So with your reasoning, we should abondon the police forces because, after all, criminals do get away once in a while. My suggestion is that we don't dump the entire system just because it has some flaws.
I'm not exactly sure how many times I have to say that I think that defense is the one role of the government. I believe in having police, though I do recognize them as often being less than ideal.
Conceptually I agree with you. I would also like it if physicians were always kind and considerate to one another and the staff. I could go on and on with my wishes. Wishes aside, the current system is workable and provides us with excellent physicians for the most part. Physicians also have a decent career and aren't wondering if they will have a job when they do make it through.
Yes, though the current system is very expensive. I've never said that everything is horrible, but I see the current suggestions in California as a dangerous road that will take some of the serious flaws in the system and make them potentially fatal.
In the U.S. people die or are injured every day in preventable industrial accidents and you will almost never hear about these accidents unless the fireball is so atomic in size that the company cannot hide it (which is partly why these facilities are often in the middle of nowhere). Unless you've been in the business and seen these accidents with your own eyes, like I have, you would never know about them. One particularly memorable call to a company I did a lot of work with went something like this: we did this and that (totally misusing this company's industrial product) and next thing you know it was raining fire at our plant ... and right now we have every person is out there with a firehose trying to contain the blaze. This incident never made the news. .......
I just cut off the bottom of this because it was too long to repost.
I've actually worked in the business and seen accidents. I did warehouse labor in the shipping department of a factory that produced car speakers, landscaping, and I even had a stint at Home Depot (which was admittedly not very accident prone, though I was almost killed by a forklift once). The thing about these companies, is that no one is enslaved to work for them. They do it as a choice. People, and companies, have to weigh the risk and benefits of certain courses of action all of the time. It's not that I don't want people to be safe at work. It's that the determination of how safe is safe, and how safe is necessary are not single-handed, and they shouldn't be decided by the government.
When you talk about preventable, these things have a cost of prevention. Every dollar spent on prevention lowers total productivity, lowers efficiency, and lowers the quality of life in terms of higher prices for all of the people who use a product. There are plenty of good arguments for prevention as well. You know them, and I won't bother to re-write them. However, there has to be a balance, and a worker has to determine whether that balance suits him when he takes a job with a company. If he feel endangered, he should quit and find new work. If he can't find new work, then one has to argue whether current market conditions allow for different working conditions in his industry, and whether the economic reality of things really makes "preventable" accidents preventable.
Phillips was actually a pretty good company by comparison ... by far not the worst. The bottom line for too many companies is their bottom line. There are millions of dollars to be made, and a few dozen workers lives will be sacrificed to achieve this goal.
Your argument assumes that workers are powerless. They are not. Unless you are talking about a military draft (which for some reason is allowed to violate our constitutional ban on involuntary servitude), no one has even argued that private slavery should be legal in this country for 50 years. These lives put themselves in harms way. If the company intentionally lied about working conditions, then they committed fraud, and that is the crime that should be prosecuted. That is a violation of the rights of the individual who was lied to. If the worker knew the job was dangerous however, that was a choice.
When was the last time your tax return blew up and started a massive inferno with several people dead and dozens injured?
All of the people who can't afford healthcare due to hospital pseudo-monopolies enforced by a police force funded by my tax dollars come to mind. Of course, if you really need an example, please turn on the TV and watch the war in Iraq, where over 100 times as many Americans have died as all of the industrial accidents you mentioned, and the economic cost is more per day than the grand total of all the losses that you mentioned.
If healthcare was run like these industrial companies (some say we are already experiencing that to an unacceptable extent) ... more or less by the free market with people who have few government regulated requirement compared to healthcare, the cost to human life and injury would be enormous and unacceptable to most Americans.
Then they would pay a premium for safer conditions, and the company that was safer would make more money and put the others out of business. Competition can occur with lower prices or higher quality. We live in a world that supports McDonald's and Steak Houses.
