>> ^gtjwkq:
Wow Nithern, your reply is a mess. I guess I should have explained to you that I'm not an anarchist, since that's what you understood by "free society", my fault for using such a loose term.
I meant a society free from government intervention in the economy, free market, preferably with a small government. Being mostly a libertarian, I don't like to be confused with an anarchist, the same way a social liberal might feel offended when called a socialist.
Well, one could argue that government of any sort is government intervention in the economy. That's why anarchists and libertarians so often get confused. Think about it. There's a market for murder. There's a market for "protection". There's a market for "waste disposal". So really, the question always boils down to 'what specific government interventions into the marketplace are you for?'

The problems with that line of reasoning are all those pesky externalities. Exploiting the commons for personal gain is the oldest trick in the book. It's also, unfortunately, the reason we need to regulate the marketplace. In our most recent episode, we removed long standing regulation on securities trading. They existed because in the 20's people had already figured out how to privatize gains and socialize losses. Without a government to overcome the transaction costs of collective bargaining, it would never be possible for people to prevent this sort of exploitation. To me, while anarchy seems like the end result of libertarian ideals... really it's rule by corporate oligarchy, with rampant exploitation of the commons. At least anarchy often does away with currency, and with it the power structure.


Ah I feel better already. Bureaucracies sure seem very efficient when you explain it like that.

How about like this: Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007

We're currently in a financial crisis because our government is broke, the world has been lending us money, but that will end when other countries realize we're never going to pay them back. Our government is currently spending money it doesn't even have.

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion. Afterwards, they put a gun to our head and handed us the tab. In other words, print the dough, or the pitchforks and torches tear the whole joint down. The only reason their hustle didn't work indefinitely is because too many of US were spending money we didn't have. Changing that is going to take a cultural shift that is already beginning.

As for China, whom I presume you're referring to. I don't think they want to start selling their position. Ever hear of buy low, sell high? No, I think China is more likely to just borrow against it, and start picking up their part of the consumption. They're already pulling the world out of this recession.


Socialized healthcare as an option , doesn't make the idea any better, because it's still wasting money and it's unfair competition that will further distort the healthcare insurance market. Any reform in healthcare should involve reducing government intervention not increasing it.
I disagree. Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance. It's just that it's cheaper to pay for antibiotics than it is to pay for abscess removals on ER beds.


If people are having trouble understanding the rationale behind the Tea Party movement against socialized healthcare, it's mostly about excessive government spending and taxation. Was that too hard?

Yes. Define excessive.


I don't think social liberals will ever take the issue of spending seriously, even after the value of the dollar is destroyed and our economy collapses.

Spending is serious business, it's inflation you all gotta relax about. Is it worth having the "why inflation is good for the economy" argument with you? Or would you rather go back to your non-mathematical Austrian school BS, and we can just agree to disagree?

I think you need to educate yourself out of lies about the insurance business, on the government's major role in causing the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis, and on the utter uselessness and injustice of anti-trust laws.

I agree, it's difficult to write laws without unintended consequences. That is, you can always game the rules. One should not conclude from this, however, that you shouldn't try and write rules. Instead, you should just write them faster than the douche bags can game them. You always need more rules. Every time there is an advance in technology, you need more rules. Why? Technology makes it easier to game the rules, and exploit the commons, just like it makes it easier to do everything else.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Not a dupe, but essentially the same video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Al-Franken-Draws-US-Map-Free-Hand
At least this one is quicker and has funny music, but lacks his comments while drawing it

Wow Nithern, your reply is a mess. I guess I should have explained to you that I'm not an anarchist, since that's what you understood by "free society", my fault for using such a loose term.

I meant a society free from government intervention in the economy, free market, preferably with a small government. Being mostly a libertarian, I don't like to be confused with an anarchist, the same way a social liberal might feel offended when called a socialist.

>> ^Nithern:
Sounds like a generalization, and not fact. There is structure within the goverment (local, state, and federal) to over see, and keep an accurate report of funds being spent (...)

Ah I feel better already. Bureaucracies sure seem very efficient when you explain it like that.

The concept of Health Care for all Americans is a good one. We can easily pay for it. If we can pay for Iraq ($3 trillion and climbing now...), we can pay for Health Care for 330 million people. Now, if an individual has better, or they like their health coverage, that's fine. This concept only gives people an option.

We're currently in a financial crisis because our government is broke, the world has been lending us money, but that will end when other countries realize we're never going to pay them back. Our government is currently spending money it doesn't even have.

Socialized healthcare as an *option*, doesn't make the idea any better, because it's still wasting money and it's unfair competition that will further distort the healthcare insurance market. Any reform in healthcare should involve reducing government intervention not increasing it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
And that is why they are marginalized. Rational thought, and rational means they do not have.

If people are having trouble understanding the rationale behind the Tea Party movement against socialized healthcare, it's mostly about excessive government spending and taxation. Was that too hard?

I don't think social liberals will ever take the issue of spending seriously, even after the value of the dollar is destroyed and our economy collapses.

But for-profit health care companies are just that....the least effort for the most buck. They are not there, for the betterment of mankind, only their kind. I think we saw what happens when we go easy on financial rules during the Bush Administration and Wall Street companies. Do we really need this sort of crap with Health Care?

I think you need to educate yourself out of lies about the insurance business, on the government's major role in causing the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis, and on the utter uselessness and injustice of anti-trust laws.

