"The First Permanent President of America"

It's very telling (and a bit scary) when these guys reveal their true objectives. Assuming this isn't satire, and it doesn't appear that it is (it's so far from sane that it's hard to tell), here's a call to, among other things, wipe out the population of Iraq with nuclear weapons, replace them with Americans, and install Bush as our permanent president. From Crooked Timber:

A website run by the neocon thinktank the Center for Security Policy (members include Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle and Doug Feith) has published (then removed) a piece calling for Bush to use his military powers to become “the first permanent president of America” and “ruler of the world”. Along the way he suggests that the population of Iraq should have been wiped out. The website Family Security Matters also runs pieces by Newt Gingrich, Judy Miller and other luminaries.

The full piece is preserved here at Watching the Watchers. I found it via Wikipedia.

As someone would say (though maybe not in this case) “read the whole thing”. It’s impossible to tell if this is satire by someone who has cleverly infiltrated FSM over a lengthy period (quite a few other pieces by the same author, Philip Atkinson were also removed), a sudden outbreak of insanity (unlikely since Atkinson previously published stuff almost as extreme as this, with the endorsement of FSM), or the actual views of CSP/CFM, accidentally revealed and clumsily concealed.

As things stand, there’s a presumption in favor of the last of these views. The piece was published by CSP/FSM and constitutes, at present, their last word on the subject. If they repudiate Atkinson’s views they should say so openly, and live with the embarrassment of having published him and praised his ideas until now.

Here's Atkinson's editorial from the link above:

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy, by Philip Atkinson: President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable -- for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Just to be sure, I checked the website Family Security Matters for a statement on this, but nothing. As noted above, there's an article by Newt Ginrich and also articles by many others (e.g. Judith Miller), so apparently they have no problem whatsoever publishing in the same venue as Atkinson, but there's nothing explicitly disavowing Atkinson's views.

Comments

[T.R. Elliott]

Last week a blogger exchanged a few emails with Philip Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson ceased the debate because the blogger couldn't define the grounds of his morality, a convenient--yet fallacious debating technique used by Mr Atkinson, when, in response to a question, one doesn't answer it but asks another question--"What's the basis of your morality?"

Analogy: Father: "Son, did you hit the glass with your hand and spill the milk?" Son: "What makes you think that Newton's laws apply in the vicinity of cow's milk?"

Atkinson could be a nut and everyone on the right wants to disassociate from him. Or his ideas could be shared with many in the conservative community yet they are unwilling to express them. Not unlike the racism that exists within many people yet those holding those views still try to distance themselves from those who honestly voice them. Not good PR.

There are shades of grey to this type of thinking. And I hate to keep dragging him in, but that reference to Arnold Kling I put up the other day, in which he proposes imperialism, is just a less extreme version of Atkinson. Kling already proposed in an essay that we bomb Iran. And in response to a commenter on his blog, asking "What makes you think a giant government program to send troops overseas, have them murder a bunch of people and steal their property, and then auction off contracts to drill oil wells has the remotest hope in hell of working?" Kling responds: "What makes you think that waiting for utopian anarchy to emerge in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia has the remotest hope of working?"

Notice the technique: A legitimate question is answered with a grandiose question about "utopian anarchy."

And this is considered thinking and analysis in many circles.

[Bruce Webb]

"Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world."

This is such a distortion of history you don't know where to start. Caesar's tactics in Gaul were not fundamentally based in mass slaughter, he did not use his army to crush all opposition at home, and far from ending the personal threat his period of undisputed power only lasted from March 45 until his assassination in March 44 (Cary & Scullard, History of Rome pp. 276, 281). Far from ending chaos Caesar's death was marked by a new civil war that lasted to the battle of Actium in 31. In fact only after that point or perhaps beter 29 can you say that Rome was truly an Empire in form, though it had long been one in practice. And even this ignores the fact that Rome had Caligula and Nero in their future and a new Civil War in AD 68 that featured 4 different emperors in a single year.

Not only is this guy a genocidal loon, he is a truly crappy historian, this is truly a comic book version of Roman history. This guy is by all evidence not even qualified to teach a freshman course in Western Civ yet presents himself as a philosopher of same.

And note the huge logical flaw in his argument. Bush came to power in a nominally democratic process, where else resides his legitimacy? For Atkinson's argument to be really consistent he would have to suggest that Bush came to power through an extra-constitutional process, that his power flows from some different source. A position that would align Atkinson with the farthest fringes of the Left. Presumedly some editor at some point approved this piece for publication. What the hell were they thinking?

[Bruce Wilder]

This article has received a fair amount of blogospheric attention, from Digby at Hullabaloo and Mark Kleiman at realfacts.com, among others, as well as Crooked Timber.

I can't help wondering if this not a case of attacking "Ward Churchill" in reverse -- a mirror image of the Right attacking a marginal figure, who advocates or represents certain ideas so poorly that the Right is relieved of the responsibility for caricature, prior to critique. Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado, though, was a towering figure compared to the self-eduacated Philip Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson's autobiographical note is utterly straightforward:
http://ourcivilisation.com/author.htm
I cannot, of course, vouch for its accuracy; the suspicion that it might be parody remains inescapable.

Mr. Elliott, in the comment above, makes the point that Mr. Atkinson's opinions are not far removed from the opinions of Arnold Kling. Indeed, it would not be difficult to find figures of some significance in the punditocrisy or the Republican Party, who peddle fables and express reprehensible sentiments. So, explain how the case of Mr. Atkinson deserves attention? Is it just that Mr. Atkinson, in expressing his view, fails to dissemble?

[alex]

if i had to guess, i'd say this author's whole identity is an elaborate long term hoax, whose purposes was to demonstrate just how long it could go undetected in the world of extreme right wing commentary.

[Idaho_Spud]

Actually, while serving in the military and among my current co-workers, I've heard several comments about nuking the middle east into "one big glassy parking lot, and having the marines return to paint the parking lines and drill new wells.".