Yes, could argue that these explosions happened despite extensive government regulations. While the government does heavily regulate these industries, it is pretty clear that what our society expects from these companies and what the company would like to do are often not aligned because it can be hard to compete in a market and the temptations to cut corners are huge. Also, in comparing our facilities to facilities overseas where the government is much more lax, the work-related injuries and effect on the neighboring population in birthdefects and serious health issues are the price that the population pays. As bad as we have it here, others with minimal government have it much much worse.
Because society is a collection of individuals, it cannot expect anything. What you really mean is that many people within society expect regulation. You may be right, but I believe that it is irrelevant. They are still intruding on a willing contract between two individuals, and that violated the fundamental rights of property AND association.
The other countries you are talking about have other problems. Causing birth defects in the population IS aggression against those populations, and the companies should be held accountable. This is NOT because of the danger or lack of it, but because the companies violated the rights of the individuals who DID NOT choose to be involved with the company.
Someone who has toxic waste leak into their water without their knowledge, drinks it, and has an unhealthy child HAS BEEN WRONGED. Their rights have been violated. Defending them IS a valid role of government, but it is because they did not CHOOSE to associate with the company involved, and were not given the right to choose to take the risks that they took.
[QUOTE}
Have you followed the oil spills related to the Alaska pipeline? When BP didn't like the inspection results they saw, they just stopped inspecting altogether. Even after several environmental spills the company seems to be doing very little, and what it is doing is being driven by the action of government.[/QUOTE]
This is actually a problem of a lack of private property. It falls under the law of the commons. Because nobody owns the area that these spills occur in, no one cares to take care of it. In fact, if oil companies actually owned the places that they drill, rather than leasing it from the government, they would have MUCH larger incentives to protect it.
Companies provide work situations where people are killed or injured all the time and no one really gives a flip except the government in some cases, because the amount of cash to be made is huge by avoiding the expense of a safe operation and the downside is very small by comparison. Without the government's role, we would be living in a toxic swamp and we would have a lot more amputees running around.
Not if private property rights were enforced. Your house would only be a toxic swamp if you chose to let it become so.
Also realize that there are ways to stop a company without getting the government involved at all. If people were REALLY unhappy, rather than complaining that the government should do something, they will stop buying your product. A boycott can do more damage to a company than a regulation. If people keep buying the product, even by your own arguments, they must not REALLY disapprove of the companies operations enough to not take what they are selling.
Although government regulators are often fairly weak, I have seen them save lives on numerous occasions by forcing companies to make corrections. The public often never knew about the issue, and, even if they did, could do absoutely nothing about it without the government's role.
There is also no reason why a company, for public relations, couldn't subject itself to a private quality control third party. If people really are in favor of this, they will support the company for doing so. If you argue that they could pay off the company, this can already be done with government officials. A company cannot survive without support from the workers and the people. The public controls the fate of a company. They will only sacrifice lives for lower prices if the public willingly buys the products.
Ah, no. There are opportunities to influence the government. You mentioned Miami. Do any close election counts come to mind ... something close to Miami? Maybe you have followed Florida elections where candidates were elected by the slimmest of margins? Votes really do count more than you are making it out to be. If you want to do more than vote, you can also get involved in the political parties themselves or lobby lawmakers directly. No, it isn't easy, but it's much easier than controlling what a private company does, which is effectively impossible without government intervention.
I'm not saying that we didn't influence the 2000 election. I said that the choice was a false one. Both choices were bad. In the 2004 election, my candidate was excluded from all national debates, he wasn't allowed to fundraise effectively due to campaign finance reform (easy to get around if you are DEM or REP, hard if you are LIB and don't have expensive lawyers), and he had to compete against the major parties that used MY tax dollars to compete AGAINST my candidate.
[QUOTE[
Yeah, well, the constitution continued legal slavery as well and didn't give women the right to vote either, so I would be careful in using the constitution as a gold standard. It was a document created by bright thinkers and was very well done, but it had mortal flaws that thankfully were correct by brilliant minds throughout our Nation's history. If you don't like what the "mob" has to say about your personal freedoms, try living in another country instead. Maybe you should try Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Somalia and report back. Maybe if you get attacked by a real mob and publicly beaten for your lack of conformity you'll appreciate the freedoms we do have here. For the average person, America is about as good as it gets when it comes to freedom and quality of life. You seem very unappreciative of what you have here.[/QUOTE]
1. We have a method to amend the constitution. I have a philosophy about what it should say, but I am not using it as perfect. I do think that our laws should follow it, and if a law is in violation of the constitution, it should be abolished.
