Free market be damned.

Well now, they did come up with gasohol to solve that sell corn at artificially low prices thing.

Is this supposed to have anything to do with the conversation we'd been having over cap & trade?

Does it matter that I'm against farm subsidies? Does it matter that the general view on the left is that our farm subsidies suck? I suppose it never does.

This is pretty lazy and sloppy reasoning, and the right engages in it all the time. They seem to think that if they point out something dumb the government does, this validates their political preferences.

Hey, did you know corporations do evil and stupid stuff on a regular basis? Remember way back when BP skirted safety procedures, and it led to an oil spill that leaked millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf each day for three months?

No? It's a shame, seems like that would totally validate my way of looking at things...

@NetRunner, the left is against the farm subsidies? But your president is in office, so why hasn't he done something about that?

@blankfist if the right is against the farm subsidies, how did they survive Bush's presidency?

Similar answers to both questions, though Bush sure did hew a lot more closely to the right's ideology than Obama has to the left's.

@NetRunner, I'm not Republican. You seem to forget that. Bush was a terrible statist president. So is Obama. To me, they're almost identical.

Now that we cleared that up, I won't let you get off by answering a question with a question. So, again, why hasn't your Democratic corporatist president, Obama, done away with farm subsidies?

He seems to hold your beliefs almost exactly, right? So why hasn't he ended farm subsidies? Why hasn't he ended the war? He promised to bring troops home within 16 months, did he not? What ever happened to 'Sunlight before Signing'? What happened to his "net spending cut"? Is he not planning on increasing spending by $400 billion a year? What about his ban on earmarks? Et cetera, et cetera.

Is he just another politician after all? Not really the change we can believe in, huh? I guess that stings a little now, huh?

@blankfist I don't really care what label you give yourself. If lumping you in with "the right" offends you so much, perhaps you should focus more on pulling the other people in that category back into line with something more like what you believe.

Since you never seem to be able to discern my inferences when they're not blunt and explicit, I would say that my point was that Obama-as-candidate was laying out a pretty modest platform of things liberals thought could and should be done in the 2009-2013 time period, not everything the left would ever like to do if given unlimited power to implement the policies they'd like to see.

Obama-as-President with overwhelming majorities in Congress has, predictably, fallen short of even those modest goals. I'd say on the policy level a lot of that was due to the rather high proportion of both caucuses coming from DINOs like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

That said, even if 2008's election had resulted in this fairytale fantasy where my specific conception of leftiness could be implemented switfly and irrevocably, I probably wouldn't have even thought to put farm subsidies on my list of Top 100 Things to Do.

In this world where even passing the most critical, common sense legislation there is (like cap & trade) requires major political battles, we're just not going to waste our energy on something that we don't think is particularly significant.

Ultimately, it's pretty much the same answer to either question at root (the politicians care more about making corporate donors happy than living up to the ideals they claim to hold true), but it does seem like it's more apt to ask why they survived under Bush than it is to ask why they haven't been eliminated by Obama since it supposedly is a priority for you guys, and the Republicans have far better party discipline than Democrats ever have.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, August 26th, 2010 1:41am PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

If there's not the political will to end farm subsidies, it still seems rational to tax expensive drains on society like soft drinks, cigarettes, and the unnecessary use of transfats in restaurant food.

Just pointing out there are deeply rooted irrationalities in the system, like farm subsidies, doesn't seem like a good reason to not take positive action and make the world a better place.

blankfist: "your president"

Obama is to the right of the public in every major issue foreign or domestic.

>> ^chilaxe:

If there's not the political will to end farm subsidies, it still seems rational to tax expensive drains on society like soft drinks, cigarettes, and the unnecessary use of transfats in restaurant food.
Just pointing out there are deeply rooted irrationalities in the system, like farm subsidies, doesn't seem like a good reason to not take positive action and make the world a better place.


A better place for whom? How do you know soft drinks don't contribute to people's happiness? Cigarettes are harmful to your health, but what about the social smokers that only have a smoke when they meet with friends for a drink? What about responsible people who choose to indulge? They should be punished?

To me, that's the kind of social engineering that simply does not work to cull and reduce certain behavior; it only serves to make people poorer. The tax, I'd argue, is the expensive drain on society.

Yogi said: "Obama is to the right of the public in every major issue foreign or domestic."

I think we have to admit that's taking tribalist spin a bit far.