The thought that the inhabitants of the middle east are the rightful owners of the underground crude oil does not seemt to penetrate to the forebrain.

Although the idea of having Bush as president-for-life has never been mentioned by these same people, I'm sure that would be preferable to having a democrat return to the office.

It's difficult to tell how far out of the mainstream these thoughts really are, as I have heard the 'nuclear' theme so many times, from so many different people, over decades of time.

[alex]

if i had to guess, i'd say this author's whole identity is an elaborate long term hoax, whose purposes was to demonstrate just how long it could go undetected in the world of extreme right wing commentary.

[BJ Feng]

Please, no reasonable person could take this piece seriously. This man is part of the right wing as much as Osama Bin Laden is part of the left wing. His ideas have no popular support, are ideologically unsound, and therefore can be dismissed easily.

As for Ward Churchill, his views actually represented the thoughts of a fair number of people and had to be addressed. America is to blame, even on this board that idea has been floated about, and it's reasonable to say that his view is a part of the mainstream left's thinking. That cannot be said of Atkinson's piece in regards to the right. I have said previously that the fact we can use nuclear weapons to end hostility but choose not to proves that the American people are decent and not out for needless blood. That the terrorists would, in fact, use nuclear weapons if they had the chance, reveals the difference.

[BenTodd]

"Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world?"

Wow -- and I thought the right was against global government. Oh, wait, as long as "we're" in control, I guess it's a-ok.

[realpc]

"these guys reveal their true objectives"

Who are THESE GUYS?? Come on, you can't take the opinion of one madman as representing some group.

There is no popular ideological group in America that advocates ending democracy. Certainly none that wants to end it with Bush as dictator. Any group that feels that way has at most 3 members and they're all in the same mental hospital.

I can't believe Democrats are making a big deal out of this.

[Bruce Wilder]

Idaho_Spud: "while serving in the military and among my current co-workers, I've heard several comments about nuking the middle east into 'one big glassy parking lot, and having the marines return to paint the parking lines and drill new wells.'

"The thought that the inhabitants of the middle east are the rightful owners of the underground crude oil does not seem to penetrate to the forebrain."

I've had such thoughts myself -- but luckily my forebrain is in charge. In any large group of people, some will spontaneously specialize in the expression of "crazy", but it is no one's exclusive province. The main trick in politics is to form a coalition of the sane against the insane, to make the inevitable conventional wisdom as sane and rational and productive as possible, and to marginalize the destructive and irrational. The most difficult part of that program of allying the sane against the insane is keeping the demagogues away from the authoritarian followers.

American politics has become dysfunctional, in regard to maintaining a coalition of the sane against the insane. This is widely recognized, but there are varying degrees of recognition. The old scheme of "bipartisanship" has broken down as the partisan division of the electorate has shifted. The news Media fails systematically to punish liars or call out lies or to discriminate between hacks and genuine experts. Mr. Bush, under the advice of the lamented Karl Rove, embraced a politics of authoritarian leadership, with the predictable result an increasingly corrupt and incompetent governmental administration, combined with self-destructive policy.

The national political discourse -- on Iraq in particular -- is increasingly incoherent, as politicians in survivor-mode, but with little independent capacity for actually thinking about policy, look for "compromise" formulas, where no "middle ground" could possibly exist. Many of the "expert" commentators, offered up by the Media are corrupt hacks, many with superficial knowledge, few analytical skills, and no judgment. The government, under the present Administration, deliberately deceives and manipulates the Media and the American People. And, the supporters of the Administration -- their allies on the Right -- engage in the political discourse, substituting fantasy for fact, and expedient debating tactics for wit and reason.

It is exhausting. I have only a vague idea what Bush and his supporters think they are accomplishing by stubbornly persisting in the present policy. But, my vague idea that the American occupation of Iraq has something to do with oil is not the same as a statement from Bush et alia that I could actually argue against. Democrats propose withdrawal, and Republicans declare that they can never support a "surrender date".

Into this morass, comes "Philip Atkinson", who, by his own accout of his life, retired as a computer systems analyst in 1991 (about the year Windows 3.0 first secured its dominance) and has been living off his (second) wife ever since. Unable to examine any authentic text of George W. Bush's lunacy, we are reduced to analyzing this bozo's work.

Aaargh.

[T.R. Elliott]

Elaborating a bit on what Bruce Wilder says:

I think focusing attention on Atkinson might be similar to the opposite case: focusing attention on Ward Churchill, a marginal figure. It's easy to look for the marginal figures with questionable views who can be linked up in some fashion with people on either the left or the right--sort of like the so called rule of seven, the idea that one can link two people together through something like seven other people (not saying it's true, but you know what I mean).

I also don't want to unduly compare Kling and Atkinson. I can't imagine Kling would propose such anti-democratic moves as proposed by Atkinson. (That's Bryan Caplan's job :-)). I just bring up the comparison because Kling has proposed bombing Iran (as have the neo-cons so he's got lots of friends) and recently proposed seizing oil resources. He says as such, though he does so through the so called Faux news approach (Faux does the "some people say" or "I'm just asking," referred to as the Cavuto Mark, whereas Kling his wife for cover. Same technique.)

Atkinson demonstrated, as shown above, ignorance of ancient history. Kling--it appears--demonstrates ignorance of recent events--Iraq. So I think it fair--at minimum--to make the comparison while not wanting to over-generalize it. I've not looked much at Atkinson. I can't imagine he's worth the time. I'm not interested in what he has to say. Kling, on the other hand, I do read--but with concern on many occasions.

[STS]

This Atkinson character isn't completely isolated. Thomas Sowell published something in a similar vein, calling obliquely, for a military coup.

Here's the link: http://tinyurl.com/3bsklp

Kevin Phillips, Bruce Fein and John Dean are only three of the most prominent Republicans actively speaking up about the authoritarian drift of the present "Republican" (authoritarian) leadership.

