« Cartoonin' | Main | Generation Overwhelmed »
October 22, 2007
Charity vs. Social Policy
I'm pretty sure Megan's just being snotty here when she says that "[liberals have] internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity." That said, I often run into conservative who believe some variant of "government programs=charity, so let's just do charity," so it's worth addressing.
Charity is just not a good metaphor for how liberals think about this stuff. Charity is good for the giver and, generally, good for the receiver. But it's not what you build your society upon. It's not reliable, or predictable, or particularly targetable. Indeed, very little philanthropy actually goes into the areas that social policy focuses on. And that's because it's not supposed to. Charity, rather often, is a way to demonstrate virtue or compassion. Social policy, at least in theory, is a way to try and fix a structural problem. The two cannot be swapped in for each other.
If I thought leaving all this up to rich people would work, I'd do that. It doesn't. But liberals view government instrumentally -- unlike conservatives or libertarians, its size, in the abstract, is of no particular interest. The choice of tool isn't a question of morality. Conservatives who think social policy is just an inefficient way to get the warm n' fuzzies they remember from that 1997 donation to LiveAid are shedding much light as to how they think about charity, but not much as to how liberals think about social policy.
October 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Dude, Live Aid was in 1985.
Posted by: Herschel | Oct 22, 2007 4:36:02 PM
advocating taxing other people
This is pernicious. Liberals of course include themselves among those eligible to be taxed -- unlike, say, neoconservatives who genuinely do prefer making other people pay the costs of the government policies they advocate.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 22, 2007 4:36:04 PM
Taxes are the membership fee you pay for living in a society that helps you acquire and retain wealth. It's not so much charity as an insurance policy against pitchforks and torches. If that sounds like a shakedown to snots like Megan, then tough. It's about time that the wealthy had a tangible reminder of why they ought to buy off the redistributive instincts of the poor.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Oct 22, 2007 4:46:31 PM
If charity were the solution, then sometime over the last 6000 years of civilization, charity would have solved that particular problem, and we would not now be having this conversation about implementing a government program to take care of it.
Charity seems to very effectively support cultural/ethnic communities, including language programs and cultural festivals for various immigrant communitiies. Furthermore, we do not find any structural problems caused when charity alone is unable to effectively keep these cultural groups alive. Therefore, liberals generally take no interest in "expanding government" in this case because charities are perfectly capable of supporting these institutions, and when charity fails, it does not create any national problems that the government has any interest in fixing.
There are plenty of examples we can come up with in which "charity" (that is, private, voluntary donations) is so successful that only the most self-interested policymaker would advocate an infusion of government money to support these institutions. It is only in situations where charity cannot make a significant dent in the overall problem that liberals call for a large scale, government-supported solution.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 22, 2007 4:51:42 PM
On the conservatives and charity idea, I'm reminded of what Ariana Huffington had to say:
"One of the definite changes in my thinking was born of the hard reality I confronted when I discovered how much easier it was raising money for the opera and fashionable museums than for at-risk children. So I came to recognize that the task of overcoming poverty will not be achieved without the raw power of government appropriations."
I have a longer quote on the same topic somewhere on my blog, but I don't have time to find it right now.
Posted by: david | Oct 22, 2007 4:56:49 PM
Conservatives who think social policy is just an inefficient way to get the warm n' fuzzies they remember from that 1997 donation to LiveAid are shedding much light as to how they think about charity, but not much as to how liberals think about social policy.
The people who donate money via a rock concert are most likely liberals... which means your example says a lot about what liberals think constitutes charity. Conservatives think of charity as things like giving at church, when the church then goes and runs a food bank, or a shelter, or something like that. They're not wrong. They're not even doing a bad thing. But you're right - that food bank or soup kitchen in the church basement doesn't substitute for a social policy. I think there is, though, a tension between the way the right thinks that some services can be delivered by good-hearted volunteers and the left feels these services would be better served by dedicated professionals. There's probably, really, some sort of compromise that entails doing both, but only when we can see the value in each. And I would add, as a paranthetical aside, that all of this underlines the wretched way we deal with the arts - while everyone is debating how best to feed the homeless, no one seems willing to spend the kind of government money or wealthy charitable donation needed to fund the arts (in all their depth and breadth) well enough in this country. As an example, when Altria splits up its tobacco business into mostly Phillip Morris International, all of Phillip Morris' arts contributions will stop. That's major money, and there seems to be no one to replace it. But even liberals seem to think that this need for money is handled well by private donations, and it's not.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 22, 2007 5:01:38 PM
I'm not being snotty, and that's a particularly unfair edit, since what I said was not "liberals have" but "we've already internalised . . . "
When someone characterizes a Republican or libertarian as "selfish" for opposing high taxes and social spending, they are committing the fallacy I've named. That's not the only reason that people support social policy, nor is machismo the only reason that people support war. But Democrats/progressives do, manifestly, more than occasionally claim the mantle of generosity for themselves and their ideas, when of course advocating taxing a rich class you aren't a member of is not generosity--nor is it selfishness when Julian or Will or I advocate lowering taxes on a group we don't belong to. We may be right or wrong on some other metric, but we are not deficient in virtue.
Posted by: Megan McArdle | Oct 22, 2007 5:09:36 PM
The odd thing is that some of the "what about charity" types claim to be religious conservatives ... it's odd, because in the Biblical world-view (the Hebrew Bible, at least), there really isn't much of a notion of "charity".
The closest one comes is "tzedekah", which is used by many of us Jewish types today to refer to charity, but that's not what "tzedekah" actually means. It actually means justice or righteousness. The idea is that wealth redistribution -- and social justice in general -- is a necessary part of justice. Indeed, in the theocracy of ancient Israel, ideally certain "gifts" in the sacrificial system, where really state mandated forms of wealth redistribution (you had to give certain tithes to the poor ... it wasn't a case of voluntary charity ... you had to let the poor glean your fields, etc.).
From a secular point of view, I'd say having to pay some redistributive taxes is a lot less of an imposition on liberty than the government requiring me to let poor people glean my crops, wouldn't y'all agree?
Posted by: DAS | Oct 22, 2007 5:14:59 PM
Do you really think that was an unfair edit? I can happily change it back to "we've," but since you don't think what you were saying there, it seemed clear you were talking about some other group, and I assumed it was people who supported tax raises, i.e, liberals. I'm happy to change it to some other word that denotes the group you're talking about.
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 22, 2007 5:22:08 PM
After all, we've already internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity.
That is an insult to the moral status of taxation.
Posted by: George Tenet Fangirl | Oct 22, 2007 5:26:37 PM
To respond to Megan and to clarify on her points: What Megan and I believe the vast majority of regressives/libertarians (same thing.) really would like to say if they could say it in a vacuum with no political repercussions is that they really don't want to pay any taxes at all. They us the derivative of "charitable giving" as a euphemism that gives a patina to there anti-socialism. What these people won't tell you is that they believe that it should be totally up to them to decide what percentage of "their" income they should be able to give to any cause that may address social ills or imbalances, and to what frequency. What they conveniently ignore or dismiss is the fact that nothing human operates in a vacuum and that "their" income is dependant upon the road that they drive on.Paid for by us all. The electrical grid set up by us all in it's infancy.The police that work to protect us all. And increasingly, the internet that was funded by us all in it's infancy.No Megan, logic belies your artful cum sophistic presentation, and those of your regressive ilk. And your unwillingness to face up to your ignorance to the fact that progressives want to address the inequality in opprotunity through the implementation of a fair tax system speaks to that.
Posted by: onlinesavant | Oct 22, 2007 5:41:24 PM
Well said, Megan. I would also add that Ezra seems to ignore the possibility that government interventions have crowded out private charity in the areas under review. His case might be stronger if organizations like the Red Cross and Hull House didn't predate government intervention.
Posted by: Fox | Oct 22, 2007 6:09:29 PM
Ezra seems to ignore the possibility that government interventions have crowded out private charity in the areas under review.
Yes, don't you see? Rich people were just about to give all their money to charity, right before the damn government swooped in and took it from them.
His case might be stronger if organizations like the Red Cross and Hull House didn't predate government intervention.
No, I think it's quite the opposite. Obviously such organizations didn't take care of the problem, did they?
Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 22, 2007 6:25:14 PM
I would also add that Ezra seems to ignore the possibility that government interventions have crowded out private charity in the areas under review.
Government intervention has never crowded out private charity, but has always been a response to a need because of private charity - especially religious organizations - dropping the ball.
Furthermore, government prgrams aren't actually solving all the problems in the world, and given the amount of money spent by Americans on things like video games and clothes for their pets, ISTM that we still have plenty of need and adequate resources for people who want to participate in charitable work. Whatever the tax "burden" may be, there's obviously a lot of disposable income being spent on non-essentials. Let's see these wonderful charities address the needs not covered by government programs first, and then perhaps liberals like me might be interested in scaling back government intervention.
I won't be holding my breath.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 22, 2007 6:27:53 PM
"""But it's not what you build your society upon. It's not reliable, or predictable, or particularly targetable"""
Of course you don't, you build your programs on poor smokers who you also spent tax money on trying to get them to quit. Yeah that makes so much more sense..
I would think if you look back at the building of our society over the past 300 years, it was in fact charity that helped build the society and not federal social programs.
