Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
Taxes designed to discourage use are unfair and ineffective.
And revenue decreases when people curtail their use of the taxed items.
Good thing I don’t drink soda or alcohol or use tobacco products. In other words, this is just another means of having YOU pay for MY costs. Socialism or rather Obamunism.
Libraryjim, I don’t mind paying for your health costs. I probably do, in some way, anyway. The world isn’t a bunch of individualists in their own pod.
Further, as people use less tobacco, healthcare costs decrease, resulting in less need for the taxes.
Another way to look at this is that taxes are like tolls. People who consume shugar contribute, in their own way, to environmental degredation, and pass on health costs to society. By paying through taxes, they cover their costs. Tolls might discourage some driving (as they should) but roads have to be paid for. Why not by those who use them?
I am with John. Sin taxes DO work. They are much more effectuve than prohibitions.
Fine, I suppose people will live longer. But maybe we will need to tax regular food too to pay for the rising retirement costs. Anyway the British tried taxing tea and we all know that story.
Actually, as people change to more healthy behaviors, health care costs do not change. Since somewhere above 70% (I forget the exact statistic) of health care spending is in the last year of a person’s life, healthy living doesn’t do anything. Smokers die earlier then non-smokers. So their cumulative health-care costs can actually be less than non-smokers.
[url=http://www.highlighthealth.com/healthcare/living-healthy-isnt-cost-saving-its-cost-effective]highlighthealth.com[/url]
[blockquote] There are a lot of good reasons for people to lose weight and to quit smoking. However, according to a new study published in PLoS Medicine, saving money on lifetime healthcare costs isn’t one of them [/blockquote]
We’ve eliminated sugared sodas in our house. So I’d agree with the idea that they are unhealthy and people would do well to be free of them. But don’t try to sell the tax on them as a way to save money.
#2…. hey LJ, I think you are off base here. Right now, YOU (as a non-consumer of tobacco, soda, and alcohol) are paying much higher health insurance premiums because your money is needed to pay for the health costs associated with lung cancer, emphysema, obesity, alcoholism, etc.). And that’s just one type of cost: there other costs you pay (e.g. you pay higher air fare to accomodate obese passengers and so on). Even if soda were taxed fairly heavily, the resulting cost to soda drinkers would still on the whole be less than the costs associated with soda drinking — thus even still you’d be shouldering more of the burden for their habit.
As far as revenue decreasing when people curtail their use of the items, that depends on how high the tax is. Suppose there is no tax. Then there is no revenue — you can’t go much lower than nothing. Now suppose you tax soda a penny a can. Obviously that is going to generate more revenue than nothing. Suppose you tax it 2 pennies a can. That will generate almost twice as much as the 1-penny tax (taking into account the tiny number of people who will stop drinking soda due to the onerous 2 penny tax). A 4-penny tax will generate close to twice as much as the 2-penny tax (though not quite, since again a small number of people will stop drinking soda rather than pay 4 cents extra a can). And so on. At the other end of the spectrum, however, if you tax it a thousand dollars a can, then zero revenue will be generated (nobody will buy soda, at least legally). Thus, there is some mid-point where revenue is maximized even considering the fact that fewer people are consuming the product. Almost certainly the tax proposed would be less than this mid-point.
Now there very well be other reasons to oppose the tax. But claiming that it burdens soda drinkers with more than their share of health care costs, or that taxing soda would decrease revenue, are not among them.
Well … the debt has to be paid. Since we certainly can’t talk about self-indulgence, sloth, or sin – might as well make everyone pay up for the failures of the few …
This is another excuse to burden citizens with another tax, no matter how small, without evidence of its effectiveness. Centuries ago the English crown or court bureaucrat thought a lot of money could be made by taxing windows within the realm. The citizenry responsed by bricking up windows to avoid paying the tax. This sugar tax is another stupid idea hatched by a nameless bureaucrat to raise revenue for the state. The tobacco law suits, while intende to offset the healthcosts have been used by their respective states to support the state budget, not heath problems related to smoking.
[blockquote]Further, as people use less tobacco, healthcare costs decrease, resulting in less need for the taxes. [/blockquote]
Only in the port-side bubble does this happen. Here on our planet, healthcare costs are higher for non-smokers insofar as they tend to live longer and expire more slowly. Smokers die sooner and with more alacrity. There are Social Security repercussions, too.