-Obama opposed the Arizona immigration bill, even though Americans supported it by a landslide.
-The following poll puts the numbers at 74% in favor to 23% against and 3% undecided.
-http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010460-503544.html

@blankfist

Isn't it good for all of us if irrationalists are made poorer, thus reducing their influence on society? People can find happiness or addiction in anything... they don't need to cut their lives short and cost society trillions in the long-term in otherwise unnecessary medical expenditures and lost labor.

@chilaxe, I agree, they shouldn't cost society anything. But isn't that the problem with the leftist agenda? They want socialized medicine so they can then tell you what is good for you and force you to obey. There's no freedom in that. I can one day see a society where exercise is compulsory for all men and women, young and old. I believe Hitler wanted the same thing. There, I Godwined it.

>> ^blankfist:
I agree, they shouldn't cost society anything. But isn't that the problem with the leftist agenda? They want socialized medicine...

But here's the thing, unless you're prepared to tell doctors not to treat people with life-threatening illnesses if they can't immediately pay for their own care, you're going to wind up having your tax dollars going to cover the care of people who can't pay their medical bills when they have heart attacks or diabetic shocks (or end-stage lung cancer). Alternatively you're just going to make all healthcare more expensive so providers can cover losses.

The "leftist agenda" is to a) extend care to poor people before they get critically ill because it's morally right, and b) extend care to poor people before they get critically ill so they can have their illness treated more cheaply than last-ditch heroics when they reach final stages.

You may imagine that this will lead to people being put in jail for refusing to do their daily calisthenics, but the "leftist agenda" as far as it actually exists pretty much stops with "people who exercise should get a discount on their premiums" or maybe "health insurance plans should cover gym memberships for people who are overweight".

>> ^NetRunner:

But here's the thing, unless you're prepared to tell doctors not to treat people with life-threatening illnesses if they can't immediately pay for their own care, you're going to wind up having your tax dollars going to cover the care of people who can't pay their medical bills when they have heart attacks or diabetic shocks (or end-stage lung cancer). Alternatively you're just going to make all healthcare more expensive so providers can cover losses.


Speculation and leading arguments. I'm not prepared to tell doctors anything, and neither should any one of us. I know we're all largely atheists on here, but the predominant number of hospitals tend to be created by churches. Why? Because as much as we may despise dogma, these followers do sometimes hold the belief of taking care of their fellowman. This includes people with life-threatening illnesses.

In fact, currently, hospices are free. When my grandmother passed away recently they didn't charge her a penny for their amazing services. They exist on charitable donations as far as I know.

It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up. By forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital, people tend to use it as a welfare clinic and come in with hangnails and common colds. They can then refuse to pay for the service which drives the costs up. That's fact.

If you ordered food at a restaurant, then refused to pay, would it be fair for the government to stop that restaurant from refusing service to you?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
@chilaxe, I agree, they shouldn't cost society anything. But isn't that the problem with the leftist agenda? They want socialized medicine so they can then tell you what is good for you and force you to obey. There's no freedom in that. I can one day see a society where exercise is compulsory for all men and women, young and old. I believe Hitler wanted the same thing. There, I Godwined it..

My sense of libertarianism and the overall political picture is this:
Conservatives like order.
Liberals like a soft world.
Libertarians like meritocracy.

In that sense, libertarians' principle of "freedom" is a means to an end (meritocracy), not an end in itself.

Freedom as an absolute principle also seems to have some limitations... Based on my experience in the cognitive sciences, I'd say it's very clear that the masses don't have brains like you and I, and they need to be guided in the sense of not giving them easy access to things that are 100% bad for them and the world, like cigarettes.

Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day.

@chilaxe, Libertarians don't like meritocracy. Libertarians like voluntarism. That is, they want people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.

I disagree that the masses aren't reasonable enough to make choices for themselves. I think they knowingly make bad decisions because the positive aspects of those decisions are higher than the negatives, or they make bad decisions because of other circumstances like comfort or the notion of getting ahead quickly, etc. Whatever the reason, people don't need an intelligent society designer guiding them. Common sense is enough to tell you breathing smoke isn't particularly healthy.

And cigarettes aren't 100% bad for you. If you mean they are damaging to health, well certainly that's true, but so is metabolizing food as it causes cell damage and just about everything else we do. But cigarettes don't automatically cause diseases like cancer or emphysema, and they don't necessarily cause health problems that require medical attention. In fact a lot of that is probably genetic. This is anecdotal, I know, but my grandmother smoked every day of her life and just recently passed away at 94. She also ate greasy foods probably with loads of trans fats.

"Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day."

>> ^blankfist:

I know we're all largely atheists on here, but the predominant number of hospitals tend to be created by churches. Why? Because as much as we may despise dogma, these followers do sometimes hold the belief of taking care of their fellowman. This includes people with life-threatening illnesses.

Churches can do good works. I love the things they usually have to say about social justice, even if I have a fairly skeptical view of the type of reasoning they use to conclude there's a moral obligation for it.

That's why I want the nation I live in to set up a system that formalizes that universal moral obligation to provide care for those who need it.

It's why I'm happy the nation I live in has gotten 90% of the way there.

>> ^blankfist:

It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up.

Utterly and completely false. Virtually every country everywhere has a much higher degree of government intervention into the health care market, and literally every single country in the world's health care costs are less than ours per capita.

The kind of intervention matters a lot.

>> ^blankfist:
By forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital, people tend to use it as a welfare clinic and come in with hangnails and common colds. They can then refuse to pay for the service which drives the costs up. That's fact.

Increases costs...but also increases the number of people alive at the end of the day, no?

Let's look at this situation another way, and see if you don't understand it better. Should paying patients have a right to choose between paying full price, and getting a discount on their treatment, so long as they give the doctor permission to let a poor person die?

Of course, the smart thing to do here would be for everyone to have insurance, and feel free to see doctors for a small co-pay when they first get sick and get a simple, cheap treatment rather than wait (because they can't afford an appointment with the doctor) until they're at death's door and need radical and costly treatment to save their life.

>> ^blankfist:
If you ordered food at a restaurant, then refused to pay, would it be fair for the government to stop that restaurant from refusing service to you?


If food cost thousands of dollars, and could only be prepared by a small number of highly-educated people, and someone came into a restaurant already unconscious and minutes away from death...yeah, I think it'd be fair to say that restaurateurs have a legal responsibility to save a life first, and haggle over payment later.

@NetRunner, you contradicted yourself. You said this claim was utterly and completely false: "It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up." Yet, you immediately agreed that "forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital" increases costs.

It's my understanding that the cause of corn subsidies is that the single largest corn producing state, Iowa, also has the first presidential primary. Any candidate against corn subsidies (corn ethanol among them) is weeded out before the rest of the nation has a say.

Why the hell do we do it that way? What reason could there be to give a few states such disproportionate power in the primaries? And in the general election why do we hold on to a system originally designed to give slave owners disproportionate power?

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you contradicted yourself. You said this claim was utterly and completely false: "It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up." Yet, you immediately agreed that "forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital" increases costs.


Sometimes blankfist, I think you are obtuse on purpose, just to aggravate me. Lately though, I think you just lack the mental capacity to have rational conversations.

What's completely and utterly false is the assertion that all types of intervention will always raises costs. What's also utterly false is that our medical cost inflation is a result of government intervention.

What I agreed with is that your completely hyperbolic, shortsighted, hypothetical example of an intervention would likely lead to hospitals raising prices.

That's why the smarter thing to do is make sure everyone has insurance, and subsidize it for people who can't easily afford it. Even better would be to go to single-payer. We've even seen the UK cut costs down to nearly nothing by completely nationalizing medical care, while maintaining a quality of care that often exceeds ours.

PS: Politifact has rendered a verdict on Obama's committments about withdrawal from Iraq: Promise Kept.

Sometimes blankfist, I think you are obtuse on purpose, just to aggravate me. Lately though, I think you just lack the mental capacity to have rational conversations.

What's completely and utterly false is the assertion that all types of intervention will always raises costs. What's also utterly false is that our medical cost inflation is a result of government intervention.

Libertarians like voluntarism? Speak for you and myself maybe, but like religous people, leave out the masses of libertarians who do not like to volunteer.

You said, "...reasonable enough to make choices for themselves..." And then you said, "...I think they knowingly make bad decisions..." Wow, is that insane or what? Reasonable would mean they make bad decisions based on incorrect info but try to make the right choices. Unreasonable means they just f-ing do it regardless.

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob. I would agree with this video 100% if corn only made fucktose corn syrup, as I call it. But corn does not just make fucktose... Still, I agree with this video 95%! I want these bailouts, handouts, or cornjobs to end!