In fact, people depending on a remote, uncaring federal bureuacrat was exactly what tore apart so many communities.
Of course the biggest difference between charity and federal programs is that the charities incentives are to actually lift people out of their current problems and give them a hand up. To get communities to work together to solve their problems, neighbor helping neighbor. Where as the federal programs are designed to get people pepetually dependent on the government and makes them not rely on each other, but rely on a promise by a politician to get re-elected..
So far the great federal programs have torn apart the black family, housed people in terrible conditions in government housing which had to be torn down all over the coutry as a terrible idea, and made millions of senior citizens beggars of the federal overseers, 'oh, please don't cut my social secuity, I'll have to eat dog food'. Yeah, way to lift people up.
Its even going to be more fun when you have to tell those 75 million seniors that you lied to them their whole lives and that big nest egg you've been saving up for them by confiscating it from their pay is going to be cut, cut, cut. That you were actually running a unworkable pyramid scheme that's about to come crashing down.
Posted by: Patton | Oct 22, 2007 6:30:23 PM
shorter Patton:
OMG! SOCIAL SECURITY IS A PYRAMID SCHEME BY THE ONE-WORLD NAZI JEW BANKERS FROM BENEATH THE HOLLOW EARTH TO ENSLAVE HUMANITY! ALSO, TIMECUBE!
Posted by: rageahol | Oct 22, 2007 6:34:49 PM
Jason, are you suggesting that the government has solved the problem, or that it is at least dealing with it so much more effectively that it can offset the deadweight losses associated with the taxes necessary to fund its operations?
Stephen, perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that no one should spend any money on video games or novelty items until the "essential" needs of every person have been met? If so, how do you define "essential?"
Posted by: Fox | Oct 22, 2007 6:38:15 PM
"""One of the definite changes in my thinking was born of the hard reality I confronted when I discovered how much easier it was raising money for the opera and fashionable museums than for at-risk children."""
Arianna Huff
Ohhh, why we must set up a huge federal program, Arianna found it to be too hard, she must have broke a nail or something. Maybe she was asking the wrong people..or is she saying the Kohls, Kerry's,
Kennedy's, Harmans, Corzines, Rockefellers, etc. all turned her down.
Posted by: Patton | Oct 22, 2007 6:38:54 PM
rageahol,
Sure you think its was such a great idea. But it use to be alot of senior citizens moved back in with their children, which also fixed alot of social problems, including reducing aeveryone's carbon footprint.
I guess we can thank the left for giving us 50 Million senior citizens, building their own houses, running their air conditioning, using power, water, etc. etc.
Ahh, love that global warming....
Posted by: Patton | Oct 22, 2007 6:48:02 PM
Someone who sez: we are not deficient in virtue. probably is, or doesn't know what it means, or both.
I'd sure like to know which things in 'the social commons' conservatives/libertarians think don't belong there - since we know some of them but not all. We can be pretty sure that individual health care, public health, public schools, postal service are on their 'out list'. Highways, fire depts, conducting elections, regulating workplace hazards, preserving the environment, administering the justice system, and insuring food and drug safety seem like they ought to be on their outlist, but they keep pretty mum about those.
How about a trade: progressives will support a military that is only paid by those who wish to pay for it, if libertarians and conservatives agree to admit healthcare to the list of public commons paid for by all through taxes. They can send their non-tax-deductible contributions direct to Blackwater.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 22, 2007 6:56:39 PM
I'll agree to no government programs like, oh, let's say socialized medicine (since we're always being told it can only be a disaster, never mind that every other developed nation in the world provides it to its citizens and can boast, among other things, lower infant mortality and obesity rates for their trouble) when the wingnuts agree to do away with the Socialized Military Industrial Complex.
(Which offer, by the way, is akin to my saying I won't buy that pair of Italian stilettos if you get rid of your Bugatti.)
Posted by: litbrit | Oct 22, 2007 7:14:02 PM
Stephen, perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you saying that no one should spend any money on video games or novelty items until the "essential" needs of every person have been met?
No. My point is that there are a bunch of needy people around and Americans with disposable income. There's opportunity and means for people to show that private charities work better than government - and plenty of evidence that government programs have neither "crowded out" private charities nor stripped people of the means to help if they so desire.
Video games and pet clothes are just examples of things that I'm pretty sure we all can agree aren't necessary and were just there to show that resources are available without making anyone forgo food for themselves or something similar.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 22, 2007 7:36:39 PM
"""Video games and pet clothes are just examples of things that I'm pretty sure we all can agree aren't necessary ""
I bet the people who feed, house and educate their children based on developing and selling video games and pet clothes think they are necessary.
You must not have children. Because if you took away my childs video game, he is absolutely sure he will die....
Maybe we could just post armed, jack booted, government thugs at video and pet supply stores to make sure no poor people buy these unnecessary items.
A quick boot to the throat and they'll think twice about that Christmas gift for Grandmas poodle.
Posted by: Patton | Oct 22, 2007 7:57:31 PM
This is simply absurd, as most of megan's statements are. Taxes are what I voluntarily pay for a great many social services and social necessities that the market would not provide, or would not provide to me in a timely and reliable manner. I don't think of taxes as something I try to have levied on other people. Are people in this country immutably in one tax bracket and never in another? I thought we were all so economically mobile and all quite likely to end up millionaires?
And I certainly don't think of taxes as a form of "charitable giving." In fact, I don't take "charitable deductions" because charitable giving is something that is distinct from the taxes I willingly pay as a member of a civilized society.
The utter contempt people like Megan show for the thought processes of other people astounds me. But its not really surprising. megan is *projecting*. She does things for social effect so she thinks the rest of us do too. She votes for war because she is afraid someone will call her a sissy, and she opposes taxes because she doesn't want to pay them. I, on the other hand, oppose war because I think its wrong, and I vote for taxes because I expect to pay them. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about what I do politically--certainly it would never occur to me to look for approval for my "charitable actions" from perfect strangers. So it would never occur to me that my ordinary political choices would be made with an eye to pleasing or impressing others. The whole of megan's perspective is based on this basic phoniness. She does nothing without wanting a return, nothing without wanting social approval. That really isn't true for the mature adults elsewhere in our society.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Oct 22, 2007 8:00:48 PM
Why on earth does anyone spend the time to talk about what Megan McArdle says? The observation that "we" think that taxation of other people is "morally akin to charity" is not meant seriously and not intended to be taken seriously. Who thinks this? Who ever said it? Why bother with her?
Posted by: bloix | Oct 22, 2007 8:25:19 PM
"conservatives have internalized the notion that sending other people's children off to wars is somehow morally akin to being tough and courageous themselves."
Posted by: kid bitzer | Oct 22, 2007 8:54:13 PM
It's irritating, because hidden deep underneath the utter, utter crap, Patton (wingnut true believer? GOP operative? classic troll?) actually makes a good point.
Granted, it's that the kind of society we take utterly and quite happily for granted is in large part a product of the welfare state (as well as the market); that the older model it replaced is one that, while liberals might recoil in horror from it and conservatives yearn for it (although there's actually a fair bit of crossover and ambiguity), a majority of both would find unbearably confining and claustrophobic, not to mention utterly unworkable in anything like our current situation - but still, and there are costs . . .
"Which offer, by the way, is akin to my saying I won't buy that pair of Italian stilettos if you get rid of your Bugatti.)
Wait, so if I keep the Bugatti, you'll buy that pair of Italian stilettos . . .?
(sorry, sorry, sorry, I just couldn't resist . . .)
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 22, 2007 9:19:27 PM
Maybe we could just post armed, jack booted, government thugs at video and pet supply stores to make sure no poor people buy these unnecessary items.
You have some real problems, the very least of which is that you completely failed to get my point.
You must not have children. Because if you took away my childs video game, he is absolutely sure he will die....
And my daughter, who loves to play on the computer, manages to live quite happily without doing it every single day. Maybe it's because I'm trying to teach her the difference between necessities and frivolities.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 22, 2007 9:29:13 PM
I'm a bit mystified about your remark that charity is a way to demonstrate virtue and compassion, while government policy is a way to fix problems. For one thing, if a charity isn't fixing anything, then nothing is demonstrated by giving to it. Moreover, though, this whole approach takes things to a sort of weird meta-level where people are motivated not by their prima facie motives, but by a desire to signal what their motives are (and the motives they want to signal resemble their prima facie motives).
If that's true of charitable giving, though, why not apply it to everything? I didn't really buy Conscience of a Liberal because I'd enjoy reading it; I just wanted to demonstrate my intellectual curiosity and interest in politics. I don't give to OxFam so that people in Peru would have cleaner water; I do it to demonstrate my compassion. I didn't vote for McCaskill so that the Democrats could (ideally) put an end to congressional enabling of corruption, pointless war, and curtailment of freedoms; I did it to demonstrate my concern about corruption, war, and curtailment of freedoms. I don't look at porn or read erotica because it's pleasurable; I do it to demonstrate my virile male horniness. You get the idea.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Oct 22, 2007 9:42:33 PM
Goddamnit! Where are people's social-democratic sensibilities?
Wealth is largely generated by workers and accumulated by owners (yes, my Marxism is the vulgar kind.)