If you want to pay someone else’s healthcare costs or assume risk for same, have at it comrade. Is there some reason to use the threat of violence to compel others to join you?
I’m not a smoker but I will express an opinion. It is interesting to note that cigarettes are approaching a cost of $5 a pack here in Western Michigan. More tax less sales because we have seen the number of smokers decrease. Next time you get gas go into the store to pay your bill and take a look at how full the cigarette bins are.
Well then, if healthcare costs do not decrease and longer living puts more of a strain on our resources like social security, as some of you suggest, maybe the government should actually be subsidizing these products.
Sometime I wonder of some of my fellow “conservatives” are actually listening to what they are saying. Sometimes we seem more focused on winning the argument (wanting show how much better our conservative principles are) than the actual outcome of our arguments (the betterment of society that our principles are supposed to produce).
I don’t want your crappy government services and all the new taxes that go to pay for the crappy services that I don’t. At least I can always moderate or quit drinking sodas. What’s next the fast food tax, the cookie tax..?
Steve, I took it more to show the innanity and rank foolishness of the other side’s arguments.
What I’d like to see is the end of sugar tariffs. Then the soda, taxed or not, would have sugar in it instead of high fructose corn syrup, we could get cheap ethanol from Brazil, made from leftover sugar mash (trash for fuel), for our cars, and corn would be grown for human food and cattle feed once again.
As to taxing things which are bad for people in order to reduce consumption, it works up to a point, but it’s not much of a strategy as a permanent way to fund a massive increase in public health-care expenditures.
Apparently, the rule of thumb is that a 25% increase in cigarrette cost results in an 11% decrease in smoking. Thus, while the decrease in smoking rate blunts the revenue raised, it is hardly a push.
Also, another fallacy is that people die younger if they engage in smoking or drinking soda pop so health care dollars are INCREASED. A decrease in 7 years for cigarette smoking. But, stopping cigarette smoking at age 40 only increased the life expectancy by 4.6 years. But what I see is that cigarette smokers or the obese use health care dollars a lot more than John “Squeaky Clean” Public. More diabetes, more dialysis (VERY expensive), more bypass surgeries, more everything. Thus, I am pretty sure, even with taking into account the increased life span, encouraging healthy living is the economical thing to do.
[blockquote]Well then, if healthcare costs do not decrease and longer living puts more of a strain on our resources like social security, as some of you suggest, maybe the government should actually be subsidizing these products.
Sometime I wonder of some of my fellow “conservatives†are actually listening to what they are saying. Sometimes we seem more focused on winning the argument (wanting show how much better our conservative principles are) than the actual outcome of our arguments (the betterment of society that our principles are supposed to produce). [/blockquote]
How about instead not forcing a false dichotomy? Like this:
Government neither onerously taxes (I’d be for a uniform national sales tax, myself) these products nor subsidizes them. Instead of socializing the resultant health costs, government then allows those who use them to bear the brunt of their ill effects, be it increased health insurance premiums, ill health, etc. We’ll call this horrid state of affairs, “liberty.”
The problem here isn’t tobacco or soda, it’s socialism.
The ultimate step will be to follow in the footsteps of the Monty Python routine and tax “thingy”.
If you want to change behavior, make it illegal. While it won’t eliminate the behavior, if it is bad enough to tax, then it should be bad enough to outlaw. It’s astounding that more people aren’t libertarians in the face of this ridiculousness. Tax consumption, but tax it across the board, not on specific items.
Jefferson, we already do pay for each other’s health care. As far as violence goes, I’m not quite quaking in fear as you are, but perhaps the cops are a bit more severe in your neck of the woods. Do you live near Tenaha?
I suppose there are places that have the kind of liberty you admire, Jefferson. Like Somalia. No government. Just extended families. Even the Mises institue is enjoying that sort of environment. Personally, I’d much prefer “Socialist” Norway, Britain or France than Libertarian Somalia.
I’m unaware of health benefits provided by consumption of sugary soft drinks. If you accept that we need to restructure our system of health care delivery (and I do) and this will require more money to implement then additional federal taxes on the soft drinks seems a good place to start.
Just a point of contention: sodas have not contained SUGAR in years. The current sweetener of choice is either high fructose corn syrup or some artificial sweetener such as Splenda or Nutra-sweet.