Bruce Wilder touched on the intellectual incoherence of the administration. That combined with the generalized anxiety of our evaporating middle-class, growing debt peonage and uneasy awareness that we're vulnerable to foreign competition and dependent on foreign resources (notably oil) creates a pretty toxic environment. One in which the need to resort to extraordinary measures -- even abandoning core ideals of the American Republic -- to preserve "the American way of life" is widely felt but less openly articulated. Too many of our citizens are ready to ditch the US Constitution in exchange for a phony promise that doing so will protect their standard of living.

Let's hope Cheney's invitation to "spend some time on the dark side" doesn't carry us too far before some positive vision of the future is reasserted.

[Bruce Webb]

BJ that is just crap. Show me any kind of evidence to back this;

"As for Ward Churchill, his views actually represented the thoughts of a fair number of people and had to be addressed. America is to blame, even on this board that idea has been floated about, and it's reasonable to say that his view is a part of the mainstream left's thinking. That cannot be said of Atkinson's piece in regards to the right."

Well no his views don't represent "thoughts of a fair number of people". And you will not find a single real example of a person on the mainstream left thinking that. What you can find is pro-war people objecting to the very notion that American actions in the past can have consequences in the future, and that we should factor that into future actions. What happens in these cases is that stupid pro-war people can not distinguish between the concepts of causation and blame and twist any kind of informed discussion of the former as a claim to the latter. Examination of what drives people to a particular crime, that is 'motive' is important, for prevention of future crimes by other criminals if nothing else. It has no direct relationship of the question of guilt or innocence of the criminal act itself.

It is exactly the equivalent to the 'support the troops' argument. I support the troops and always did. But I come from the old school position that if you are sending people to be killed that your intended ends are not only achievable but worth the sacrifice, That too seems to be too complex for some people to follow, any reasoned discussion about minimizing casualties gets turned into some attack on the troops.

Ward Churchill had no platform. Atkinson got provided one by a group that include some heavy weights of Republican foreign and military policy "(members include Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle and Doug Feith)". Somehow they ended up one step of separation from a paper advocating nuclear genocide. And that begs for some examination, at a minimum some apology. Shoot someone utters an insult on a dKos comment thread and suddenly Markos is branded a purveyor of hate speech. Well sorry it doesn't get more hateful than;

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead.

Um shouldn't somebody of caught that. Because if we used the Rights standard 'guilt by the remotest association' technique, then Gaffney just called for genocide. You can bet O'Reilly wouldn't let any Left website off if caught doing anything similar.

[Bruce Wilder]

Bruce Webb: "Um shouldn't somebody of caught that. Because if we used the Rights standard 'guilt by the remotest association' technique, then Gaffney just called for genocide. You can bet O'Reilly wouldn't let any Left website off if caught doing anything similar."

In fairness, that website did remove it -- in fact, they erased everything by Atkinson. (Of course, it did not get us any closer to Cheney's resignation.)

[RW]

"... if we used the Rights standard 'guilt by the remotest association' technique, then Gaffney just called for genocide."

Exactly so, and if I understand the history correctly, the Atkinson piece was up for some time and, along with his other work, not removed until it was noticed by unsympathetic eyes and outed by unsympathetic voices.

But right-wingers do appear to go a bit mad when the shoe is placed on the other foot don't they. One reason I tend not to rise to right-wing bait as quickly these days is the growing suspicion that, in many cases, I may not be interacting with an adult; that there is some strange and vaguely nasty little club with secret handshakes and arcane rituals lurking in the background whose logic can be glimpsed but never entirely emerges into their expressed train of reasoning.

[T.R. Elliott]

Bruce Wilder wrote: "In fairness, that website did remove it -- in fact, they erased everything by Atkinson."

Exactly. He's been sent to the cornfield ("It's a Good Life"--The Twilight Zone, episode number 73). Just as Churchill's statements on 9/11 were rebuked and he was later fired for plagiarism and other matters.

And by ignoring Atkinson and Churchills ramblings, we can focus more time on Arnold Kling's upcoming book: "The Myth of Colonialism: Why Resource-Rich People Are Imprisoned by Anarchic Utopian Thinking and How Invasion and Seizing of their Assets Will Set Them Free." And William Kristol's next delusional essay--or appearance on Faux.

[Lafayette]

BJF: I have said previously that the fact we can use nuclear weapons to end hostility but choose not to proves that the American people are decent and not out for needless blood.

A shadow of doubt

Does it? Really, truly?

The fact that America uses guided bombs commanded by robotics from some hole in a Colorado mountain to kill/maim people (so-called "collateral damage") in Iraq or Afghanistan but refrains from employing nuclear weapons proves beyond a shadow of doubt that we are "decent" people.

Your logic is about as impressive as Atkinson's.

[anne]

"As for Ward Churchill, his views actually represented the thoughts of a fair number of people and had to be addressed. America is to blame, even on this board that idea has been floated about, and it's reasonable to say that his view is a part of the mainstream left's thinking."

Notice the crazed deceiving viciousness; the point of such a horrid person is always and only to be deceitful and vicious. Such a person much deceive and slander with no shame.

[Idaho_Spud]

"even on this board that idea has been floated about"

I would like a little clarification on this veiled accusation, please. Just so that I can understand what the hell you are talking about.

[evagrius]

Jesus' General has something to say;

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

[gordon]

Thanks, Evagrius. For a darker vision, try Forbes on corruption in Iraq. An extract:

"Corruption has long plagued Iraq reconstruction. Hundreds of projects may never be finished, including repairs to the country's oil pipelines and electricity system. Congress gave more than $30 billion to rebuild Iraq, and at least $8.8 billion of it has disappeared, according to a government reconstruction audit.

Despite this staggering mess, there are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle, according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.

"If you do it, you will be destroyed," said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

"Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, `Should I do this?' And my answer is no. If they're married, they'll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything," Weaver said"...

[Lafayette]

"Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, `Should I do this?' And my answer is no. If they're married, they'll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything," Weaver said"...

Amazing as it seems, there are peoples on this earth who -- despite conventional wisdom inside the D.C. Belt -- don't have the faintest idea of what the word means.