Redistribution is justified as an act of restorative justice...returning wealth that is appropriated (or, more concretely, stolen) by the very structure of the wage system.
Posted by: Adrian | Oct 22, 2007 10:02:16 PM
Random thoughts
The Multual aid societies were not completely charities. They were part charity and part insurance.
Hospitals were once charitable operations.
Most charity is given to family members and friends.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 22, 2007 10:11:33 PM
Ezra seems to ignore the possibility that government interventions have crowded out private charity in the areas under review.Sounds to me like the market has spoken. Government outcompeted private charity and won favor of the consumers.
Posted by: Eric | Oct 22, 2007 10:36:16 PM
Every civilization in history has been, in one form or another, a tax empire. Call it tribute, call it bribes not to attack, but basically every modern civilization started out the same way-getting together a brute squad to coerce money out of people with the threat of violence, so they've got enough gold to pay the brute squad with a little left over. Rinse and repeat, from the Romans to the Mongols.
But what's really interesting is where civilizations go from there. Those civilizations with the highest marginal tax rates tend to be making investments in things that people actually want--roads, schools, healthcare.
Look at Haiti vs. France. Haiti has a very low tax burden--just low enough to pay the thugs. On the other hand, France has a very high tax rate.
I find it interesting that our society has progressed to a high enough marginal tax rate that we've gone beyond simply building things that have a clear and unambiguous collective return (like roads).
Megan thinks taxes are akin to charity. We are at the point where we're using our taxes to do things that obvious benefit for those least able to make enforceable demands through their social power.
That's a very advanced stage of civilization, when you're using your taxes to do that. It's interesting to see what the returns will be. The returns on roads are pretty good, and thus far the countries that invest the most in their people (Western Europe, the US) have done better the more they've done so.
Posted by: anonymiss | Oct 22, 2007 10:43:49 PM
anonymiss..
Theres also such a concept as 'bread and circuses'.. where all this show of an advanced civilization is just that, show. Where you are redistributing wealth that really isnt your to begin with, borrowed from creditors that you have no intention, or means to repay.
We sit there right now.. neither the wingnuts that want to pay for an endless military.. (yes we do need a fairly large one, but not an ever expanding one.) and the rest who want to realize a 'peace dividend' and take that same ill begotten money to spend it some other way.
..either way, we're living beyond our means. Its interesting how theres a belief in government spending solving all the ills of poverty.. hasnt worked yet. Theres been governments and taxes just as long as there have been charities, and neither has succeeded in eliminating poverty. Various countries (including ourselves) have versions that come about as close as has ever been, but we still havent gone all the way.
part of the problem relates to 2 different and incompatible beliefs about our nation. One side strongly believes that one should pull themselves up with a minimum of help and the other that its impossible to do so.. and why would you even try?
One common aim for both sets of people could be to remove unfair barriers to success.. racial prejudice, bad trade practices, predatory financial practices (credit cards).. If we can work on removing barriers we could have many more wealthy people no matter which philosophy they adhere to.
Posted by: david b | Oct 22, 2007 11:09:11 PM
Really, Patton paints a marvelous picture of what the GOP has to offer - one's elderly parents, due to financial necessity, being forced to move in and become dependent on their grown children, who themselves are grimly saving every penny against the chance that some accident or stroke of misfortune might take everything away, and in the hope that they won't end up the same .. .
(We're halfway there already, after all.)
"But liberals view government instrumentally . . . The choice of tool isn't a question of morality.
Lately I've been thinking that this sort of thing points to an even wider distinction between (certain kinds of) liberals and conservatives. Take the pregnant middle-schoolers issue up in Maine. You have folks who go, hey, middle schoolers getting pregnant, that's really messed up, we need to try to fix it, so let's - for starters, given that we can't just wish it away -make birth control available in the nurse's office, so in the extremely regrettable cases where this is happening, at least there's less chance of them getting pregnant, and having so much more to deal with. And then you have the folks who run about waving their arms around and yelling about SEX! SEX! and screeching that this is just sending the message that it's ok! Very different ways of looking at this - perhaps: what works, and what moral message is this sending, how can we make society reinforce proper (that is, our) values . . .
And take Patton's rhapsodic, vaseline-smeared-lens sparkly image of the cozy and upight Gemeinschaft - a thing more of moral aesthetics than real sociology or social policy, as such tightknit communities are incredibly vulnerable - generally chewed up and spit out - in the world of postindustrial capitalism. Of course, increasingly desperate and damaged, their members often find all too convenient answers as to who and what is ripping up the closeknit and vital fabric of their existence
Let me recommend again Doug Muder's fascinating essay Red Family, Blue Family:
" . . .Though a life of mutual dependence within a family circle was commonplace among members of Shawmut River and other new-right activists I met, it was foreign to people I knew in academia and the New Left, as well as to other educated professionals I knew. Most of us were prepared, from the moment we left home for college, to leave family dependencies behind and learn to live as self-governing individuals. This left us free to move from one city to another for graduate education or for those specialized jobs for which our training qualified us. In the process, we learned to piece together a meaningful life with new friends and colleagues alongside old ones. Our material security did not rest on a stream of daily reciprocities within a family-based circle of people known in common, but rather on the progression of professional careers, with steadily increasing salaries and ample benefits to cover whatever exigencies life would bring. . . .
(although that's just a big chunk of Ault he's quoting - the piece looks at the different values and systems of thought that springs from these different lives . . .
"One common aim for both sets of people could be to remove unfair barriers to success.. racial prejudice, bad trade practices, predatory financial practices (credit cards)..
Indeed! At least, we can hope so. For me, this is a large part of what modern liberalism should be, along with also helping people get access to tools of success that might be otherwise out of their reach.- education, etc.
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 22, 2007 11:34:49 PM
I have a question for all of you rotten bastards.
If I could buy the rest of my life from you motherfuckers for one lump sum, then what might it be?
Posted by: Billy Beck | Oct 23, 2007 12:06:28 AM
onlinesavant: you said none of "these people" will tell you "that they believe that it should be totally up to them to decide what percentage of 'their' income they should be able to give to any cause that may address social ills or imbalances, and to what frequency."
I'm just an email away, and that's exactly what I'll tell you.
But I think your quote is more a sign of you just not listening--or not wanting to hear.
Posted by: Ron Good | Oct 23, 2007 12:25:14 AM
So to sum up:
Charity is no fun because unlike government it doesn't allow you to control other people.
Got it.
Posted by: abw | Oct 23, 2007 12:30:21 AM
Charity is no fun because unlike government it doesn't allow you to control other people.
Yes, that's exactly right. Charities have NEVER required certain behaviors of the beneficiaries, and most especially religious charities have NEVER tried to control the beneficiaries.
Better class of troll, please.
Posted by: paperwight | Oct 23, 2007 12:50:57 AM
I imagine that abw was referring to control over the giver. After all, whether the giver wants to place stipulations on potential receivers is rightfully the business of the former.
Posted by: RWW | Oct 23, 2007 1:14:01 AM
Billy: the price is to you apparently zero -- it's your citizenship.
Seriously, move to Somalia.
Posted by: Francis | Oct 23, 2007 1:49:51 AM
"She votes for war because she is afraid someone will call her a sissy, and she opposes taxes because she doesn't want to pay them. I, on the other hand, oppose war because I think its wrong, and I vote for taxes because I expect to pay them. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about what I do politically--certainly it would never occur to me to look for approval for my "charitable actions" from perfect strangers."
...says Rugged Individualist Aimai, who conveniently fails to mention that he votes for taxes because he expects other people will be forced to pay them as well.
It's true, though, that theft is not charity.
Posted by: John Sabotta | Oct 23, 2007 1:51:32 AM
John Sabotta, meet Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. You two should have a lot to talk about.
Posted by: bloix | Oct 23, 2007 2:02:01 AM
Aside from pointing out to Proudhon that his asinine catchphrase "property is theft" led directly to the authoritarianism and repressive policies of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists - thus effectively negating and betraying everything left-anarchists supposedly stand for - I doubt there would be very much to discuss.
Posted by: John Sabotta | Oct 23, 2007 2:19:29 AM
Charity ain't justice.
Posted by: michael | Oct 23, 2007 3:08:16 AM
Francis, you dodged the question. How much would you take from him so he could live the rest of his life in peace on his own terms, minding his own business? That necessarily includes staying in his home, if that's what he wants.
Now—ask him the same question, with respect to your life.
When all the cards are on the table, it will be obvious which of you is the more ethical.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 3:09:25 AM
Incidentally, I'm not sure why the hell you toss out that ridiculous Somalia shibboleth, considering how Sharia law is far more brutal and authoritarian than what we've got here. It's beyond me why any of you numskulls think that land has much of anything to do with principled advocates of liberty.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 3:18:50 AM
Charity ain't justice.
Posted by: michael | Oct 23, 2007 3:25:05 AM
I spent a summer working for a homeless charity in Cali. Most common response "That's the government's job."
Lemme try to sum up again:
The ends justify the means.
Better?
Posted by: abw | Oct 23, 2007 4:28:49 AM
""""And my daughter, who loves to play on the computer, manages to live quite happily without doing it every single day. Maybe it's because I'm trying to teach her the difference between necessities and frivolities.
Posted by: Stephen"""
And when your daughter is not using the computer, do you let poor schlubs come in off the street to use it??