And remember when sodas were touted as ‘health-drinks’ around the turn of the century? Interesting, how things change over the years. Coffee goes in and out of being bad for you, the latest studies show that it is really, really good for you. Same with salt, etc.
No, I’m not saying that tobacco is good for you (but at one time society thought it was), or that alcohol to excess is good for you. (Although studies DO show that one-to-two glasses of red wine per day is good for your heart.) Historical note: One of the first conflicts in the young US was over taxing whiskey. Geo. Washington had to deploy the troops to enforce it.
By the way, I have relatives who have diabetes. Never smoked, always watched their weight, yet still got it. A close friend died of cancer recently. She was a vegetarian with a very healthy lifestyle. My mom has a heart condition due to rheumatic fever contracted in her youth. My grandfather died of ‘black lung’ from the coal mines. Some diseases are NOT dependent on diet/lifestyle, but some other factor, environmental, genetic or something we haven’t thought of yet.
Frankly, I don’t know one person one this planet who is older than 116 years old. Everyone will die of something, sooner or later, and whether it is quick or lingering, only God knows what their future holds. Or like the bumper sticker says:
Exercise hard. Eat right. Die anyway.
I’m unemployed, I have no health insurance right now. I had to take my son to the walk-in clinic this week, It cost us $100.00 out of pocket, yet I vocally oppose any sort of nationalized, socialized health care and the ‘sin’ taxes used to fund this ponzi scheme.
If you want to know what government run health care will look like, just go down to your county-run health clinic and see how well that works!
Oh, and John, most of us are not for NO Government, just a federal government limited to what powers the Constitution has spelled out for it. The rest is up to the States, and we should vote on these powers.
Tax and spend Democrats, wait till Obama decides to tax employee health benefits. I am sure that Obama supporters will gladly pay that tax.
[blockquote]Jefferson, we already do pay for each other’s health care. As far as violence goes, I’m not quite quaking in fear as you are, but perhaps the cops are a bit more severe in your neck of the woods. Do you live near Tenaha? [/blockquote]
I voluntarily associate myself with a healthcare insurer. I prefer it that way since, if I don’t care for the product, service or price, I can go elsewhere. If I don’t like Obamacare, where do I go for an alternative? If I (or, by extension, my employer) don’t pay the taxes, what will happen, John? I’m not sure what the government is like on your planet, but on this one it tends to get rather aggressive when one doesn’t fork over the cash on time.
Why so insouciant and, dare I say [i]laissez-faire[/i] when the “choice” is about aborting one’s child, yet so iron-fistedly authoritarian when the choice is about health insurance?
[blockquote]I suppose there are places that have the kind of liberty you admire, Jefferson. Like Somalia. No government. Just extended families. Even the Mises institue is enjoying that sort of environment. Personally, I’d much prefer “Socialist†Norway, Britain or France than Libertarian Somalia. [/blockquote]
You’re as predictable as you are pedantic, Johnny. Needless to say, your cartoonish vision of libertarianism is inaccurate, but if you like Norway so, I suggest emigrating.
Jefferson, you are kind of lucky that you have a private insurer. If they had to pay for old or poor folk, they’d go out of business and you’d have no insurance.
Heh – cartoonish? Tu Quoque: “Obamacare” is quite a fantasy in its own right. Might want to try another channel besides Fox, buddy. And you might want to check out how the Mises boys love Somalia. If you can find me one libertarian place, that exists anywhere except in your own mind, that has not relied on the public investment of government, please show me. Oh yeah – Russia? That’s a hoot. but Korea, India, China and every major corporation has benefitted from government. Without the government investing in the internet (the DOD), where would that whole economy be? And they stole that money from taxpayers!
As far as aborting a child, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I can’t have children. But I will say I’m more likely to support a government paying for women to have children. I’m guessing you’d rather have the government imprisoning women then cause economic inconvenience to you. Anti-Abortion types generally love children unless they have to support someone else’s.
“Authoritarian?” lol.
I’d rather have doctors or the government be an authority over my health than some tight fisted accountant in some profit-making bureaucracy that’s more interested in NOT paying than my health. It’s only the threat of big bad government that makes health insurance companies pay up in the first place.
You haven’t traveled much, have you Jefferson? I once asked my dutch cousins what it would be like to emigrate. They said, “you should work on your own country.” Which was good advice. And far more patriotic.