They have never ever known it, exercised it, or even seen it. And, when they did get a hint of it, they were forced to acknowledge that it came from a country they uniformly detested -- Israel.

And America is wasting billions pushing it down their throats? This, from a country that could certainly far better employ the resources righting its own domestic wrongs?

Which is sheer folly from a political class gone awry; itself an indication of how BigMoney pollutes all that it touches.

[realpc]

"As for Ward Churchill, his views actually represented the thoughts of a fair number of people and had to be addressed. America is to blame, even on this board that idea has been floated about, and it's reasonable to say that his view is a part of the mainstream left's thinking."

"Notice the crazed deceiving viciousness; the point of such a horrid person is always and only to be deceitful and vicious. Such a person much deceive and slander with no shame."

Anne, I don't understand why you get so upset at this kind of comment. The sort of ideas Churchill taught are being taught in many college classes now. Not all, maybe not most, but it is a new fashion. People who grew up in the 1960s in America are now college professors, and some of them were and still are radicals.

I would define an American radical as someone who dislikes more about thieir own culture than they like. They are not merely questioning Bush and the Iraq war, but the entire foundation of our culture, which they think is based on greed, violence and imperialism.

If someone here points that out, you call them a vicious liar. But maybe it's because you are not here, did not live here in the 1960s, and have not known any anti-American Americans. They are not trying to improve an existing system. They don't believe in any aspect of it.

And it isn't just radicals who are going a little over the deep end these days, thanks to the Bush administration's failure in Iraq.

[T.R. Elliott]

RealPC: I don't believe you. I went to college on the West Coast (UCSD) in the early 1980s, we had our share of radicals, and our share of conservatives. In the physics department, we had physicists who were largely apolitical--at least in their teaching. In sociology, I had one fanatical nixon lover and another socialist. The socialist was a much better educator--in my opinion, and I was a registered Republican at the time.

A man like Howard Zinn, or Noam Chomsky, may be biased--but no more than a zealot waving a flag cheering the troops on, "supporting the troops," irrespective of whether what the troops are doing is in the best interest of anyone.

[realpc]

Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are very very biased. The have never been able to accept the fact that life is not perfect, human beings are not perfect, and no system on earth can ever be perfect.

The American system was a very good idea with a very sensible philosophical foundation. It is based on distrust of power. The American founders had the wisdom to see that human beings cannot be perfect, and that human beings can be dangerous in proportion to how much power they have.

I think we should work with the very clever system that we have, and try to plug its leaks. The American founders were not all-knowing and they could not foresee modern technology. We can't just follow their ideas mindlessly.

Noam Chomsky does not have the same philosophy as the American founders. He sees faults in our system and concludes that the system is no good. He imagines an egalitarian paradise and assumes it could become reality.

Chomsky is an American radical, and his ideas are spreading through colleges now days. People who never heard of him a decade ago are suddenly quoting him.

I am not afraid the radicals will take over and I think they mostly appeal to people who are extremely young and/or idealistic. Almost everyone with real life experience (everyone except the idle rich and tenured professors, that is) has learned that human nature is fallible and that we should guard against the concentration of power.

[T.R. Elliott]

RealPC: When I was at UCSD, it was Herbert Marcuse--a professor there--and Angela Davis was the talk of the town, a student of his until she went to Berkeley. Nothing has changed with respect to the political dialogue--except American politics has become much more conservative since 1980. The campus radicals are now joined on the plaza by campus christians and republicans.

Zinn takes the perspective of the losers in history. I've not looked much at Chomsky--other than his theories of linguistics and some essays--but he seems to bring a perspective that adds to the dialog at time. I don't think either is utopian.

I happned to be reading "A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution" by Carol Berkin right now and the constitution was as much an attempt to stop the Confederation from blowing up into chaos as it was a forward thinking document. The founders thought it might work for ten years. Seriously.

I've no see anything about Zinn or Chomsky wanting to overthrow the constitution. If you have references, please provide them. That said, the constitution was written by white male property owners--by and larger--as much concerned about ensuring they didn't lose whatever they had--farmers were rioting while the constitution was under development--as they were about perfection.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Reads like satire to me.

Really bad satire, but satire.

[realpc]

The constitution has already been partially overthrown, but I guess it had to be, given all the unforeseeable changes. Chomsky would overthrow it completely, though, since he is an anti-capitalist. I don't see how the American constitution could survive at all without the right to private ownership.

Chomsky is definitely in a hazy dreamworld, but that doesn't prevent millions of adoring fans from believing every word he writes or says. It's hard to see what he is FOR, since he is mostly AGAINST. Like Marx, he feels that loving cooperative societies would spring into being once the cruel oppressors are gone. There is no need to specify exactly how these utopieas would function, because they would evolve naturally out of the loving goodness of powerless, unsuccessful, humans (who would, of course, remain forever wonderful and loving even after acquiring power).

[T.R. Elliott]

Chomsky on Private Property (from washington post interview):

Washington, D.C.: I've read a lot of your works and i can't figure out where exactly to locate you in terms of political philosophy: social democrat, socialist, communist? One useful barometer would be to know if you believe in a right to private property? if, yes, what are the limits of that right?

Noam Chomsky: The terms have been so debased that they are hardly usable. I think a decent society should protect rights to private property within limits, but not concentrations of private power that infringe on the freedom and rights of others, including exploitation of labor, and that convert any democratic forms into what have been called sometimes "hierarchical democracies," like ours, in which some have vastly greater influence over public policy than others. Spelling all of this out is a complex matter that raises many issue and problems that are impossible to address here.

Seeems to me he's raising a point that should be considered. I believe in the right of the government to tax, the power of the purse. Anyone who believes in the power of the purse does not believe private property is 100% inviolable. Most americans seem to go along with that (anarchist and extreme libertarians notwithstanding). The founders of the country specifically took away the power of the purse in the articles of confederation--and it didn't work. They fixed that later. It's in the book I refered to above.

