So You Want European-Style Health Care?

You're not a politician if you own all the land.

You've imagined that power over a defined land negates the fact of political power and those that wield it over others, when in fact you've defined the essence of political power; control over a defined geographic area.

“I disagree with Kuehn and Muirgeo for the most part but if they didn't post what would the discussions be?”

Intelligent, responsive, rational, reasonable, informative, conclusive, agreeable, are some words that come to mind.

First, you can't even manage your string of adjectives when we're here.

Second, don't lump me in with muirgeo. More often than not I find myself disagreeing with him. In fact, I probably agree with Don and Russ more than I agree with him.

REad this, you are wrong again:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_californi...

muirgeo is afraid that people like himself would be in power. I think I like that conceit of his.

If this is illustrative for the strength of arguments European conservative think tanks manage to put out there, this video just eased most of my worries: the continued existence of our European health care benefits have little to fear. Her arguments are unfounded sound bites about 'long waiting lines' (I never noticed them, ever), 'bureaucrats deciding what is covered and what is not' (private companies have bureaucrats who do just the same, in a more cynical fashion), and 'overutilization because it appears to be an all you can eat buffet' (no it isn't… coverage is only 100% in the U.K., not in other countries where you still pay a % out of pocket, cutting down on overconsumption). Thanks for the video.

There have always been politicians. Government is an organization with the monopoly on violence, and politicians are the people who control those who “are allowed” to inflict violence on others.
Even Somalia has a government, it's just spread out among tribes and gangs, each of which have the monopoly on violence in the area that they control. And those that control those tribes and gangs are politicians.

I understand that, but were you intending to reply to me or muirgeo?

Libertariansm doesn't prevent “control over a defined geographic region”, it promotes it.

You say that because you don't know what you are talking about.

The history of humanity is rife with conflict over political control of territory. And what government is all about is the administration of conquered territory. All governments, monarchies and democracies, are oligarchies subsisting on the productivity of the serfs.

Serfdom is here.

That people get to vote over who the actual administrators are leaves them no less administered than any herd of sheep.

If you want them to go away, ignore them. If their posts garner no reply, they will get bored and go away. They post something designed to gain a reaction, then you play into their game by repeating the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…

Not just government, but thuggish criminals also share that monopoly on violence. Terrorizing the rest of us.

“all the liberal states will look like Canada”. By this do you mean, whenever s#*! hits the fan, everyone from the liberal states will run to the libertarian ones begging for mercy?

“right wing nut cakes prone to war”? I don't know if you noticed, but Democrats were responsible for getting us into every war over the last century up until the Gulf War. Democrats are warmongers too. And just because some hick family that can't communicate to save their lives was somehow successful enough to obtain the votes to get elected, then promptly abandoned the few remaining “principles” of their party, doesn't mean “right wing nut cakes” are “prone to war”.

I would also like to address one of your previous statements, “How would strict libertarian policy not lead to all the property being owned by a small minority?” Considering this logic (if you want to call it that), it seems a phenomenon such as this would have already occurred under our current system. Property values in Detroit are averaging $9,000, yet I don't see evidence of any impending fiefdoms. The rich are a-holes for providing people with employment and reducing the price of consumer goods. However, I would much prefer a government that prints it's own money, spends it while it's still worth something, and still can't seem to manage things in an efficient or cost-effective manner. Right.

Why is it that when collectivism is adopted in an attempt to “fix” something, it makes things worse, and more collectivism is proposed to fix the consequences of the initial failure of that collectivism?

Something must exist in reality before it can possibly spread. Once that something exists in the market, competition leads to innovation, which causes production costs to fall (outside of monetary inflation). If costs fall enough, that good or service can be accessed by anyone.

If production costs are high at a particular point in time, this does not mean they will remain high indefinitely. How does a planner determine if the cost of something is ideal today rather than yesterday, or if it “must” be arbitrarily “controlled”? If a good or service can be supplied cost-effectively at a price that meets consumer wants and needs, it would already be doing this in the market.

European health care “works” in some countries despite government, not because of it. Government intervention can only distort the market. As a result of such distortions, consumers act in ways that do not reflect reality, thus creating additional problems/costs which are typically addressed in the form of more intervention/collectivism. And repeat…

Don't you mean New Hampshire?

Don't you mean New Hampshire?