#22 – library jim – county funded health care doesn’t work because – they are underfunded. this is the way conservatives work: underfund government, make it work poorly and then blame government for all the problems.
You could have used that $100 for something else – to invest in a business for example. Instead, you’ve bought into the anti-socialize health care myth, totally unaware that it even undermines your own ability to stimulate the economy.
[blockquote]Jefferson, you are kind of lucky that you have a private insurer. If they had to pay for old or poor folk, they’d go out of business and you’d have no insurance. [/blockquote]
No, they’d just charge rates for oldsters commensurate with the projected claims, much in the way automobile or property insurance works. It’s clear you’re not too up on this whole concept of insurance, John.
[blockquote]Heh – cartoonish? Tu Quoque: “Obamacare†is quite a fantasy in its own right. Might want to try another channel besides Fox, buddy. And you might want to check out how the Mises boys love Somalia. If you can find me one libertarian place, that exists anywhere except in your own mind, that has not relied on the public investment of government, please show me. Oh yeah – Russia? That’s a hoot. but Korea, India, China and every major corporation has benefitted from government. Without the government investing in the internet (the DOD), where would that whole economy be? And they stole that money from taxpayers! [/blockquote]
I’ll have to take your word on Lew Rockwell and Somalia, but know that Rockwell is even scoffed at within libertarian circles. The vast majority of us are quite fond of the rule of law. No one here is talking about anarchy and your desperate attempt to prop up that straw man is nonsense on stilts.
Who said anything about investments? I’m talking about the complete takeover of entire industries by the central state, something that is not only utterly foolish and disastrous in and of itself, but not provided for in the Constitution. It’s more akin to the machinations of, say, [url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/133439.html]Mussolini’s corporate state[/url].
[blockquote]As far as aborting a child, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. [/blockquote]
I especially like when you’re feigning obtuseness. You know what I mean, John. You’re all about choice when abortion is the topic, paying lip service to the idea that moral suasion is the only proper answer. Yet that broadmindedness evaporates like snowflake in Hell when someone wants to choose an insurance policy not approved of by Obama. It would appear that your committment to choice is limited to those topics endorsed by a rather hard left orthodoxy (finally, and orthodoxy you can cling to!).
[blockquote]“Authoritarian?†lol. [/blockquote]
I’m not sure what else one would call a political belief that punishes people for what they eat, what they smoke and what they do, no exits allowed. You’re a tyrant, Johnny-boy, a petty one to be sure, but a tyrant nonetheless.
[blockquote]I’d rather have doctors or the government be an authority over my health than some tight fisted accountant in some profit-making bureaucracy that’s more interested in NOT paying than my health. It’s only the threat of big bad government that makes health insurance companies pay up in the first place. [/blockquote]
Exactly! As they should, as those are contractual obligations you have paid for. But what happens when the payer and the enforcer are the same entity? To whom do you turn? Or is your planet a place where resources are infinite and thus costless? You do know that there are things that will be excluded from Obamacare, do you not?
[blockquote]You haven’t traveled much, have you Jefferson? I once asked my dutch cousins what it would be like to emigrate. They said, “you should work on your own country.†Which was good advice. And far more patriotic. [/blockquote]
John, I’ve traveled extensively on three continents and lived on two. I speak three languages, two of them fluently. As with virtually every word that springs from your trembling fingers, you have no idea of your topic.
I’ve lived and stayed long-term in nations where people have all kinds of “rights” to things: education, healthcare, childcare, retirement, etc…all promised by the central state. And, to a country, the things provided were slow, squalid and filthy. As your malinformed posts show, it’s a lot easier to promise these things to an unwitting populace than to actually deliver them. See, actual people have to produce the goodies passed out by the State and when that State runs short of money (as they always do on any grandiose scheme like this. See also: Social Security and Medicare), people refuse to produce them.
You really need to study Econ a while, comrade, and fix that violent, immoral character. You need not get what you want at the point of a rifle.
[blockquote]#22 – library jim – county funded health care doesn’t work because – they are underfunded. this is the way conservatives work: underfund government, make it work poorly and then blame government for all the problems. [/blockquote]
All of them?? Why not try this out in a nice, rich, left-wing county like San Francisco or Marin and see how it works? Or maybe in Massachusetts? Oh, wait, they tried it there and it’s still “underfunded.” It’s just like Medicare. Amazingly, when a good is made free, more of it is consumed!