Do you take your computer to the homeless shelter, so the poor can track down on-line jobs?
So your saying a computer is a frivolity? You just saved us billions, because government buys billion and billion of dollars of this frivolity every year, and I don't think they should confiscate my money to spend on frivolities, therefore we can cut all that out of the budget...
But seriously, here is a good thing to teach your daughter.
You daughter works hard in school, you pay extra money for a tutor to help her make straight As, so she can get into a good school. She studies two hours a night and doesn't spend the weekends out with friends but on her frivilous computer studying.
She gets straight As! You are so proud. But then the government steps in and says, you know, not every child got straight As. And little Trevor's parents up the street are sad because Trevor got three Cs. Now granted Trevor never studies, he plays video games constantly and spends his weekends torturing small animals.
But the government decides to TAX your daughters A's and give some of that grade to Trevor. So they give her a B in each class Trevor got a C in and transfer that to Trevor and give him a B.
The college you want her to get into calls and says sorry, she's just not good enough or didn't work hard enough to get in to their school. They instead admit Trevor because he had the most improved grades!!
Now do you explain to your daughter that its the governments job to create equal outcomes regardless of peoples own hard work and dedication? That it was perfectly fair for the government to step in an tax away part of what she earned to give it to lazy Trevor?
That will teach her quite a lesson in what government actually does and not what it pretends to do.
Posted by: Patton | Oct 23, 2007 4:35:26 AM
If youthink about it, why are the good committed leftists only for confiscating and redistributing annual income?
Why not grades? I mean your daught should understand that if she got a good education, went to a good college, worked hard, applied herself, sure she could make lots of money, but whats the point, the governments going to take it away and give some to loser Trevor anyway. Might as well give him your grades now and then you both can get mediocre careers.
But what about all that untapped wealth? What about poeples vacation homes that they only use 3 weeks out of the year. Let's take the other weeks away and let other poeple use it who don't own vacation homes. Al Gore has 4 houses, surely he wouldn't mind the government taking away and giving others a chance to stay there.
And what about sports scores? Is it really fair that one team gets 40 points in one game? Let's put a 20% tax on the high point earning team and give it to the low point earning team. This will mkake it more fair and the low earner won't feel so bad and won't have to strive and work hard to be the high point earner the next week.
This is such a great idea, this must be some of Hillary's million ideas she hasn't sprung on us yet!!
Posted by: Patton | Oct 23, 2007 4:55:09 AM
I know what some of you are thinking.......Stephen's got that hot supermodel wife..perhaps the government could tax away some of her wifely duties and give them to me, yeah..that's the ticket, what a great idea. Why should Stephen get 100% of her affections?
There's no reason the government shouldn't step in and make her spend 20% of her nights with me or some other lonely guy..its only fair.....
I mean, taxing someones income is the same as taxing someone's labor...let's just skip the middle man and she can labor in my bed a few nights a month.
I'm going to write my Congressmen, what a great idea!!
Posted by: Patton | Oct 23, 2007 5:02:39 AM
heheheheheheh......
Thanks, Patton. That was pretty good!
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 23, 2007 6:12:31 AM
I am glad to see that Patton has finally moved to the middle-school-level arguments about grades and sports scores. Did you copy and paste this from somewhere? I know I have read this verbatim elsewhere. Government spending on computers is the equivalent of the frivolity of children playing games on a home computer?
The stupid, it burns...
Posted by: jmack | Oct 23, 2007 6:14:19 AM
"There's no reason the government shouldn't step in and make her spend 20% of her nights with me . . ."
Nah, that would be charity.
Posted by: Dan S. | Oct 23, 2007 7:01:46 AM
I'd be interested in hearing just how much Megan actually gives to charity herself, since it seems to be relevant to the argument that it's a much better system than taxing her.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | Oct 23, 2007 7:13:44 AM
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and function of charity in the christian, jewish and islamic traditions (the relevant ones) if anyone thinks that "charity" is supposed to function like "taxes" and produce the same goods and services as organized government. Charity is something the *giver* does for the giver's own religious benefit. The actual effect on the recipient is a negligible component of this. In an old jewish joke the local beggar is supported by the charitable donations of the village. He is full of food and comes to another house and the housewife attempts to feed him. "I couldn't eat another bite" he groans. "force yourself" she says. Because its in her moral/spiritual interest to feed him whether he needs it or not. Mother Teresa's charities in India were a classic example of this. She offered primarily palliative care to people who could have been helped by real medicine, or money, or both. She mandated the simplest and nakedest of coverings,the simplest and poorest of food even though better food and better surroundings were both affordable and (to some eyes) more humane. That's because the charity and the suffering were part of her theology. Her object wasn't to fully releive suffering, or to prevent more suffering, or to push her clients into self sufficiency because the very act of charitable giving was an end in itself not the sucess or failure of her charitable objects.
As someone up above observed the word "charity" isn't the word jews use--we use "tzeddakah" which means justice. You *have* to give, because it is just to give. Its not optional. And you are giving to create a more just world, not to assuage your guilty conscience. In another story a rich man lives on bread and water and wears torn and ripped old clothes. He prides himself on his asceticism but he gives nothing to Tzeddakah and he's incredibly tight fisted with his family and the village. They should all be as strict as he with their pleasures! He goes to his rabbi and asks him "what else can I do to get into heaven." The rabbi puts him on a diet of rich, fat foods and warm, lovely clothes. The rich man says "why should I enjoy all these good things?" and the Rabbi says "because when you enjoy all these good things you will see how wrong it is that others do not enjoy them and you will give more to others. And so it was.
Look, if right wingers don't want to pay taxes for education, roads, health care, regulation of the meat supply, regulation of the mortgage industry etc...etc...etc... they should absolutely opt out. I'd definitely be willing to pay extra to regulate the services they do get--they can be forced to use pay only roads (if there are any) and turned away from government health care adn their children can be forbidden from attending public schools or public colleges *as long as I am allowed to stop paying taxes for war and military spending.* That's fair, isn't it? I think military spending ought to be left up to our "charitable" impulses.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Oct 23, 2007 7:55:22 AM
When discussing this sort of thing, usually what we're talking about is basically the welfare state. That really tiny, insignificant drop of the bucket. Redistribution and all that. Sometimes Social Security and Medicare as well.
Here's the thing. It's the policy of the US government to avoid full employment. It's the policy to prevent the market from evolving in such a way where employers will need to compete for labor. It's done this way to fight "inflation".
In short, it's the policy of the US government to keep a certain % (and probably that % is growing) in poverty. That's the oil that the economic engine runs on.
So I'd say damn yes people have a responsibility to pay for that oil. Especially those that make massive profits from it.
Posted by: Karmakin | Oct 23, 2007 8:29:52 AM
Why are you aparently so obsessed with McMegan, Ezra? Flirting with the enemy? Ok, I have to admit she's looking good. However, a girl that uses the pen name "Jane Galt" should be totally off limits for any real liberal...
:D
Posted by: Gray | Oct 23, 2007 9:05:14 AM
There's no reason the government shouldn't step in and make her spend 20% of her nights with me or some other lonely guy..its only fair.....
Somehow the fact that Patton is a "lonely guy" is unsurprising to me....
Posted by: DMonteith | Oct 23, 2007 9:17:42 AM
"Ok, I have to admit she's looking good."
What is this? In her photos she looks 'bout average. Is it the red hair and height?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | Oct 23, 2007 9:58:12 AM
All of the commenters have been looking at taxes and the resulting transfer of wealth only from the perspective of those receiving it.
What I would like to know is there a moral barrier, a point, at which a tax burden to the taxpayer becomes immoral?
Is 50% too much? If not, how 'bout 80%? 90% 95%
100% OK?
Where is that point?
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 23, 2007 10:10:40 AM
Charity is no fun because unlike government it doesn't allow you to control other people
Quite, quite the opposite. Government programs are no fun because, unlike private charities, government must offer aid to anyone who meets the objective qualifications. Charities, on the other hand, can enjoy the privilege of forcing beneficiaries to jump through whatever hoops they choose and make whatever conforming lifestyle demands of whomever arrives seeking aid. Heather Havrilsky's recent article in Salon about control freaks at the charity pet shelter are a good example of this. In fact, one of the appeals of charity and reasons people are willing to give to charity is because they feel they have a strong level of control over what is done with the money they donate. By contrast, the nature of our legal system is that while the law can set certain objective standards for who may avail themselves of a government program, all those who meet those standards must be trated equally.
And to a degree, this phenomenon of private charity belies the claims of libertarians that they are "freedom loving." They don't want actual freedom-- they want the freedom to control others. So, yeah-- Somalia-- low taxes and you can use your money to crush whomever you wish under your boot. Go for it, libertarians!
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 10:13:41 AM
Yes, El Viajero, 99.99%. Just like we believe that the minimum wage should be raised to $100/hr.
Please find new talking points.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 10:16:50 AM
I mean, taxing someones income is the same as taxing someone's labor...let's just skip the middle man and she can labor in my bed a few nights a month.
Patton, if we were having this conversation face to face, I'd put you in the hospital for that. I'm not joking, I'm not exaggerating, I'm not doing this for internet bluster. If you find yourself near Kansas City, I'd love nothing more than to invite you over to show you how serious I am. It's a bit of a drive from the east coast, but as I said, I can provide you with a comfortable, if expensive, place to stay.
