.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
We may or may not be more safe from disease spreading in a free society when people have the option to vaccinate or not.
We could also assume that shaking hands spreads disease. Why not make shaking hands illegal? People would be a little less free but it would benefit the health of the population.
“A monopoly. The best, and most famous, example of a monopoly not enabled by legislation is Standard Oil (Rockefeller). Monopolies are not prevented by the free market. Monopolies prevent competition.”
I don’t think he is the only one with oil. And even if he owned most of the oil what right is it of a third party (government) to say to a private individual that they must give up a portion of their oil to someone else?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
The choice is not the issue. I believe in choice as well. The issue is whether or not people can afford healthcare or not in a “free market” system. I would argue that it shouldn’t even come to that, since a lot of diseases are genetic and, even if citizens act irresponsibly in regards to their health, the government has a duty to protect its citizens from disease. For example, smokers largely do not care about their health, and its government’s duty to protect us from the proven dangers of second-hand smoke.
Obviously, banning shaking hands would be ludicrous
but there are actually things that we could do along those lines… I would personally like to see regulations for hands-free operation of sinks, hand-dryers, doors, and soap dispensers in bathrooms. I was a huge fan of the relatively recent implementation of sanitation scores in MA of restaurants (MA was actually very far behind in doing this. Surprisingly, NC has had sanitation grades for a long time).
Well, Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 under monopoly law. In 1890, they controlled 88% of refined oil flows in the US. Free market advocates argue that Standard Oil was actually a good monopoly. But, I would argue that you should look at history and you would see that they were broken up because of shady practices. Shady practices, while not required by a monopoly, are often undertaken by monopolies so that they can control the marketplace and earn more profits (in a capitalist system).
I do like capitalism though–Paul is right that we all don’t like corporatism. However, I would argue that unfettered capitalism naturally leads to corporatism. I would not dismiss the fact that government can also encourage corporatism. I think that’s pretty apparent as well.
So, basically, I would argue for continuing our mix of regulated capitalism with socialism. I don’t think there’s any debate whether parts of the government have been, and are, corrupt. But, I would argue for reform rather than radical anarchist-esque libertarian practices.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
“The choice is not the issue. I believe in choice as well. The issue is whether or not people can afford healthcare or not in a “free market” system. I would argue that it shouldn’t even come to that, since a lot of diseases are genetic and, even if citizens act irresponsibly in regards to their health, the government has a duty to protect its citizens from disease. For example, smokers largely do not care about their health, and its government’s duty to protect us from the proven dangers of second-hand smoke.”
I believe that health care would be much more affordable in a free market.
I don’t know what you mean by it shouldn’t even come to that.
I am not sure of your point but I agree that we should be protected from second hand smoke as well. I see that as entrenching on my right of clean air.
“I would personally like to see regulations for hands-free operation of sinks, hand-dryers, doors, and soap dispensers in bathrooms. I was a huge fan of the relatively recent implementation of sanitation scores in MA of restaurants (MA was actually very far behind in doing this. Surprisingly, NC has had sanitation grades for a long time).”
This sounds like a good idea but I don’t like how it implicitly bans other types of sinks. It is interfering with the free hand of the market. I think the market will always make better decisions in the long run verses politicians.
“Well, Standard Oil was broken up in 1911 under monopoly law. In 1890, they controlled 88% of refined oil flows in the US. Free market advocates argue that Standard Oil was actually a good monopoly. But, I would argue that you should look at history and you would see that they were broken up because of shady practices. Shady practices, while not required by a monopoly, are often undertaken by monopolies so that they can control the marketplace and earn more profits (in a capitalist system).”
I guess a good monopoly would be where the price is very low and the quality is very high. If the oil company did anything illegal then it should be punished. In a free market I don’t think there would be no laws. I am not an anarchist. I think laws against fraud are good and protect people.
“I do like capitalism though–Paul is right that we all don’t like corporatism. However, I would argue that unfettered capitalism naturally leads to corporatism. I would not dismiss the fact that government can also encourage corporatism. I think that’s pretty apparent as well.”
How would corporations become so powerful without the aid of government? How would corporatism develop from a free market society?
I don’t think a mix is best.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am
My argument is that we shouldn’t hedge our bets on a free-market system providing affordable health care for all. Also, I was continuing my argument that health insurance should be provided by the government, since it will keep the public healthier and not hurt individuals/families that have rare illnesses/diseases they couldn’t prevent against.
But, one could argue that it entrenches on one’s right to smoke. There are two sides to every coin.
How is it different than banning second-hand smoke or requiring food workers to wear hairnets and gloves? Hands-free bathroom facilities would help curb diseases.
My idea is to ban other types of faucets, and only in public spaces. Hands-free faucets and water fountains everywhere (even at home) would be great… there just needs to be a way to gesture to control pressure too when you require it.
I agree.
By controlling the marketplace in an area. I think a lot of modern companies have organically evolved that could become a monopoly if it wasn’t for government regulations preventing them from doing so… Google is one example. Though, I would argue that they are already a monopoly in online advertising. Sirius/XM is another example, but I don’t view them as a bad monopoly since there is still competition from FM/AM/digital audio devices.
I think that Google and Sirius/XM were in the right place at the right time. They embraced a new technology early in order to create their respective monopoly.