[blockquote]You could have used that $100 for something else – to invest in a business for example. Instead, you’ve bought into the anti-socialize health care myth, totally unaware that it even undermines your own ability to stimulate the economy. [/blockquote]
Indeed, Jim, if John gets his way, you’ll never even see that C-note. No, John and the Maximum Leader know how to spend that money better than you. As for the stimulus, here’s the result:
[blockquote]The actual numbers aren’t just worse than the rosy picture Obama painted for a world after his magical stimulus took effect. They’re worse even than the doomsday scenario he outlined if Congress didn’t pass his stimulus plan.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.lesjones.com/2009/05/12/unemployment-numbers-worse-than-projected/]LINK[/url]
Doesn’t this mean the porkulus is making things worse, John?
John, see Jeffersonian’s note. At least HE understands economics and knows what he’s talking about.
Under Obama’s taxes and policies, I’ll be paying much more for energy, gas, and food, and that C-note won’t be there much longer for any local stimulus.
At least I didn’t have to go before a health board to see if my son qualified to see a doctor (or in this case, a very competent Nurse Practitioner). Which might not be the case at this time next year.
Heh – libraryjim, you might be paying more for energy and gas and food. But with a stimulus you might actually get a job.
Jefferson – I was thinking of the Mises site itself. Not Lew Rockwell. Haven’t read him for a while.
A few things. A universal health care program may not necessarily lead to a reduction in choices. If anything, lots of people in the country actually don’t have any choices about their doctors. It’s the ER or nothing. For all your protestation about “choice” it seems to be quite limited.
Second, allowing all people to have health care means that lots of people are suddenly going to front load the system. That’s to be expected. My assumption – and perhaps this is where we disagree – is that health is a different sort of commodity than, say, screwdrivers or yachts. I might not know much about economics, but there are plenty of professional economists smarter than I am who shaped my view. Last, I’m not sure what your comments about Massachusetts and San Francisco mean, but it does seem that the uninsured are getting better care than they used to. Which is the point, right?
Further, I don’t know what obamacare looks like. Is it like the British model? The Canadian? Or the Dutch? Or is it a product of your imagination. And yes, probably some things will be excluded from any health care plan.
Jefferson – let me get this straight: you have actually stayed in other countries (no indication of how long) and can therefore judge that all countries with governments that provide services are slow, squalid and filthy. You are an expert because you lived in another continent. Is that correct? Well, I suppose that is ONE sort of criteria. I would prefer, say, life expectancy, one of those happiness statistics, average amount spent per person on health care, or infant mortality might be a better gauge of how effective an entire system is. But I’m not an expert. Or much of an ideologue.
As far as your comment on porkulus, um… How much of the money from the stimulus package has actually been delivered? I might not be that bright, Jefferson, but I would probably begin assessing the impact of “porkuli” once it actually gets spent. Otherwise, its about as reasonable as blaming Obama for the Dow. Or even giving him credit. I happen to think that things are a bit stochiastic right now, so I wouldn’t make the kind of claims for or against.
“Violent immoral character: what are you talking about?
Jefferson, would you at least be consistent in your insults? One moment you imply that I support corporatism. Another you got me in the hard-left fringe. I’m not sure if you think I derive my economic thought from Gentile or Gramsci, Chesterton or Karl. I’m used to you misrepresenting and misunderstanding my views, but you’re flailing all over the place. I admit, I don’t know what you mean by hard-left orthodoxy. A few examples would be useful.
Here is one “hard-left” marxist idea I agree with: Capitalism is the most powerful engine of human relations in the world. Yep – I’m a “marxist.”
I may also be a tyrant. I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I was once compared to George Bush by a parishioner. I submit, you may have much more knowledge about health care economics than I do. Mine is passing, although I did, a decade ago, read Arrow’s classic monograph, which you seem to allude to in your comments. And I admit, attending a few public lectures at the U of C isn’t the same as your vast knowledge of the internets.
Lew Rockwell runs the joint, John. You don’t publish there unless you are substantially in lockstep with him.