You say a lot of stupid, hateful things. Do not say such things about my wife. This goes for you as well, Fred. Texas is a hell of a lot closer than Virginia.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 10:21:13 AM
Guys, do not use such crass examples about peoples' spouses-- especially when you refer to someone's spouse as analagous to personal property.
Next, do not turn any conversation about the merits of a blogger's argument -- even a vapid blogger -- into a conversation about her (or his) looks. It seems that every time a discussion comes up about a post made by a woman blogger, people have to jump in arguing they various merits of her sexual desirability. It is especially ironic that these are many of the same people who are quick to attack Amanda Marcotte and Twisty from being too obsessed with a pervasive patriarchy. You're all just playing into stereotype.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 10:30:52 AM
Francis, you dodged the question. How much would you take from him so he could live the rest of his life in peace on his own terms, minding his own business? That necessarily includes staying in his home, if that's what he wants.
If he wants to stay in his home without running water and sewage, no garbage collection services, no access to the electric grid and no police force to protect him from theft or attack by an uneducated populace and also is fine with growing or bartering for his own furniture, linens, clothing and possibly unsafe food supply (no Interstates = no Wal-Mart Supercenter), then he doesn't owe a penny.
If he wants to live something akin to the lifestyle of the majority of modern Americans, I suppose he should think about what all that might be worth if he had to supply it himself. My guess is that it's probably more than he currently pays.
Posted by: Magenta | Oct 23, 2007 10:44:14 AM
It just seems that we get so little from the taxes that we pay other than the Gasoline taxes and what ever other taxes that fund roads.
Our Government spends more per capita on healthcare than France does. Healthcare is highly regulated and licensed by the government, so how is it not the Government's fault that we spend 17 percent of our GDP on healthcare and get so little for it. The French only spend 7% of their smaller per capita GDP. It seems that our politicians are a bunch of very corrupt or very stupid bastards.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 10:46:10 AM
It just seems that we get so little from the taxes that we pay...
I work for someone who has a PhD from a public university. Despite the fact that my dense neighborhood creates a large amount of garbage every week, there is absolutely no problem with rats and mice because the garbage is not only pick up, but the streets are cleaned regularly. Most everyone I deal with on a day to day basis is articulate and literate (there could be some improvement in this department, honestly). Despite certain neighborhoods I've lived in having a large number of senior citizens, they were all able to be taken care of, and they're living longer. While my sister is suffering from a chronic disease, NIH is funding some of the brightest researchers in the country to work on solving it.
I don't have to consult with my friends in my neighborhood to know which grocery stores and which food brands have a reputation for being "safe" and won't make me sick-- it's the law that all foods and supermarkets are required to adhere to standards, so I can walk into most any market, buy most any brand of food, and have an assurance that it's no contaminated.
So, yeah, I do feel like I get stuff for my tax dollars. What could be improved? Well, we skimp on our infrastructure. Airports haven't been expanded to meet the demand and the electric grid could use some work. However, those are things that can only be solved by coordinated national action.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 11:00:05 AM
Our Government spends more per capita on healthcare than France does. Healthcare is highly regulated and licensed by the government, so how is it not the Government's fault that we spend 17 percent of our GDP on healthcare and get so little for it. The French only spend 7% of their smaller per capita GDP. It seems that our politicians are a bunch of very corrupt or very stupid bastards.
Yes, most of our politicians are either corrupt or stupid, and several of them are both. But our healthcare system generates a lot of profit, which wealth, as data has been showing us, is being concentrated in fewer and fewer super-rich individuals. Another cost of our system is the layer upon layer of redundancy, with not only each insurance company requiring different paperwork, but even each particular plan under the umbrella of any given insurance company requiring different procedures and documentation.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 11:29:07 AM
'Billy: the price is to you apparently zero -- it's your citizenship.
Seriously, move to Somalia.'
Translation:
"America, love it or leave it..."
This is the upshot of creating the therapeutic state, in loco parentis for the "right people," and then whining because Mildred Ratchet and Jack D. Ripper wind up running the show.
As for Klein, he was answered 150 years ago:
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" Bastiat-THE LAW
Posted by: ebrown2 | Oct 23, 2007 11:51:19 AM
"cost of our system is the layer upon layer of redundancy, with not only each insurance company requiring different paperwork, but even each particular plan under the umbrella of any given insurance company requiring different procedures and documentation."
And how much does this cost? This argument while cogent reminds me of the turn of the 20th century argument that having more than one auto and steel company was redundant and inefficient.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 11:54:13 AM
Bastiat-THE LAW
Goddam I love that book!!!
Posted by: El Viajero | Oct 23, 2007 12:01:12 PM
Hi Tyro
“Despite the fact that my dense neighborhood creates a large amount of garbage every week, there is absolutely no problem with rats and mice because the garbage is not only pick up, but the streets are cleaned regularly.”
I have lived where one paid a company to pick up and dispose of the trash. Its very cheap.
“Most everyone I deal with on a day to day basis is articulate and literate (there could be some improvement in this department, honestly). “
Do you believe that people would not be able to read if not for the great Government schools? BTW my grandparents went to one year of school and where educated people who ran a successful barber shop! I pay for my kids to go to school it is very cheap(3k per year per kid) but they learn more out of school.
“Despite certain neighborhoods I've lived in having a large number of senior citizens, they were all able to be taken care of, and they're living longer.”
Due to Gov. spending?
“While my sister is suffering from a chronic disease, NIH is funding some of the brightest researchers in the country to work on solving it.”
There is non gov. funded research.
“I don't have to consult with my friends in my neighborhood to know which grocery stores and which food brands have a reputation for being "safe" and won't make me sick-- it's the law that all foods and supermarkets are required to adhere to standards, so I can walk into most any market, buy most any brand of food, and have an assurance that it's no contaminated.”
Have you ever bought pot? Have you ever bought produce form an unregulated pruit stand – you pick place – farm? Did it make you sick?
“Airports haven't been expanded to meet the demand and the electric grid could use some work. “
Why don’t we make the airlines build their own airports?
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 12:04:13 PM
"It seems that every time a discussion comes up about a post made by a woman blogger, people have to jump in arguing they various merits of her sexual desirability."
Who, me? Excuse me pls, Tyro, but no other blogger I read cites McMegan so often as Ezra. Imho it's perfectly ok to ask him what's behind this. And pls excuse the casual tone in which I did this, I really didn't know that the Correctness Police is patrolling here.
|-(
Posted by: Gray | Oct 23, 2007 12:04:25 PM
ebrown2, somewhere along the line, libertarians confused "freedom" with "state of nature." Nothing is more conducive to my freedom than an efficient, effective, transparent delivery of government services.
Living without infrastructure in a place where members of the community are "left behind" doesn't make you "free." Being able to take advantage of government infrastructure and services without being forced to pay a marginal cost equal to your expected marginal return resulting from the use of those services/infrastructure does not make you a slave.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 12:14:24 PM
Gray, I just think that one should avoid playing into stereotype.
In any case, Gavin of Sadly,No seems to have already written the definitive take on the Megan, Matt, and Ezra dynamic.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 12:17:59 PM
Stephen, have you ever spent a day with what liberals consider needy people or visited their house? The vast majority have the video games your saying the better off should sacrafice for the needy. The hard worker that provides for his family should deny his kids a video game so the single mother on welfare who doesn't work can buy her's more? Or do liberals consider it a social travisty that poor needy familes are still playing PS2 becuase they can't afford the PS3?
Posted by: Nate O | Oct 23, 2007 12:20:04 PM
Adrian where does your Marxist desires take into account wealth not generated by workers and accumulated by owners? Are you proposing owners of labor intensive factories pay higher tax rates then say the owner of a sports team, or highly compensated professional like a doctor who relies little on the labor of the poor oppresed working man? Can't say I have ever seen a Marxist government differentiate between the two, in which case it has nothing to do with redistributing wealth from those that made it off the labor of others and everything to do with taking from those that made it and giving it to those that didn't for no other reason then you feel like it.
Posted by: Nate O | Oct 23, 2007 12:28:06 PM
Straw man alert!! alert!! Point me to an actual liberal who argues that people on welfare should be given better game playing devices? I thought we were all against fun and tv's and stuff? But I'll give you this, Nate O, you have my permission to zero out any welfare appropriations for playstations. I'll wait...oh, you couldn't find any?
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Oct 23, 2007 12:28:32 PM
Anonymiss, what's the ROI on a woodstock museum? There are what 4000 earmarks that benefit neither those that are least able make enforceable demands or the tax payor who's money is being redistributed
Posted by: Nate O | Oct 23, 2007 12:31:48 PM
Stephen, have you ever spent a day with what liberals consider needy people or visited their house?
More than a day, and you missed my point completely. I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you, because I strongly suspect that your lack of understanding has more to do with conscious decision than inability.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 12:42:45 PM
I have lived where one paid a company to pick up and dispose of the trash
Your trash, maybe. What about everyone else's? How about street cleaning? Can I really expect you to clean up everyone else's streets on my block to ensure that rats and mice don't start using my neighborhood as a feeding ground? I suggest you think this one through.
