Prometheus 6: Fisking the fisk onward

October 18, 2003

Fisking the fisk onward

Continuing the above, After changing the posting time so they appear in sequence:

Now if government got out of healthcare & education right here, right now, things would be chaotic for the first few years. But not as bad as you'd suppose. In the long run though, medical & education costs would go down. & the quality would remain at the same level or go up.

You make the bald assertion because you can't support it. What would make capitalists, whose entire management philosophy is MAXIMIZE PROFITS, lower prices? We keep hearing abou improvements in efficiency. That translates to lower costs. Yet even though inflation is under control and the general good calls for price reductions for the unemployed millions, prices have not been reduced. Reality puts the lie to your assertions.

I'm thinking the quality of education especially so. Look around you now - a private school with no federal & little state oversight usually has a better educational program for its students than a state run, federally funded & standardized school.

And why? Because unassisted schools are wealthy. They can pay for the best programs, the best teachers, the best support materials. And if you're thinking of home schooling, ask yourself whatthe teacher-to-student ration is when the teacher are responsible for their own children and no one else.

As for the worries about the poor & underprivileged in our society, they are always going to be an area of concern as long as currency is used for the majority of transactions. But private institutions would spring up to provide assistance to those who need it. They wouldn't be as encompassing or generous as the federal government is now, but they'd be enough to ensure that at least a basic level of education was available to the poor. & trust me, if people contribute money to a girl with a website who asked for donations to get out of credit card debt, people will contribute to a private charity to provide for education.

Another naked assumption…this time the assumption is that people will have the excess income to make such donations when the cheap labor capitalists run all.

It's really strange that you don't recognize you can only entertain these Libertarian fantasies because we've been protected by the government to what little degree we have been for the last two centuries.

But there are other areas that must be addressed simultaneously in order to see a ral benefit, otherwise it's like privatizing the power companies in California but still setting a maximum price they can charge.

The medical malpractice insurance rates are way too high in some areas, owing to frequent & sometimes frivilous litigation & extravagant awards to plantiffs. Teachers' unions are problematic when trying to get rid of a teacher who doesn't do a good job. Medicines such as penicilin that should be available to the public are strictly regulated. I could go on but it wouldn't be enough to simply get the government out of direct involvement with medicine & education, it'd take removing them from the peripheral issues that affect medicine & education as well.

Can you say how this can be done without terminal disruption? I don't think it possible.

Prove me wrong, if you can.

& it would further help if we got rid of that damn protection racket called the federal income tax.

The heart of the cheap labor movement's complaint.

See, while you are correct that any form of govenrment could work if it remained uncorrupted, the problem is keeping it uncorrupted. Ours is corrupt as hell, but it was designed to be functional despite human nature. Socialism looks great on paper, but it doesn't take into account human nature (at least the models that have been tried) & so it never works out well for long.

Privatization of damn near everything will work & it'll work better than a government run operation. There are a few exceptions (city water for example) but medicine & education aren't exceptions.

How can you complain about human nature in one breathe then depend on it by preaching the virtues of privatization in the next? Don't you see the contradiction there?

Oh, here's a novel idea - education is & always will be a parental responsibility. If a kid makes it into college on an athletic scholarship but can't make it through the front page of a paper, I don't blame the schools. I blame the parents who willing neglected their obligation to see to their kids education. So the fear of a non-government school system creating high illiteracy rates is only valid if we are speaking solely of orphans.

Universal literacy is new as well.
And it took government support of education. Before the Civil War, it simply didn't exist.

Prove me wrong if you can.

I just don't see government as the best & only solution to problems. In fact I see it as contributing to the problems even when it attempts to help.

You make the error of thinking the choice is between bad government and no government. Posted by P6 at October 18, 2003 09:47 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2021

Comments

P6,
In order:

Nothing can be truly supported based solely on theories now can it?
But insofar as you don't seem to be following me, I'll try to explain why the theories I have are more logical than the theories you have.

First of all, let me point out that in one breath you accusse capitalists of caring solely about maximizing profits, then you deride them for not doing something for the 'general good'.