Government-run healthcare does mean a reduction in choice, and that’s by design. Don’t believe me? Watch Democrat Jan Schakowsky from your neck of the woods say precisely that [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_MtLyDfXJA&nomobile=1&sso=True&client=mv-google&gl=US&hl=en]here[/url]. Government can and will subsidize their plan, driving competitors who do not have that luxury. She knows this, as does every sentient adult. We citizens who prefer the private sector are already doubly subsidizing medicare insofar as we pay for it with payroll taxes then, when Medicare compensates providers at sub-cost levels, we get costs shifted onto us. For this we are slandered by folks like you.
I never claimed to be an expert, John, I claimed to have witnessed a process very similar to that we are being subjected to by our liberal fascist prexy: runaway government spending, nationalization of industries, manipulation of the financial sector, implementation and expansion of broad, unsustainable social programs like healthcare, housing, welfare, etc. The effects were precisely those we are seeing the rumblings of now here. I’ve said before that I see us turning into Argentina, and high-profile pundits have recently been saying exactly that. I’m not anxious to follow Juan Peron’s lead, personally.
As for the porkulus goes, I think about 15% or so has been spent so far. It’s really a moot point, though, because I’m judging it on the criteria its promoters gave us. We were told unemployment would shoot up without the package, while with it it would decrease. Instead, the figures are not only worse than what was promised, they’re worse than what we were told would happen absent the pork. How are we to conclude anything but that the porkulus is, so far, not just a failure but actively working as a drag on the economy?
[blockquote]“Violent immoral character: what are you talking about? [/blockquote]
Your reflexive resorting to the use the government to solve whatever social or economic ill happens to be at the forefront on any given day. What does government have that private people do not, John, but the use of aggressive force? You might be a serene, gentle fellow in person, but you have no compunction about using violence by proxy. Hence my assessment, which are quite accurate and in no way misrepresent you. Since you’re a regular over at Lew Rockwell’s place, maybe you’ve run across this, which I think pegs your weltanschauung quite nicely:
[i]It may be in place to remark here the essential identity of the various extant forms of collectivism. The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists; the serious student sees in them only the one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power into State power. When Hitler and Mussolini invoke a kind of debased and hoodwinking mysticism to aid their acceleration of this process, the student at once recognizes his old friend, the formula of Hegel, that “the State incarnates the Divine Idea upon earth,” and he is not hoodwinked. The journalist and the impressionable traveller may make what they will of “the new religion of Bolshevism”; the student contents himself with remarking clearly the exact nature of the process which this inculcation is designed to sanction.[/blockquote]
I’m not in the least hoodwinked.
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock1.html]LINK[/url]
I have no doubt that the nature of our choices would change. But I don’t know how just yet, and know that there are plenty of different models for universalizing health care. Given the sorts of people Obama has selected to manage the program, it will probably not be top down, but bottom up – using the institutions that are already working. What is still true is that the current system of arrangements spends more than 20% in the private sector on bureaucrats who try not to insure people. There has to be a more efficient way that protects public health and ensures every person gets treated in a timely fashion. Single payer might be it. I also bet that a side benefit would be an instant stimulus to the economy, liberating private corporations from spending on health care, as well as a reduction in abortions. As I stated before, there is a Dutch model (admired by some conservatives), the British and the Canadian. I don’t think we know which plan is going to happen.
I know that you think that Obama is a thuggish Chicago pol (although, this is not the same interpretation that I have. Alinsky organized communities to actually confront the Democratic machine), but I’m still an agnostic about using Argentina as an allegory. I do think we have become a lot like Brazil, perhaps. However, in a place that is as corrupt like Washington, having a Machiavellian leader is exactly what the place needs.
Jefferson – I think we might agree on one point: the state is the sole legitimate purveyor of violence. It is, alas, the world I live in. And its a trade off. I enjoy lots of rights – to be a cleric, to have a job, to drive a car, all of which are grounded in someone enforcing those rights. Enforcement might, at some point, mean violence. And that enforcement itself, costs money. Probably because, being a sinner, I wouldn’t give the amount needed to have the rights I enjoy.
I’m quite sympathetic to anarchy, myself, but I’ll probably have to go with Paul and Augustine when it comes to the relationship between the sin and the state. When the kingdom of God returns, perhaps then we can enjoy the righteousness of a rationalist paradise. I admire the cause. I’m just not as sanguine about human nature anymore.