Have you ever bought produce...?
Why did you pick produce? Why not chicken or pork? The produce I buy from local outdoor markets is either (a) "certified organic", which carries a specific, LEGAL meaning or (b) associated wth someone whom I know, or is a foodstuff that carries very little risk, where I could literally see the path it took from manufacture to my table. And here's the thing-- with the advent of government regulations, I don't HAVE to know a darn thing about where my food comes from and who made it and sold it. I know that it wouldn't have made it to me if it weren't safe. And that's the point-- I don't have to leave myself at the mercy of "caveat emptor." Would I buy pork shish-kabobs from a random person selling them out on the street? You've got to be kidding! I want the health department involved in that kind of thing.
And while educated people will exist in any situation, I want to make sure that just about everyone is educated, not simply creating the possibility that someone, somewhere, will get an education. Seriously, I don't have time to deal with the illiterate.
As for airports, why don't we make GM build the highway system?
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 12:47:38 PM
I might add Floccina, that YOU were the one who claimed that you felt like you couldn't see government actually doing anything. That you think that there MIGHT be alternatives is not the point. The point is that government does, in fact, do a lot of things, and if the government didn't, I would have to depend on all of my neighbors being dependable and all acting for the collective good. And if they're going to do that, we might as well implement a communist utopia.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 1:00:59 PM
"certified organic" Is a scam. Find me one reputable plant pathologist who thinks that "certified organic" is better in anyway.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 1:02:00 PM
Magenta If he wants to stay in his home without running water and sewage, no garbage collection services, no access to the electric grid and no police force to protect him from theft or attack by an uneducated populace and also is fine with growing or bartering for his own furniture, linens, clothing and possibly unsafe food supply (no Interstates = no Wal-Mart Supercenter), then he doesn't owe a penny.If he wants to live something akin to the lifestyle of the majority of modern Americans, I suppose he should think about what all that might be worth if he had to supply it himself. My guess is that it's probably more than he currently pays.
I've been reading his blog for years, which is why I laughed so hard at your condescending pot shots. You obviously know nothing about him if you think he has any fears of providing for himself without government.
I am struck that you and your ilk seem to take an inordinate amount of pleasure imagining ways to punish dissent, like depriving people of things (water, electricity, ...) they could very easily obtain in a free market if government didn't forcibly impose a monopoly on such things.
If he would let you live your life on your own terms, and mind his own business when it comes to your affairs, that makes him a better person than you.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 1:17:07 PM
Floccina, my point is that it has a specific legal definition and is, in some sense, regulated. All the petroleum-pesticide-laden apples at the grocery story are just as safe... but both are members of the same regulatory stucture. And in any case, I did find it interesting that you mentioned "produce" specifically, rather than foodstuffs which carry a larger risk, such as meats, etc. And, of course, you didn't suggest that I buy a pork kabob from some random guy on the street rather than at a regulated restaurant or even licensed vendor. Why? Because even you would not do something so stupid.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 1:17:16 PM
things (water, electricity, ...) they could very easily obtain in a free market...
Um, the reason the government ended up playing a role in distributing these things to people is because large swaths of people couldn't easily obtain them on the free market. I could likely pretty easily obtain plenty of things in the free market but am also aware that other people probably would have a harder time of it, and for that reason, I'd support it. However, this is not a compelling argument to libertarians, who need to be forced to confront their absolute, cleearest self-interest in the matter.
If he would let you live your life on your own terms, and mind his own business when it comes to your affairs...
Libertarians overwhelmiungly do not want that. What they want is to stop the government from interfering with their desire to interfere with my own affairs.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 1:22:05 PM
"Charity, rather often, is a way to demonstrate virtue or compassion. Social policy, at least in theory, is a way to try and fix a structural problem. The two cannot be swapped in for each other."
The problem is that the impulse to "fix the structural problem" is a charitable impulse. Morally, the fixing is charity, because you can't stand to see the poor suffer through the defects of the system. Or are you saying that you're into fixing the problem because you're afraid of the masses rioting in the streets?
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick | Oct 23, 2007 1:35:01 PM
Um, the reason the government ended up playing a role in distributing these things to people is because large swaths of people couldn't easily obtain them on the free market.
The physical infrastructure needed to supply water and electricity is a public good, and government provision of that infrastructure is therefore appropriate. But this is not true for the provision of most health care services. Government has a valid role in funding basic biomedical research, and in various public health measures (food safety standards, clean water standards, air pollution standards, mass childhood immunization, etc.), but most health care services for most people are and should be funded and provided privately.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 1:39:59 PM
Tyro Why did you pick produce? Why not chicken or pork? The produce I buy from local outdoor markets is either (a) "certified organic", which carries a specific, LEGAL meaning ...
If you get a chance, watch the episode "Eat This!" from the first season of Penn and Teller's Bullshit! documentary series. They discuss "organic" food, and how that term is generally meaningless.
or (b) associated wth someone whom I know, or is a foodstuff that carries very little risk, where I could literally see the path it took from manufacture to my table. And here's the thing-- with the advent of government regulations, I don't HAVE to know a darn thing about where my food comes from and who made it and sold it. I know that it wouldn't have made it to me if it weren't safe.
I guess you don't read the news.
But, even if you trust the people who gave you the Hurricane Katrina debacle, the Ponzi scheme of Social Security, the WMDs in Iraq, and all the rest to protect your food, you're still not justified to force me to pay for you to feel safe.
I don't want a dime from you to help me. I'd be happy to worry about the safety of my food without your unwanted assistance.
And that's the point-- I don't have to leave myself at the mercy of "caveat emptor." Would I buy pork shish-kabobs from a random person selling them out on the street? You've got to be kidding! I want the health department involved in that kind of thing.
And, you'll force other people to pay for it, too, scumbag.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 1:41:44 PM
"If I could buy the rest of my life from you motherfuckers for one lump sum, then what might it be?"
If you could buy yourself back, you'd be for sale, and thus you'd be a slave, which we can't have. No, you're simply owned in perpetuity, which makes you...oh, never mind.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick | Oct 23, 2007 1:44:06 PM
Tyro,
The produce I buy from local outdoor markets is either (a) "certified organic", which carries a specific, LEGAL meaning or (b) associated wth someone whom I know, or is a foodstuff that carries very little risk, where I could literally see the path it took from manufacture to my table.
"Organic" produce is not only more expensive, but may also be more dangerous to human health than produce grown using pesticides and industrial farming methods. Pesticides are derived from naturally-occurring toxins that plants evolved as a defense against pests. Organic farmers may need to use plant strains with particularly high levels of these natural toxins in order to generate acceptable yields without the use of synthetic pesticides. Unlike sprayed-on pesticides, these toxins are distributed throughout the plant material, and cannot be washed off.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 1:50:33 PM
I am struck that you and your ilk seem to take an inordinate amount of pleasure imagining ways to punish dissent, like depriving people of things (water, electricity, ...) they could very easily obtain in a free market if government didn't forcibly impose a monopoly on such things.
Yes, because prior to the establishment of the Rural Electric Project, a whopping 10 percent of people in rural areas had access to electricity. And tell me how Nevada and the rest of the West could have held "dam raisings" to create the same amount of water as the Hoover Dam.
I might read insufficient amounts of obscure libertarian blogger to know his life story, but I have opened a history book. And given that Billy uses a *blog* to publicize his worldview, he is pretty dependent on the government. How do you think this handy-dandy tool we call the Internet got put together? It wasn't people like you and Billy tinkering by yourselves in the basement. It was a community effort involving the government quite a bit.
Posted by: Magenta | Oct 23, 2007 2:04:56 PM
Elliott, having known people who worked on organic farms, I'm aware of specific regulations they need to conform with to have that moniker attached to them. In any case, we're still discussing produce which many of us are comfortable with simply picking off the vine without worrying about getting sick from. If it made people sick, the government would intervene to ban the use of dangerous pesticides as they should, because that's what I pay them for. I have no attachment to "organic" food-- after all, it's expense, and the regular stuff at the supermarket doesn't make me sick. However, my point is that "street sellers" are selling products that come under a specific regulatory umbrella.
And, you'll force other people to pay for it, too
Actually, I'll leave that up to popular vote. And, wonder of wonders, it seems to have a lot of public support because most people don't want to risk their health when they could simply have the government enforce regulatory laws to ensure that their food is secure. I have no interest in defending the right of any foodseller to force any unsafe food on me.
Finally, Elliot, you need to realize that the largest danger is having people involved in government who are against government. That's what causes things like the debacle of hurricane katrina-- putting republicans in charge of the maintenance of infrastructure. It would be like hiring a communist to manage your rental properties-- if you believe that private property is theft, than you're not really going to colelct the rent in a timely manner.
Also, JasonR, your comments about public infrastructure are... surprisingly cogent. When it comes to health care, I think liberals would argue that public health has specific benefits and that since insurance is a means of risk-pooling, public insurance allows the risk pools to be as large as possible, preventing cherry-picking by insurers at the expense of the ill, and that a modern nation-state as a public interest in insulating a citizen from such abuse by a private company.
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 2:05:19 PM
Tyro wrote "I did find it interesting that you mentioned "produce" specifically, rather than foodstuffs which carry a larger risk, such as meats, etc."