2. I never said that I didn't appreciate what I had. That doesn't mean that I won't fight to keep it. It also doesn't mean that I won't fight to make things better.
3. I agree that the average American has it best. I believe that it is a DIRECT result of the freedoms we do have and the amount of capitalism in the economy. I want to keep it that way. I believe what I believe, because I do appreciate what I have, and I would hate to see it disappear. As I said before, I stay here because this country most closesly resembles my ideals compared to any other option.
As was said by George Bernard Shaw (ironic because he was a socialist)- "A reasonable man adapts to the world around him, while an unreasonable man expects the world to adapt to him. Therefore, all progress is made by unreasonable men." I may have not quoted that perfectly, but the idea is the same.
My guess is that it has been a little while since a thug robbed you on the street or you wouldn't be talking like that. They are vastly different experiences and no one I know who has experienced a life-threatening experience involving armed robbery would ever dream of comparing it to filing a tax return and writing a check for $20,000 or whatever to Uncle Sam. Being robbed at gun-point is a truly life changing experience that people who have been through it would never trivialize or compare cutting a check or having taxes withheld the way you have done so here.
As they say, give the robber what he wants. The only reason that the guns haven't come for me, is because I give Uncle Sam EVERYTHING he asks for. I break no laws. I pay my taxes. I'm sure that if you talked to someone who failed an IRS audit or ran afoul of the FBI, that their experience would seem eerily similar to the thug scenario. My father-in-law is an attorney, and he could tell you about more than one case where a person had guns drawn on them by the government. I can even give you some local cases where police officers DID kill people who hadn't even violated a law, and nothing happened to them.
So, you're more comfortable taking on the local Sheriff and his deputees than Federal Agents? I wouldn't give you one in a million odds in being able to take on either one successfully. Most of your interaction with government (sales taxes and the like) is already local. One hyperactive local city council can make your life very unpleasant.
Yep, but I could move on to the other side of the bridge, maintain my community and education, and never deal with them again. This is also less than ideal, but the one crazy councilman can do far less damage than one crazy president. I'm realistic, and I don't think we'll see a utopia. However, this councilman has probably violated my rights, and a more local government would allow for me to have a better chance of getting laws passed that have more checks and balances.
Europeans have indeed voted to centralize government among their countries to create the EU. They did this to compete and improve their economic situation and quality of life. The EU has been a huge success in this regard. One thing it has done has enabled Europeans to eliminate the many different currencies, the exchange of which was costing the economies a lot of money every year for basically nothing and leaving individual countries vulnerable to exchange rate swings. On the legal front it has enabled them to take on the likes of Microsoft and making sure that large multinationals are held accountable to the standards that Europe wants and benefit them (this would have been much much more difficult for the smaller individual states). However, you also trivialize the role of local government in Europe. You can rest assured that Europeans have a long history of strong local government across the continent ... with some cities (relatively small by our standards) having a city-state tradition considerable local power. A lot of that kind of local power has been eliminated because it was ineffective, inefficient, and, at times, unfair. Europeans have realized the benefit of coordinating economic, educational, and military efforts, and the EU has been doing quite a bit in this regard to protect European interests in a way that the individual member states would have a difficult time accomplishing.
You're mixing two things. Common trade, without government barriers, is capitalism, and that has helped them. I'm not sure that things like taking on Microsoft have. This is a REALLY long and complicated topic. I'll just say that the capitalism that has grown under the EU has masked what is becoming a rapid centralized takeover of European policy. Give it time, the EU WILL shoot down the open border capitalism it was created for in order to solidify central planning. Either that, or it will decentralize.