Given Obama’s thuggish treatment of banks, auto companies, hedge funds, etc. it’s pretty clear where he’s coming from. The State will be the arbiter of all.
Actually, we don’t agree on the State being the sole purveyor of violence, though I would agree that a legitimate government is the purveyor of [i]aggressive[/i] violence. For what determines whether a government is legit or not, well, see what my namesake wrote in the Declaration for the Cliff’s Notes.
Like I said, government costs to the rights you mention are minimal and entirely justifiable. I did notice your list didn’t include any positive rights, which are, of course, those that are driving us to bankruptcy.
And if you’re so discouraged about human nature, why are you so intent on giving a small cabal of humans such power over the rest of us? Where are we to get these angels?
Jefferson, I think that while the positive / negative rights distinction has been useful for lots of political theorists and philosophers, most of the things we do on a daily basis look a lot like positive rights. In our democracy, it seems that most people want health care and social security: they also don’t want to pay for them. Thus we have disasters like California.
How is universal health care giving a small cabal of humans such power any different than what we already have? It’s still pretty small, just different bureaucracies. The difference is that, in a democracy or “polyarchy”, there is more accountability.
I think I see where you are coming from, but it sounds as if you compare the USA to 18th century France. I don’t see the world in terms of the “big bad state” vs John Galt. I admit, your view reminds me of the great leftoid C. Wright Mills. My own views were more shaped by Robert Dahl and Arthur Bentley. I find your florid fantasies about the state excellent material for the movies, but I think that it is more a reflection – in fact – of the victory of capitalism rather than a real articulation of what happens in government.
[blockquote]Jefferson, I think that while the positive / negative rights distinction has been useful for lots of political theorists and philosophers, most of the things we do on a daily basis look a lot like positive rights. In our democracy, it seems that most people want health care and social security: they also don’t want to pay for them. Thus we have disasters like California. [/blockquote]
It’s axiomatic that people want things and they want them for nothing. There are two ways they can make that happen: Criminal activity and government coercion. Both have the same end effect of making the plundered goods disappear. Wise public policy, therefore, recognizes this and eschews intrusion into those areas.
[blockquote]How is universal health care giving a small cabal of humans such power any different than what we already have? It’s still pretty small, just different bureaucracies. The difference is that, in a democracy or “polyarchyâ€, there is more accountability. [/blockquote]
Wrong, as usual, John. When I (or my employer…the result of yet another government intrusion into the market) purchase a policy from an insurance provider, I by definition do not purchase it from a different insurer. That gives information to all firms about their coverage and pricing that can then be used to improve both. The information is continuous, specific and narrow, applying only to the insurance product and its price. The tension creates the optimal pricing and product offering.
Contrast this with a federal monopsony. The feedback loop to the federal government is, for all intents and purposes episodic since we’re only allowed to vote once every two years for representatives, twice every 12 for Senators and once every four for President. But these votes are now about far more than healthcare, they’re about national security, education, immigration, farming, Social Security, civil rights, taxes, corruption, banking, energy, transportation, etc. How does one decode the consumer’s individual or even collective wishes about healthcare from this mishmash of votes? the answer is simple: One cannot. As we say in the electical engineering world, there’s a low signal-to-noise ratio. In the end, it will be a political direction of resource at those with the most pull and who scream the loudest. Just witness what Obama did with porkulus money intended for the state of California, and you’ll get a small sample.
The Leviathan State suffers from what all highly-centralized bureaucracies do: Epistemological traps about what people want and what they are willing to pay for it. This is unavoidable since government attempts to overthrow the pricing mechanism out the window, pretending it can bully people into paying and accepting what it decrees for the products and services it controls. It can’t and never will.
So
Jefferson – the problem is that heath care doesn’t have “plundered goods” in the same way that we plunder for nickle or gold. If I’m healthy, I don’t necessarily go to the doctor for more health.
You have a pretty awesome insurance company, Jefferson. You probably read all those big books that your company gives out. Look, in an uber rational, perfect world, the problem would be solved. You don’t seem to address the fact that insurance providers still need to be encouraged to obey the law through the heavy hand of the state.
You are caricaturing, also, what social medical insurance looks like. Nore have you really addressed, for example, the Dutch model.
Further, the “Leviathan state” is an interesting concept, but we’re not 16th century England. Sometimes the tyranny we feel is self-inflicted.