OK meats. One can buy kosher if one is paranoid. There is no money in putting poison in meat and it is not too difficult to tell meat is bad. In this county one can buy meat from ranchers that has not been seen by a regulator.
IMO we need Government to punish theft, fraud and violence. In fact I like that anything that requires the use of force be done by democratically elected organizations. (So why do the politicians hire out the running of the prisons? but not the postal service or the schools, Strange.) And this is not to say that we should keeping funding an army that is multiple times as powerful as the next most powerful nation. It is a waste.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 2:17:43 PM
Tyro,
It is not necessary for the funding to be public (let alone single-payer) to create risk pools that are representative of the national population. Of course, whether every risk pool should be nationally representative is itself debatable. And limiting the ability of insurers to exclude high-risk individuals or charge them excessive prices can be (and is) done by regulation.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 2:22:11 PM
It's easy enough to live off-the-grid even in the US. Here in So.Cal., there is a substantial community of people who squat on abandoned property around the Salton Sea. (Southeast corner of California, for those without a map.) I talked to local law enforcement once several years ago. Basically they leave these people alone so long as no one shoots anyone else and no one is making meth.
Too much off-grid? South Dakota and Wyoming both have no state income taxes. And if you set up in a rural area, you don't pay for water (need a well), sewer (septic), trash (carry it to dump yourself), school construction bonds (population is shrinking) etc.
Of course, meth may be the only profitable cash crop.
By contrast, California urban life requires government for: cops, firefighters, teachers, doctors, and bureaucrats, water, wastewater and stormwater management, roads, schools, hospitals, prisons, jails, airports, harbors, libraries and parks, among other things.
But these things make California a great place to live, so lots of smart people live here, so there are lots of job opportunities.
Your choice -- no passport needed to move to the Dakotas.
Posted by: Francis | Oct 23, 2007 2:22:28 PM
Tyro wrote: "you didn't suggest that I buy a pork kabob from some random guy on the street rather than at a regulated restaurant or even licensed vendor. Why? Because even you would not do something so stupid."
Tyro you will miss out in all the good food if you go to visist a poor country. Part of the fun is trying the local street venders food (see Tyler Cowan on food). FYI I lived in Hondras for a while. Life is short take some risks. Better to have lived and died than never to have lived.
BTW many lefties seem excesively risk averse to me. What with buying organic food and all, even after years of people eating food that was protected from bugs with pesticides without harm.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 2:24:30 PM
IMO we need Government to punish theft, fraud and violence.
Actually, not only do I want them to punish such things, I want them to certify ahead of time that they're not going to engage in such practices before they're allowed to participate in the market. What you want is for the government to inefficiently expend large amounts of enforcement and prosecution resources because it fits your aesthetic view of how the government should operate rather than playing a much more efficient, less expensive regulatory role which would reduce the amount of money and time spent punishing the effects of theft, fraud, and violence.
There is no money in putting poison in meat
No, but you save money by not worrying about it. Sure, I suppose a person who became ill could sue over the issue, but I'd prefer saving the court system the trouble and simply ensuring that the person doesn't become ill or die to begin with.
it is not too difficult to tell meat is bad
Really? You can tell when cooked chicken has been left out in the open and allowed to cool for too long, allowing bacteria to thrive? Really? You can tell this when you go to a restaurant? I'm impressed!
Posted by: Tyro | Oct 23, 2007 2:25:12 PM
And I will ask again:
Our Government spends more per capita on healthcare than France does and our healthcare is very highly regulated and licensed by our government, so how is it not our Government's fault that we spend 17 percent of our GDP on healthcare and get so little for it. The French only spend 7% of their smaller per capita GDP. It seems that our politicians are a bunch of very corrupt or very stupid bastards.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 2:29:16 PM
Tyro wrote:
"Actually, not only do I want them to punish such things, I want them to certify ahead of time that they're not going to engage in such practices before they're allowed to participate in the market. "
What is a market" do you mean? "Actually, not only do I want Politicans to punish people who would do such things, I want them to certify ahead of time that they're not going to engage in such practices befroe they are allowed to sell anything to anyone else. "
This is really beyond the scope of Government, if you disagree tell the police that you want want to move to the worst part of some big city (maybe Washinton DC if you are white) in an area were your race is a small minority and tell them to post a guard to protect you. They will ask you if a crime has been commited. Only the idoit Bush uses preemption lightly.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 2:38:09 PM
There is no money in putting poison in meat and it is not too difficult to tell meat is bad.
There is also no money in making sure the poison isn't there to begin with.
And it is not too difficult to tell that meat is rancid and entirely uncooked. It is very difficult to tell if it has been left in incorrect temperatures. There is a reason that "The Jungle" had an impact. Teddy Roosevelt must turn over in his grave when he sees what passes for Republican in the modern era.
Posted by: Magenta | Oct 23, 2007 2:39:22 PM
And I will ask again:
Well, Floccina, France has a health system that is even more regulated than ours. Every industrialized nation that spends less per capita than we do on health care - that is to say, all of them - has a more heavily regulated healthcare system than we do.
Since you tend to argue against more government intervention, you might want to think your question through just a bit more, because I'm pretty sure you're always going to be unhappy with the answers you get.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 3:17:18 PM
There is no money in putting poison in meat and it is not too difficult to tell meat is bad.There is also no money in making sure the poison isn't there to begin with.
If you believe that for one second, you're a moron.
Poisoning customers is very, very bad for business.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 3:19:37 PM
And, you'll force other people to pay for it, tooActually, I'll leave that up to popular vote.
Theft by proxy is still theft.
There is nothing, nothing inherently moral about a popular vote. See slavery laws, Jim Crow laws, apartheid, Nazi control of Germany, the terrorist group Hamas' control of Palestinian territories, and the thieving President for Life Hugo Chavez, just for starters.
And, wonder of wonders, it seems to have a lot of public support because most people don't want to risk their health when they could simply have the government enforce regulatory laws to ensure that their food is secure.
Lots of unethical things "have a lot of public support" particularly when people willingly give up their freedom (and that of their neighbors) for the semblance of security. Look at the Patriot Act, the War on (Some) Drugs, and all the other wretched abridgments of our freedoms that the majority idiots have willingly supported, despite all the evidence which shows that government so often fails to provide the purported security.
I have no interest in defending the right of any foodseller to force any unsafe food on me.
Who in the hell is forcing you to buy food from anyone? You set up that strawman to justify using force against others who are not using force against you.
Again, when one person advocates initiating force against others, while another is content to use reason to persuade others, it is crystal clear which of the two is ethical.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 3:45:22 PM
How about this Stephen? We demand that the government spend less than they do now, and cover everyone. They should then refuse to regulate any privately funded healthcare warning everyone to use privately purchased healthcare at their own risk?
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 3:51:55 PM
"There is a reason that "The Jungle" had an impact. Teddy Roosevelt must turn over in his grave when he sees what passes for Republican in the modern era."
"The Jungle" was about sausage makeing. The sausage was not killing anyone. Many argue that "The Jungle" was fiction. Further it could have been prosecuted after the fact. Also people have long had the option to buy kosher or to avoid sausage and prossessed meats.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 3:56:45 PM
A PS to my last post. One assumes that meat sold for food is safe to eat, so if people die from unsafe meat the sellers should be prosecuted based on fraud. Currently regulators primarily rely random testing (unlike kosher which is a process). Also when I was a chef I would buy Armor branded meats. Branding yields a premium and so it pays to protect the brand with good quality. I was always happy with the very consistent quality of Armor branded meats unlike the inconsistent unbranded meats (although non where unsafe). It is still a good practice even with current regulations. Again I believe in using government where force is required as is the case in fraud. BTW meat can become unsafe in your home should the state regulator inspect your refrigerator. Maybe only before you have company over! (I am kidding to make a point.) Irradiation is a new method to keep meats safe longer.
Stephen how do you judge which system is more regulated (our's or France's? The gauntlet that our doctors must run is sever and is an anachronism. It is very weird.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 4:13:40 PM
Ron Good: I too ain't about playing with you regressive freaks. I guess your little statement that you are "just an e-mail away" was suppossed to be some kind of challenge to me. But I'm here to tell you, I'm up for a good scrap anytime. And no, this ain't internet bluster either.I see you live in Canada, I'm in Georgia. We can meet half-way and talk out our "differences". I'm tired of you selfish, hateful, racist pukes having any kind of voice in conversations about things that affect us all. Again, we can find a way to have a face-to-face if you'd like. Get at me dawg.
Posted by: onlinesavant | Oct 23, 2007 4:17:02 PM
Elliot,
Poisoning large numbers of your customers in circumstances in which it is obviously linked to your establishment is bad for business. But if the motive is purely monetary profit and a business is shipping meat all over the country under a variety of different brand names, carelessness that might mean a person is inadvertently poisoned now and again requires a cost/benefit analysis.
Without a public health system that helps to identify outbreaks of illness, how exactly would the average consumer know that the food that caused her illness was from the same batch that caused a similar illness across town, much less across the country?
This is why the example of the small-scale rancher is so ridiculous. A person selling on a relatively small scale primarily to people whom he knows and who know him, is going to take a hit if the community starts to notice a pattern of illness, and that pattern can be seen at that level. It's not equivalent to a conglomerate that is selling huge quantities of meat under a variety of brand names and through second or third parties.