So now--since Chomsky believes in private property--it's just a matter of where Chomsky draws the line. I'm not out to defend Chomsky's many extreme attention getting statements, but given the context in this thread--a paper referenced here proposing an end to democracy in the US and wiping out islamic civilization, or an economist who writes for Faux News, WSJ, and TCS Daily who proposes seems enamoured with the idea that the US seize oil as a colonial imperialist power--Chomsky's got good company.

Another good book to read: "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer. Our hands are not clean. We shouldn't pretend that they are.

[realpc]

"Spelling all of this out is a complex matter that raises many issue and problems that are impossible to address here."

He never does spell it out, and I read many even most of his books, articles, essays, blog posts. He doesn't spell it out because equality and the right to ownership are at odds.

"Our hands are not clean. We shouldn't pretend that they are."

Oh come one, who outside of the womb believes our "hands are clean?" We have the most power, so our mistakes have the worst consequences. It does not follow that our motives and intentions are the worst.

says...

"equality and the right to ownership are at odds."

Really? Could you elucidate?

[Patricia Shannon]

I would say that equality and "unlimited" right to ownership are at odds. When a very high percentage of resources are owned by a very small percentage of the population, it decreases the number of those at the bottom who can have a decent life. Eg., land prices are so high relative to wages that many in the working-class can't afford to own their own home, especially when there is only one wage-earner in the family. This didn't used to be the case. Of course, if you go back far enough, people could travel elsewhere to get free land when things got crowded where they were.

[T.R. Elliott]

realpc wrote: "We have the most power, so our mistakes have the worst consequences. It does not follow that our motives and intentions are the worst."

True. But there are apparently a lot of people who are, in your terms, "living in the womb," unwilling or unable to understand what is implied by the term "blowback."

[Patricia Shannon]

I agree it the article by Philip Atkinson sounds like it is probably satire. But I have met people who would agree with it.

Some years ago, during a previous time of high gas prices, many in the U.S. believed we had the right to invade countries in the middle-East because they were denying us the cheap oil which they (U.S. citizens) believed they had a right to.

[evagrius]

"equality and the right to ownership are at odds."

Could you please elucidate on this?

[realpc]

"equality and the right to ownership are at odds."

"Could you please elucidate on this?"

We have a system where the government is not allowed to control everything. We have a constitution that tries to limit what the federal government can control, because of the belief that any powerful government will become increasingly interested in itself, as opposed to its citizens.

This is the basis of one definition of "freedom," having a government that leaves people alone as much as possible. People can do what they want, as long as they don't prevent others from having the same rights. So the government must make and enforce laws, for one thing. But it should not interfere with the economic system, in order to increase fairness or equality, or to make sure everyone is prosperous.

The reason the government should not intervene in these well-meaning ways is that every intervention increases the government's power. Also because most interventions have unforeseeable consequences.

Why do we now have a situation where it's so hard to afford a house? Is it because the government let things take their course, or because the government has intervened in many ways? I don't know, am not an economist, just wondering.

Some progressives define "freedom" very differently. Normally, we think increasing freedom means increasing responsibility and increased possibility of failure (as well as success). But progressives tend to define "freedom" as freedom from suffering and misfortune. This type of freedom tries to decrease, rather than increase, a person's chance of failure. It transfers responsibility from the individual to the government. The intention is to distribute risk and provide community support.

I think that we need, or have gotten used to, some of the second type of freedom. But I also think we need, and have to some extent forgotten the need for, the first type. I think the first type of freedom is scary and dangerous, and the second type sounds very cozy and reassuring.

Some economists or politicians believing in balancing the two types, others prefer going in one direction or the other.

The natural state of humanity is to live communally, in large extended families or tribes. Everyone had to work, but no one was on their own. So I understand the progressive ideal of people sharing and helping each other. But should that be the role of a big, powerful, impersonal central government?

I don't think anyone has this problem figured out.

[Lafayette]

rp: The have never been able to accept the fact that life is not perfect, human beings are not perfect, and no system on earth can ever be perfect.

Better is often the enemy of good enough

This statement cited above is a bit far fetched to say the least. Academics have the privilege of raising the bar, that is, of thinking of a world that is better, fairer, more humane.

We all know how dream-like obtaining such is pragmatically, but it needs to be done nonetheless. That a system, a standard of living, can be bettered subscribes to a human desire that is as durable as humanity itself.

That's how we got this far ... even if we carp in forums that it (whatever "it" may be) is "not good enough". It is never good enough, because each generation has a different view of what "good enough" should mean. Better, faster, more ... etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam.

[Lafayette]

realpc: People can do what they want, as long as they don't prevent others from having the same rights. So the government must make and enforce laws, for one thing. But it should not interfere with the economic system, in order to increase fairness or equality, or to make sure everyone is prosperous.

The above statement is logically inconsistent.

A society cannot, on the one hand, NOT interfere with the economic system and, on the other, prevent people from all having the same rights.

The rich are NOT like you and me. They have far more opportunity to wield power, thereby manipulating politics and bend fate to their will for their own personal benefit. American history is precisely a lesson in this ... you seem to have forgot the Robber Barons of the last century.

A country is not free for as long as the wealth generated is unfairly distributed, particularly in such an exaggerated fashion as is the case in the US.

Forty percent of the wealth annually generated goes to less than one percent of the population -- and this is "freedom"? Freedom from what? Certainly not freedom from poverty. Not even freedom to take the escalator up to a middle-class existence.

We have an economic system where the precariousness of a decent lifestyle is an everyday attribute of living for about a third of the population, but certainly not the richest third.

The Distribution of Wealth is a core element of any society. I suggest you inform yourself of how wealth unfairness in America is so aberrant.

Only state interference by taxation and redistribution can correct that sordid imbalance. (Not to worry, NOBODY is proposing that we do away with multi-millionaires. However, multi-billionaires just might be another matter.)

[realpc]

I am not advocating one ideology or another. When you quote me out of context it makes it look like I am.