>> ^TangledThorns:
Either way, the government option is dead thanks to the Tea Parties.

That would be a major achievement.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Al Franken wasn't reading off the Pelosi talking points memo. Either way, the government option is dead thanks to the Tea Parties.

>> ^demon_ix:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
The tea parties were around before Health Care Reform.
Its was about tax reform! Until the far right started to dilute the parties with stupid.
Insulting some one or a group of people you disagree with is detrimental to your cause.
Anyone who says "Teabaggers", "Liberal Wingnuts", or "Conservative Dingbats" will no longer get my ear.

The woman in the video wears a T-Shirt that says "Taxed Enough Already Party". She identifies herself as a Teabagger.



And that is why they are marginalized. Rational thought, and rational means they do not have. It is exactly why I did not listen to a word they said, but rather paid more credit to Franken.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

The ten people pooling for the guy who forgot his wallet is a great concept and I'm ok with it. However, there are many incentives against abuse in that setting because money is being contributed voluntarily. Also, no money is being wasted in your example, because there isn't someone mismanaging all the money and overcharging for their monopoly over the "food insurance" service.

Conservatives are happy to receive the free lunch as long as they don't have to pay the pittance to give someone else a meal.

I'm not a conservative. There's no such thing as a free lunch because someone's always paying for it, and a free lunch provided by government will tend to cost a lot more than lunch paid by charity.

Society prospers the most if individuals are free to cooperate with each other voluntarily. If government steps in trying to force people to help each other, you're instituting injustice, not just because money is being taken forcibly, but because it won't tend to be applied as productively as it would were people convinced voluntarily to apply it on their own, guided by their self-interests.

The goals of a society should be betterment of the whole, through group effort; not individual accumulation of wealth.

In a free society, an individual accumulates wealth by being productive, you can only be productive by helping others, by honestly convincing them to give you money in exchange for some service. On the other hand, in a social liberal society, you end up with more government, and that *actually* means individuals accumulating wealth at the expense of others, because people get their money taken from them forcibly.

If you think society's prosperity should be attained at the expense of some individuals, you're missing the point that society IS a bunch of individuals. Society isn't better off, it's worse off when you institute injustice.

Conservatives need to get over their greed.

You need to get over your fake moral high ground. You're the one being greedy if you want to take people's money because you think you can spend it more wisely. Either that or you're just another sucker rooting for thieves.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The tea parties were around before Health Care Reform.
Its was about tax reform! Until the far right started to dilute the parties with stupid.
Insulting some one or a group of people you disagree with is detrimental to your cause.
Anyone who says "Teabaggers", "Liberal Wingnuts", or "Conservative Dingbats" will no longer get my ear.

The woman in the video wears a T-Shirt that says "Taxed Enough Already Party". She identifies herself as a Teabagger.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.
But you knew that when this never-funny clown stole the election.


Yeah heaven forbid that everyone be given the opportunities to succeed in life without being constantly terrified of getting sick and losing everything they've worked for.

Funny how Franken stole his election, but Bush won fair and square. Did you suffer a massive head trauma when you were young or were you born this stupid?

>> ^gtjwkq
Your definition of a "just society" seems mostly based on one person being forced to provide for another against their will.


That statement is exactly what's wrong with the teabaggers and conservative in general. You all seem to think that it's a one for one exchange, you get screwed because you're getting someone else's bills. Here's a simple analogy so you can understand the concept without straining too hard.

You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

Conservatives are happy to receive the free lunch as long as they don't have to pay the pittance to give someone else a meal.

The goals of a society should be betterment of the whole, through group effort; not individual accumulation of wealth. Conservatives need to get over their greed.

*doublepromote
it probably doesn't need it but this video has given me a new appreciation for Al Franken.
I havn't really followed his political career so this was all I had to go by:

Your video, Al Franken Calmly Discusses Healthcare With Teabaggers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This video should be titled: How to Talk Crap Calmly Enough to Bore People Out of Politics

>> entr0py:
For once I agree with you, but I'd argue that most Americans do not want the risks that absolute liberty entails. Absolute liberty is a situation where every man is for himself, and only the strong and lucky survive. The whole advantage of forming governments is to create a more civil and just society, one where even the weak and infirm have rights.

QM didn't say "absolute liberty", he said "individual liberty", which means keeping liberties at the level of individuals, so one individual won't have more liberties or privileges than another, at the expense of another, which is the case when government takes money from Peter and hands it to Paul.

I agree the reason we need governments has to do with civility: Keeping people from using force against each other. The problem is when government does that itself, and ours does that a lot. It's supposed to repress violence, not practice it. Your definition of a "just society" seems mostly based on one person being forced to provide for another against their will.

You may think it's okay to simply let the poor and weak suffer and die, but I promise you, you will some day be in that class yourself. And then you will finally value the compassion of others.

Compassion is about giving voluntarily, not forcing people to give through government, which is the opposite of compassion.

If you subsidize poverty, you'll just get more of it. If you save people from risks, they'll tend to become reckless and irresponsible.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.

For once I agree with you, but I'd argue that most Americans do not want the risks that absolute liberty entails. Absolute liberty is a situation where every man is for himself, and only the strong and lucky survive. The whole advantage of forming governments is to create a more civil and just society, one where even the weak and infirm have rights.

You may think it's okay to simply let the poor and weak suffer and die, but I promise you, you will some day be in that class yourself. And then you will finally value the compassion of others.