>> ^blankfist:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 27th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/chilaxe">chilaxe, Libertarians don't like meritocracy. Libertarians like voluntarism. That is, they want people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.
I disagree that the masses aren't reasonable enough to make choices for themselves. I think they knowingly make bad decisions because the positive aspects of those decisions are higher than the negatives, or they make bad decisions because of other circumstances like comfort or the notion of getting ahead quickly, etc. Whatever the reason, people don't need an intelligent society designer guiding them. Common sense is enough to tell you breathing smoke isn't particularly healthy.
And cigarettes aren't 100% bad for you. If you mean they are damaging to health, well certainly that's true, but so is metabolizing food as it causes cell damage and just about everything else we do. But cigarettes don't automatically cause diseases like cancer or emphysema, and they don't necessarily cause health problems that require medical attention. In fact a lot of that is probably genetic. This is anecdotal, I know, but my grandmother smoked every day of her life and just recently passed away at 94. She also ate greasy foods probably with loads of trans fats.

"Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day."

@Lawdeedaw. Posting on the internet. You're doing it wrong.

"Libertarians like voluntarism?" Yes. Yes they do. Read up what the term means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

You said, "...reasonable enough to make choices for themselves..." And then you said, "...I think they knowingly make bad decisions..."

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, your cognitive dissonance shows every time you make an ad hom attack. This is progress!

Ad hominem would be me saying you're wrong because you smell bad. I explained why you were wrong about what I myself said, and wondered aloud if you were being this obtuse just to annoy me, or if you really were that bad at reading comprehension.

>> ^blankfist:
I'd agree that it's false that "all types of intervention" will raise costs. I never asserted that.

Good! So you agree that single payer is a superior way to reduce cost without compromising quality, right?

>> ^blankfist:
See that? That's affirmation of my statement. So you both agreed and disagreed that government intervention in the medical industry raises costs. Now, who's being obtuse? You're holding two belief systems, NR.

I agreed that in the hypothetical situation you described, it would do the hypothetical thing you described. I didn't agree that the hypothetical situation is an accurate description of the health care system in the US. It's not. In fact, I would go so far as to say that nowhere in the world have they made an unfunded mandate that required treatment of hangnails. Did I not make that clear in my last comment? Do you not understand the difference?

I was trying have a conversation with you about principles and values rather than start an argument over basic facts about what our system is, and why it produces the results we see. Largely because I know you won't accept information from me as being authoritative, except apparently when I agree with you.

Why not respond to what I actually said? Namely, that you can fix the cost problem you raised by taking more aggressive steps on intervention. Also that there may be a moral problem with giving people the market freedom to choose between, say, a religious hospital that self-imposes a "save the poor" mandate that has to charge more to cover those costs, and a mercantile hospital with a more market-friendly "pay-up or die" policy that can charge less for procedures.

>> ^blankfist:

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob.

"I think where the danger comes in with corn is that much of the corn grown now in North America is going into making high fructose corn syrup," Dawson says. "So it's not that corn per se is bad, but it's the sweetener made from corn that gets into many of the foods that Americans are probably consuming too much of, and we now see that showing up as obesity and heart disease and potential for type 2 diabetes."

Really? Having a conversation with you is like:

"I like my steaks rare."
"Oh, you like them when they're hard to find?"
"What? No, rare as in I like them less cooked and bloody."
"So you agree you like them when you cannot find them. I agree to that."

I do not know how to respond to this. First, I wont look at any sources you posted because, as you ignored my main points, I ignore yours. I made the point about reasonable and unreasonable people---not about people smoking even though they know smoking is bad.

>> ^blankfist:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw. Posting on the internet. You're doing it wrong. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/wink.gif">
"Libertarians like voluntarism?" Yes. Yes they do. Read up what the term means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

You said, "...reasonable enough to make choices for themselves..." And then you said, "...I think they knowingly make bad decisions..."

>> ^blankfist:

Really? Having a conversation with you is like:
"I like my steaks rare."
"Oh, you like them when they're hard to find?"
"What? No, rare as in I like them less cooked and bloody."
"So you agree you like them when you cannot find them. I agree to that."


I have the same feeling, only you're the one who always thinks "rare steak" means they're hard to find.

I heard that we already do the same thing with tobacco--i.e., subsidize and then raise taxes for.