We really do not know if the current inequality has resulted from too much economic freedom, or from too much govenrment interference. An economic libertarian would say things would tend to balance out more fairly if we didn't have the government in alliance wth special interests. As we strengthen the government, we increase the chances it will enrich its friends, at the ever-increasing expense of ordinary taxpayers.

I am on a quest to find out if there is any logic in the libertarian philosophy. It certainly was an important force in America's birth and ever-growing success.

How much central planning and control is necessary or healthy? I do not have an opinion. I just question the automatic assumptions of progressive ideology, that more central control is better, that wise compassionate rulers can improve our lives without becoming corrupted by their power.

I do believe that power corrupts, that corruption is subtle and insidious, that human beings are great at deceiving themselves.

[reason]

realpc...
I find the Libertarian view of government confusing. They act as if ALL government (whether autocratic or liberal democracy) is the same sort of unaccountable institution. I am not fond of the word belief, but for want of a better word, I have a belief that accountable government is possible. I'll give you that the US system of government is very sick at the moment. Its condition could be said to be serious but not not hopeless. No democracy works perfectly, but democracy works. Go read some David Brin.

[reason]

realpc
An economic libertarian would say things would tend to balance out more fairly if we didn't have the government in alliance wth special interests.

Now realpc, you may be surprised to know I tend to agree with this, which is why government accountability and a balance of competing interests is so important. But what in the nature of capitalism insures there remains a balance of competing interests (where votes are measured in dollars). Have you never played monopoly?

[Lafayette]

rp: We really do not know if the current inequality has resulted from too much economic freedom, or from too much govenrment interference.

Fact not factoids

What government interference? It is patently obvious that there has been none, not in this administration. And, for that matter, not all that much in Clinton's. Both have been "laissez-faire" administrations with intimate connections to the idle rich of the right or left (to each his ideological source of PAC-money.)

I don't know who you mean by "we", but I suspect "we" is very small group indeed.

Get a handle on the Gini Coefficient (the most simplest metric of economic fairness/unfairness) for the US (versus other countries) and maybe you will understand better the meaning of "economic unfairness" -- especially in the light of "freedom".

For the moment, that understanding is not obvious. However, it has nothing to do with "freedom". The Gini coefficients of the US and China are roughly identical. So, anyone thinking that fairness 'n freedom are kissin' cousins had better look again.

[T.R. Elliott]

Unwinding some of the interesting discussion above in which realpc and others are taking a serious look at several issues: I want to emphasize one of the major jumping off points, which involved a statement that implied Chomsky was against private property. I'm not a fan or follower of Chomsky (I'm not going to get my political ideas from a activist nor think that he's going to produce anything coherent), but it seems to me the insinuation that he was for overthrowing the constitution and against private property is false and was shown to be false.

Has Chomsky implied that the US is evil--or even the focus of evil in the world? Yes, probably so. That I also find false.

But I've not seen Chomsky arguing for anti-democracy nor for invading countries, subjugating their peoples, and taking their oil resources. I've not come across his wife advocating as such either.

[realpc]

" I've not seen Chomsky arguing for anti-democracy nor for invading countries, subjugating their peoples, and taking their oil resources."

There is more than one way to be stupid.

[Patricia Shannon]

Unless I have enough money, I don't have the freedom to find a piece of land, and farm it, and live off it, because all of the land is already owned by somebody. I don't have the freedom to run naked thru the streets. In many places, the poor don't have the freedom to join together to live in a single house, with enough others to share the rent, that they can afford it. In many places, we don't have the freedom to even paint our house whatever color we want!

[Lafayette]

bjf: This man is part of the right wing as much as Osama Bin Laden is part of the left wing.

Right, a multi-millionaire, pinko, Muslim terrorist. What else? Gay too?

Wearing red tinted glasses today? Or, just hallucinating?

Bin Laden is a religious fanatic of no particular political bent.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/crackpot_watch.php

August 29, 2007

Crackpot Watch
By Matthew Yglesias

It's hard in many ways to express exactly how deeply crackpottery has bored into America's discourse over national security. Take, for example, Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy. The good news is that most of the stuff they publish isn't nearly as crazy as the column calling for the nuclear destruction of Iraq followed by Bush installing himself as a military dictator. That said, a good deal of it isn't that much less unhinged. Caroline Glick, for example, wrote yesterday not merely that she disagrees with Mohammed ElBarredei's approach to non-proliferation policy, but that he has deliberately "used his power to facilitate the proliferation of nuclear energy for military purposes." Her key piece of evidence for this claim was a breathtaking bit of up-is-downism:

"Take Iraq for example. Right up to the US-British invasion of Iraq in March 2003, ElBaradei consistently maintained that he either couldn't tell if Iraq was or was not pursuing nuclear weapons, or that he could see no evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons. Indeed, just before the war, in an effort to scuttle US-British efforts to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution approving the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime, ElBaradei reported to the Security Council that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program."

Needless to say, the reason ElBarredei shifted over time from "it's uncertain" to "there's no evidence" to "there's no program" is that there was no program, as became clear the more the IAEA learned about the situation in Iraq. This appeared not on some random person's website, but in a daily newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, written by the senior fellow for Middle East affairs of a think tank that boasts an endorsement from the Vice President of the United States.

[BJ Feng]

Libertarians are distrustful of government because of agency and structural problems that arise. Yes, it would make no difference whether I spent $1 or $1 was spent for me by the government if provided me the same amount of good (actually, the organizational costs of government would make it worse in retrospect). But how is the government going to figure out what I want and what would provide me with the greatest gain for $1? This is too broad to fully explain, but another point is of value. Spending $1 should be a good value. With yourself, it's easy to determine. I think $5 for a coffee drink from Starbucks is not a good value so I don't buy it. I do think $2 for their coffee is a good value so I do.

How does the government know whether the money it spends is a good value? See, this is the difficult point. There aren't good metrics available to the government. A company can know because of profits or other metrics. It knows $1 spent one way will be better than $1 spent in another. How does the government know where and how to spend? There are unlimited needs and potentially unlimited ways for the government to get involved. Yet the government doesn't produce anything, it only takes in taxes. How do we know those taxes are being spent in the best possible manner that will maximize the utility of the taxpayers? What are the measurements? This is difficult for government.