Closer to home ... have you ever dealt with a homeowners association gone awry? That's local "government" of sorts, and, oh boy, can it get nasty. I wouldn't wish a nutty homeowners association on my worst enemy. I know people who were essentially forced to move because they got into a fight with the homeowners association. If you think that such local "government" is somehow less likely to interfere with your property, you are missing a lot of experiences that I have seen too often. I realize that the homeowners assocation is not the same thing as a government, but it acts a little bit like a government and is about as local as you can get. A nutty small town government would not be any better. I'm glad that there is a federal government that can step in when the local mayor starts buying votes to get re-elected.
I actually said that there was less that a local government could do to interfere with my property, not that they wouldn't try hard to. If the local government violates the proper role of government, they also will create problems. People by and large continue to vote for *****s. However, this local government is also unjust. The difference is, that a local government gone wrong violates the rights of a few individuals, in a relatively small space, with relatively easy escape. A national government gone wrong is a lot more difficult. I still argue that ALL government should exist to protect individual rights. State or local.
As to homeowner's associations. I've never bought a home that came under one, because I hate mini-communes. They are a flagrant example of why the government no one nitpick people's property. though in this case, people gave up their property rights by choice, and I am not hurt by it. I did once leave an apartment complex due to management issues.
You are fighting American culture and values here. You might think that Americans have no social obligation to provide health care to the poor who are unable to afford it, but most Americans think we do have a least a minimal care obligation. How many votes did the Libertarian party get in recent election? 3%? You are part of a small fringe group that is out of step with the mainline culture. In order for your ideas to be implemented, your opinion would need to prevail over the other ~97% of the population, which would be well beyond unfair. There are probably more racists in this country than Libertarians, and I don't think we should cater to either group. Idealisticly, I would agree with Libertarians that everyone should take responsibility for paying for their health, food, shelter and so on, but from what I can tell, this would take us in the wrong direction toward a society similar to that of the 3rd world where a few rich families rule the roost and millions of others are lucky if they have running water.
First of all, I don't want to tell the other 97% what to do AT ALL. If they all want to start a charity organization that gives care to the poor, that's fine. I might even contribute. My problem is they want to tell ME what to do with my property. It is my right to be out of step. (By the way, it's more than 3% who agree, because we are not all libertarians who agree on this issue).
I don't think that we should cater to racists or stop them, unless they violate other people's rights. Being racist is an irrational choice, as you exclude yourself from all beneficial encounters with people of a specific race. The person most often hurt (where property is protected) is the racist.
ALL major 3rd world countries have corrupt governments. I've been there and seen them. That is the problem. In these places, the rich get rich BY violating property rights and stealing through the government. That is precisely what I do not want to happen here, but it IS what will happen if we continue down the road that this bill takes us on.
I was on a medical mission trip to a formerly communist third world country this last spring. They had a universal healthcare system, but they had no running water in most of the houses. In fact, their system was so bad, that the doctors went on strike, and we were the only game in town when we arrived. Corruption was the problem, and no amount of Universal Healthcare fixed it.
Sure, I took a brief look at it. There are similar arguments to what we have discussed here. Here is a comment from one of your readers:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33603150&postID=116145205194367406
"Society changes and shouldn't the law and government change with it? Certainly the other way around would be no good.
Also, the concept of a free market works wonderfully for most things. But healthcare is fundamentally unlike most things. It is a matter of life and death. It can be catastrophic and completely unexpected, and last a lifetime. It can stop a person from working, from functioning, change their life 180 degrees. Things like housing and food are considered part of rights because society has changed HOW we live. We live in houses and eat a certain amount to be considered healthy. We have certainly changed, like you mentioned, how we treat illness. And society/law should change with it."
As I would reply to this reader, that is EXACTLY why healthcare should be a part of the free market. The market does a better job of creating a quality product that any other system. Healthcare is no different than other things on the market. Engineers, Car makers, etc... make life and death decisions ALL THE TIME. I agree that we should adapt, but I find the suggestion of a government mandated universal healthcare scheme to be Maladaptive. That is a change that we should not take.