Also, I must ask: Are capable of having an argument without including some sort of personal attack? Here you call me a moron, elsewhere you have implied I am a lesser being for disagreeing with someone's politics. You have called other people numskulls (sic) and scumbags and impugned their ethics. My 6-year-old can carry on a debate without resorting to that, so I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you could, too.
Posted by: Magenta | Oct 23, 2007 4:23:30 PM
Nate O,
All I'm saying is that to defend the welfare state while convincingly distinguishing it from charity requires a critique of the wage system that is absent from American politics but that is implicit, tho often not explicitly articulated, in Western Europe.
Of course you are right that even a very rich doctor is only a capitalist to the extent that she is a partner/owner in a clinic or hospital or personally employs staff to deliver care. This is why radical social democracy aims to socialize capital itself (as in the Swedish wage-earners funds proposed in the Meidner plan in the 1970s)rather than merely redistribute wealth through taxes and welfare.
Posted by: Adrian | Oct 23, 2007 4:25:56 PM
Adrian,
Yes, comrade. Now about that new Five Year Plan of yours for toilet paper production....
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 4:36:12 PM
Magenta one must first discern that preemptive government action (that is what we are talking about rather than prosecution for fraud or negligence after the fact) is the best way to keep meat safe we could use other methods like branding and buying kosher.
Also it seems to me that the small rancher or small family run businesses are the worst because they have little invested in band and are often too small a target to be worth going after. IMHO it is a myth that big business abuses the customer more than the small mom and pop businesses. An example my business partner had to sue a small contractor who messed up a job at his house he won and go nothing because the guy had no money. Another example I worked for years at all levels in restaurants and in my experience the single store owners take more risks with questionable food and dirty kitchens than the big chains. Maybe that is why the chain’s food tastes uninteresting and bland it is too safe???
Leftists seem more risk averse to me. They are more likely to not want to accept the risk of possible Global Warming saying the science is strong but rejection the stronger science and track records that says pesticides are safe, that says nuclear power is safe, that says food irradiation is safe etc. They seem more likely to avoid fatty food despite little evidence that it impact health. They seem to fear want to regulate every little danger no matter how small. They seem to fear not having prepaid healthcare. They do not like a strong police force but they drove pretty hard against smoking.
Life is short either way so if a cigarette gives you joy have a smoke just do not blow the smoke at me.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 4:50:38 PM
"Seriously, move to Somalia."
Just who the fuck do you think you are?
I didn't take that bullshit from Spiro Agnew, and you count for even less.
Posted by: Billy Beck | Oct 23, 2007 5:12:46 PM
onlinesavant, you wrote:yours:
I'm tired of you selfish, hateful, racist pukes having any kind of voice in conversations about things that affect us all
There's more obvious nastiness in your response to me than in anything I wrote, but it's nice of you to be so transparent.
Anyways, I'm curious as to where you got the "selfish, hateful, racist" bit in relation to me. Even a cursory romp through my blog should convince...(I was gonna sy 'you', but you might not be perceptive enough)...readers that not one of those adjectives fits me even slightly.
Second, your entire sentence nicely illustrates the type of all-inclusive "democratic society" you'd actually support, one designed for only folks who agree with you. If you're tired of folks like me having a say, then just exactly who is this "us all" you prattle about that doesn't include everybody?
You took my mention of being only an email away as a challenge? It doesn't take much to get you all blustery, does it. All I was doing was making the point that folks who will tell you exactly what you said "no one will tell you" are easy to find.
Posted by: Ron Good | Oct 23, 2007 5:28:40 PM
How about this Stephen? We demand that the government spend less than they do now, and cover everyone. They should then refuse to regulate any privately funded healthcare warning everyone to use privately purchased healthcare at their own risk?
Um, what? It's hard to see where you're going with this.
The plain fact is that despite whatever obstacles there may be to become a doctor - or any other example of government regulation run amok you wish to highlight - the governments of other 1st world countries intervene in their healthcare systems far more than the American government. In some countries, all healthcare professionals are government employees. In some private insurance doesn't exist. IIRC each one has government-mandated price controls on prescription medication. And, as you have mentioned, the total systems in those countries cost less per capita than the US government pays, let alone the costs carried by individuals and corporations.
As far as warnings and whatnot, I'm not really participating in the tainted meat discussion, except to say that caveat emptor coupled with being able to prosecute after the fact is profoundly stupid. If a member of your family dies because the Chinese "tilapia" they ate is actually puffer fish, you will find very little recourse in the courts. But I would expect your remarks at their funeral to consist entirely of, "Hey, you get what you pay for. And if you're not going to personally run tests to ensure that your tilapia is tilapia, then too bad for you, I guess."
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 5:32:40 PM
Without a public health system that helps to identify outbreaks of illness, how exactly would the average consumer know that the food that caused her illness was from the same batch that caused a similar illness across town, much less across the country?
Hmmm, if one company (voluntarily) keeps track of its batches with serial numbers, so they and their retail sellers can quickly locate a problem, and another doesn't, from which are you going to buy?
This stuff is not rocket science. It doesn't require putting a gun to someone's head. You can persuade people to do this through reason, without resorting to force. It works better, and it's ethical.
Are capable of having an argument without including some sort of personal attack?
Yes.
I am simply astounded that so many here are pushing plainly irrational and unethical arguments. The natural result of resorting to aggressive force (government) is, once the rubber meets the road, that innocent people will be deprived of their property, liberty, and even lives. When someone is advocating policies which rely on aggressive force, rather than rational persuasion, there is no reason in the world to meet such wretchedness with politeness and civility.
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 5:51:38 PM
When someone is advocating policies which rely on aggressive force, rather than rational persuasion
It's funny how you think that rational persuasion will be effective in the face of so much evidence that human beings are not rational.
For example, look at all the people who argue that rational persuasion can be effective in the face of all the evidence that human beings are not rational.
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 6:09:37 PM
Stephen,
And, as you have mentioned, the total systems in those countries cost less per capita than the US government pays,
They cost less because they provide less, because Americans subsidize their pharmaceutical prices, and because their health care providers are paid less.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 6:28:42 PM
They cost less because they provide less, because Americans subsidize their pharmaceutical prices, and because their health care providers are paid less.
Wrong, wrong, and so what?
Posted by: Stephen | Oct 23, 2007 6:34:03 PM
No, it's not wrong. The health care systems of other countries provide less than the U.S. health care system, and we subsidize their drugs by paying higher prices for ours. And the obvious relevance of the fact that our health providers are better paid than theirs is that those higher labor costs contribute to our higher total health care spending.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 6:37:48 PM
When someone is advocating policies which rely on aggressive force, rather than rational persuasionIt's funny how you think that rational persuasion will be effective in the face of so much evidence that human beings are not rational.
Some human beings are not rationl. Among a significant portion of a civilized population, rational persuasion works quite well.
This is far less of a problem when those who make irrational decisions bear the brunt of their stupidity, rather than being given the power to make everyone else suffer. If you think your neighbor is incapable of behaving in a civilized manner, how much worse is it to put someone like him into office?
Posted by: Elliot | Oct 23, 2007 6:47:04 PM
JasonR you may be right but I think that Americans buy more healthcare than they would buy if there was a good way to not buy so much. Also I think that the regulations that say who can do what in USA healthcare is excesive and stands in the way of branded engineered reduntly checked assembly line healthcare.
Posted by: Floccina | Oct 23, 2007 7:20:34 PM
JasonR you may be right but I think that Americans buy more healthcare than they would buy if there was a good way to not buy so much.
There is. It's called catastrophic health insurance. You buy insurance coverage only for low-probability but high-cost risks, and you buy as much or as little routine and preventive care as you like.
Posted by: JasonR | Oct 23, 2007 7:30:38 PM
From Stephen: the face of so much evidence that human beings are not rational and the face of all the evidence that human beings are not rational
uh...other people use a different mirror. Some of us see someone rational.
Posted by: Ron Good | Oct 23, 2007 7:55:45 PM
JasonR wrote:
“There is. It's called catastrophic health insurance. You buy insurance coverage only for low-probability but high-cost risks, and you buy as much or as little routine and preventive care as you like. “
Yes I have a catastrophic health insurance policy and I agree that it is the best policy for most Americans but catastrophic health insurance policy still pays all the expenses after the deducible is met. It would be good if people could opt out of the most expensive and least effective care when they sign up for the policy. The economist Arnold Kling has suggested the insurance policies should be written in such a way that they cover specific expensive diseases like heart disease and cancer and payout on diagnosis some set amount if money that the policy holder can use as he pleases. Maybe the policy holder passes on care and lives it up to the end or perhaps opts for treatment at Appollo healthcare in India. People in France get less healthcare but it does not seem to hurt their aggregate health much. Anyway the US Gov. already pays out more per person for healthcare does the French Gov. and covers everyone our Gov. should be able to cut what it spends on healthcare and cover everyone. This would require triage (all systems do some triage) and reducing the quality and pay of doctors and nurses. IMO It is not so much the quality of service providers that matters but systems. Probably our politicans are too corrupt but people should recognize this.
BTW medical care beyond the cheap stuff like vaccinations, antibiotics and other cheap stuff