Whole books have been written about the structural problems faced by government entities. But I hope at least you have a taste of why Libertarians don't believe government can be efficient. Now there are clearly some things that need to be handled by government such as national defense, police, and law. That's because the government is the most efficient allocator of these goods despite all the problems it faces. It's still the best option.

As for private property being at odds with social responsibility and such, private property gets its value from what I can do with it. It makes no sense for me to "own" something if I can't do anything with it at all, or only what the state wants me to do. Such "ownership" is meaningless and no different from state ownership. This is why I too, question if Chomsky is a communist or not.

Equality and private ownership are at odds. To get equality of outcome, you have to take away from others, or restrict what they can do with their private property. That's why those countries that try to have the most equal outcomes for all of its citizens, such as Cuba and past communist governments, have no private property rights. Without private property rights, the citizens have no incentive to improve, or use that property in the most efficient manner possible. No one will want to build a factory in a great area because they won't reap all the benefits. The benefits will be so spread out, that the cost in time and effort make it not worthwhile to pursue. So it's up to government to find those places and figure out what the best use of any resource or land is. And because of all the problems I hinted at above, the government usually does a horrible job which makes EVERYONE poorer than they otherwise would have been.

[thispresidentforlifethingwasreal...]

here's the answer of the website.
obviously, they really published it, though for a short time, and they acknowledge it.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1281934

[Patricia Shannon]

BJ Feng says...

Whole books have been written about the structural problems faced by government entities. But I hope at least you have a taste of why Libertarians don't believe government can be efficient. Now there are clearly some things that need to be handled by government such as national defense, police, and law. That's because the government is the most efficient allocator of these goods despite all the problems it faces. It's still the best option.
==============================
I don't understand your reasoning.
Some people (like the Mafia maybe) would disagree that we need police and law. They would say that they did not get value from this, that it keeps them from doing what they want, and keeps them from making profit.

You say "the government is the most efficient allocator" in these cases, but you don't give any reasoning.

Do you think we need government regulation of things like food safety, and traffic control.

I certainly agree that too much government power can be harmful, but for exactly the same reasons that too much power in any group of individuals is harmful (which in modern times mostly boils down to the very rich).

[reason]

Patricia Shannon
Now there are clearly some things that need to be handled by government such as national defense, police, and law. That's because the government is the most efficient allocator of these goods despite all the problems it faces.

Now Patricia, I normally agree with you, but that is not correct. Efficiency is not the issue with national defence, police and law. The issue is accountability and unbiasedness. See Jane Jacobs "Systems of Survival".

[Lafayette]

reason: Now Patricia, I normally agree with you, but that is not correct. Efficiency is not the issue with national defence, police and law.

Consider the situation where firemen would only respond to fires in client premises that were under contract? What if a conflagration affected other premises?

Or, how about the police who don't respond when your wife calls to report that someone is robbing your house -- but, alas, you are in default of your last two service contract payments?

Why is it that when telephony was installed, governments stipulated that Ma Bell had to install telephone services in the rural countryside (where the market was thin and installation much more expensive) and not only the cities, where the market was thick and installation costs easily amortized?

"Market efficiency" can also be measured in terms of "market accessibility". In fact, when Health Care was studied globally by the World Health Organization, its primary criteria was "accessibility", which is why the US did so poorly in the study (arriving at 36th place, just ahead of Cuba).

It all depends upon how the definition of "efficiency". PB was right in this instance. There are Public Services that are more "efficient" when it comes to service access, or, the largest utility to the population as a whole.

It is true that some public service markets, which are monopolies, can enjoy predatory pricing (rent seeking) without competition. Which is why some such services were privatized in Europe. And, why MaBell was split up in the US.

However, Health Care and Education were not privatized. Because to do so would have impacted negatively their accessibility.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/counterinsurgency_and_dictator.php

August 30, 2007

Counterinsurgency and Dictatorship
By Matthew Yglesias

Kyle Teamey, writing in The Washington Post, * laments the existence of political democracy in the United States:

"While debate over a war's merits -- and whether to withdraw -- is a sign of a healthy democracy, Iraq unfortunately highlights many of the difficulties a democracy faces in a long-term counterinsurgency or nation-building campaign. Such debate can be detrimental to the battle for perceptions."

Well, maybe he doesn't lament its existence, but he does think it has some regrettable downsides. But is this really true? ...

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901926.html

[anne]

Of course, George Bush was quite explicit in running for President that there would be no nation-building. Nonetheless there is a $2 trillion nation-building project at hand that is a needless tragedy, and the wish among selected scary thinkers is that the problem is democracy, democracy in which doubts about the tragedy of needless war and occupation can be expressed.

I am thankful for Mark Thoma's post, which is reflective of a scary way of thinking that is not isolated to a mere singular thinker.

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901926.html

"While debate over a war's merits -- and whether to withdraw -- is a sign of a healthy democracy, Iraq unfortunately highlights many of the difficulties a democracy faces in a long-term counterinsurgency or nation-building campaign. Such debate can be detrimental to the battle for perceptions."

When writing such a passage, the writer has already decided that there should be no withdrawsl but is not honest enough to say so. The idea then is rather to preclude debate as the Administration has sought to do from before the war and occupation till now. The idea is to have a democracy with no democratic expression and response.

[BJ Feng]

Patricia, to answer your question briefly, the reason why the government is the most efficient at national defense, policing, and other areas comes from the problems with alternatives. Few of us can afford a B-2 bomber, so we need to pool assets. We also want to avoid the problem of private owners using their own B-2 bombers to declare war or do some other stuff the country disagrees with. With policing, there's the problem that private police may look the other way if their employer does something illegal, or be used to intimidate the enemies of his employer. Law is effective only if it is universal and equally applied. Government is best option in the cases above, though it still suffers from the same problems it does in all the other areas. Recently there is a story about a firm that scammed the defense department out of millions of dollars. They were able to scam the fast track system into paying hundreds of thousands to ship washers and bolts to Iraq. The firm would charge hundreds of thousands just to send an unwanted screw or bolt to Iraq. This was not detected for years! Still, these problems pale in comparison to the problems we would have with private sector ownership of Tomahawk cruise missiles and F-22 Raptor fighters.

As for food safety, the problem arises with information dissymmetry. If consumers could know how safe and dirty a restaurant really was, there would be no need for government. A rat infested restaurant would just post a sign detailing it's health standards and people would be free to choose. Unfortunately there's no way to make that happen so government is necessary to make and enforce these laws. There are people who disagree with me on this area though. They say that those who made their customers sick would quickly close due to reputation, and those who did real harm could be punished criminally. I agree, but the unfortunate first customers would get sick without wanting to take the risks. Libertarians don't deny there is a need for government, but there is a reason why government is needed in particular areas. It's an ideology based on reason, not on some blind hatred of government or refusal to help the poor. Libertarians argue that, even in social services, private charities could do a better job. There are many websites that review and post the quality and efficiency of the services private charities provide. Bad, corrupt, or inefficient charities would get less funding from donors, leaving only the good ones to provide. Notice the incompetence of Katrina relief that goes on even today. This kind of incompetence is standard, not unique. What is unique is the attention paid to Katrina so we get reports on the "shocking" amounts of waste and lack of actual help provided for the money spent. I am not shocked at all. If anything, the government has done a better job than usual because of the incredible scrutiny it faces; they actually have an incentive here! The fact that they cannot execute despite the pressure and focus to do so just highlights my points about how difficult it is for government to be efficient due to the structural and organizational problems it faces. These problems have remained unsolved for as long as government has existed.

[Patricia Shannon]

Hi reason

Thanks for saying you usually agree with me.

Actually, the comment you disagreed with was a quote I included from somebody else I was replying to.
How can I get my quotes to be formatted differently, as you did? I have tried several things (CTRL-B, CTRL-I, creating in a differenct font in Word then copying), none of which had any effect on my comments here.

[Patricia Shannon]

B J Feng,
It appears that you got what I was trying to say/ask - not that there are not valid reasons that the government should be the one to be in charge of police matters, but that you didn't give a reason for differentiating between why you think it is appropriate for government to be in charge of police areas, but not others.
Thanks for your reply.

Note that the reasons you don't think police matters should be a private matter would be that it would lead to harm to us citizens. So it seems to me your arguments could be extended to such things as medical care, food inspection, etc. Also, government police powers are sometimes misused, so arguments against government having a hand in availability of medical care would also apply to police powers.

I don't see the boundaries the way you do. To me, they are all a matter of life, health, well-being that we individuals don't have the knowledge and/or power to ensure for ourselves. Also, they all have the possiblity of misuse.
What is vital is to have a balance.

[Lafayette]

PS: What is vital is to have a balance.

Nice thought. Probably the wrong forum in which to express it.

There is no economic "theory of balance". Price equilibrium, yes, but balanced well-being ... well, not yet.

America is fixated on profit, both corporate and personal. An America living off of credit can't be balanced, not if it cannot spend wisely.

When the common mentality is to have it all, and one can't wait to save for it, then somethin's gotta give. More than likely, it's solvency.

Economics teaches how economies function. It doesn't teach us how to live. The College of Hard Knocks does, however.

[reason]

Patricia Shannon

How can I get my quotes to be formatted differently, as you did? I have tried several things

Look at the source code in your browser and search for - blockquote.

[reason]

The easy way to think of this issue, is to think about a private army or police force. The logic of business is that it serves whoever pays. But then isn't that corruption? I.e. there is a moral difference here, we expect loyalty in police and the army to something more than the firm.

The market is a technique for allocating resources based on a rule based game. By who is the refereee? And what happens to those who are outside the game? For those we have other systems than the market, and the different systems can exist in parallel.

Like I said read Jane Jacobs "Systems of Survival".

[reason]

And yes the army and police can become corrupted or misuse their power - that is where accountability and the political process comes in. Countervailing power and accountability, the secret of our success. Anybody who looks for the all encompassing eternal answer is a fool.

[BJ Feng]

The beauty of the market is that it's a two way game. No one forces me to buy a Big Mac. I buy one because I think it's a good deal. Corporations have to provide a service that customers think is a good deal, or else those people will not buy. Customers have an interest to get what is offered at the lowest price possible while corporations want to charge as much as possible. The dual interests makes the system work. With government, where is the power, or incentive to force governments to do something for as cheaply as possible. By that I mean deliver the most value for the lowest cost. In business, other companies driven by customer demands, make corporations try to give the value for the lowest price. If they do not, then someone else will take market share. Where is this in government? Anyone can provide services, the question is for how much. I'll make sure to unclog your toilet no matter where you live for $1 million, but is that a good deal? Government provides X, but is that a good deal?

[Lafayette]

bjf: By that I mean deliver the most value for the lowest cost.

Has it ever occurred to you that the above is logically inconsistent?

One cannot deliver "value" at low cost. For a product or service to be "valuable" it is intrinsically of high cost. In fact, the more the cost, the more its "value". (Try insuring something of value, and you will see firsthand the high cost of its insurance.)

Value can, indeed, be a personal notion. And, I think in the present context of Health Care, that is the case. The intrinsic value of good health is of very high value to us all. For which, it should not be subject to market manipulations that places its market value at higher than its intrinsic value to individuals. That intrinsic value is so very high, that its market cost should be readily affordable to all.

That means Health Care must be a Public Service. Of the highest intrinsic value but lowest production cost. Yes, that is logically inconsistent, but only because of the intrinsic value of the "product" in question.

[Patricia Shannon]

Thanks Reason, but I can't find anything on Microsoft Internet Explorer that lets me do a block quote.
I'm going to try the HTML code. It didn't show up in the preview, I'll see what happens when I post it.

[Patricia Shannon]

Yeah, it worked :)