It's like this, capitalism operates on a few basic assumptions that are consistent with observable human character. Profit is a big, if not the biggest motive. However a truly free market is not merely a group of people at the mercy of businesses & professionals. The market dictates prices. That whole supply & demand thing. It's a very big & very complex system & honestly there are others who could provide you with a better explanation of how a truly free market would work. But the gist of it is people will only pay what they afford & what they think the goods or services are worth to them. That's what keeps the profit-lust in check. If someone wishes to charge $2.00 for a hot dog, people will go to someone who's charging $1.50 as long as the quality is comparable. Hence the guy selling $2.00 hot dogs either lowers his prices or finds another means of income. Currently, despite the unemployment rate, the market is supporting the prices offerred. However keep in mind this is not a free market. It's quasi free market at best when you consider all the government distortions you have to work around.
Markets fluctuate & stabilize & fluctuate again. In terms of health care, eliminating government distortions in that particular market & the peripherary markets will make basic health care affordable to most people. & the quality of care will be the same or better than it is now. This is because of the power of the free market. It will keep prices in check while keeping quality at a certain level. That's just the way free markets work.

Private schools do better on the whole because of the lack of governmental distortion. True, they usually have smaller teacher to student ratios (which in itself shows only a correlation to better education, not a causational effect)& they cost more out of pocket than government schools, but if i recall the U.S. spends around what? 10 grand per student per year? I know of many private elementary & high schools that cost less than that per student. The cost of government schools are merely subsidized. Filtered through layers of government each taking their piece off the top. The provatized school option is more cost effective per student. The government school option is merely a popular form of spreading the payment over a large segment of the population. & the government schools apperently get less bang for the buck.
Ya see, if all schools were privatized (i.e. no government schools) the demand for such schools would be much higher. Therefore new schools would step in to fill that demand. Eventually there'd be an equiliberiam which I think would settle well below what it costs to send a child through a government school right now.

Same for colleges. Some will be expensive, others not so much so to meet the demands of the market. & quality in the cheapest schools will, on the whol, be better than state run institutions merely because the lack of governmental distortions will allow them to make mroe effective curriculim & hire more effecient teachers.

& yes, charitable organizations would fill in the gaps. It happens now in a semi-socialized condition. I have no doubts it would happen in a free market system. Just like any other charity, it wouldn't depend on the well to do. How many millions do you think the UNCF has raised in $5 & $10 donations? & that's a school oriented charity that exists currently in a semi-socialized school system.

& I, unlike most, do not acknowledge that government has done anything to help me, let alone allow me to entertain any cnclusions I come up with. I see it as a necessary evil, but an evil nontheless. So please demonstrate to me exactly how the government has allowed me to be or do or think anything? How would I have been restrined if it weren't for the good graces of our benevolent masters in DC?

Now the next is subjective. What's your definition of terminal disruption? all of society? a large portion? a super majority?

But no, it won't cause any terminal disruptions if done correctly. It's like weening a kid off milk: you do it slowly but steadily to gte him independent of the old system & dependent on the new. But in this case it'll be getting us independent of government & dependent upon ourselves.

As I've said, no proof is possible when discussing theories without an actual model to work with, & even then nothing is conclusive until it actually works or fails in whole. I can offer anecdotal evidence, as can you, but neither of us can prove to the other much of anything unless one of our models is followed. Then we can kick back & reflect ont eh arguemtns, & possibly continue them as sometimes even a belief being disproven won't disuade the believer. (i.e. all the damned Elvis sightings).

The income tax is also the heart of the indentured servants complaint (yes, that's a tad dramatic but in principle there's not much difference).

I won't bother with going into the hidden costs associated with income tax, which increases prices at the consumer level. But in principle are you honestly telling me it's okey dokey for a group of people to take money & property earned through the sweat of ones' brow by force or the threat of force in order to pay for collective programs which one may be philosophically, morally & religiously oppossed to?
It's no different, not one damn bit, than a couple of mafia guys collecting protection money & giving back 10% to the neighborhood they extorted it from.

I offer you this:

http://www.fairtax.org/

An alternative to the income tax that points out some flaws of the current system along with some benefits of the proposed one.

P6, if my sister needed an operation & I stole moeny from you by force to pay for it, it'd still be wrong. Government is no different, except they have more muscle to back up a strongarm than either of us do.

But tell me this, do you really think we'd have an income tax, or at least one at such a high rate, if all our taxes (payroll included) were due on a certain day of the year with nothing with held from our paychecks, & the due date for the taxes was 1 week before the elections? Write a $3,400 check (assuming a tax rate of roughly 17% on a $20,000 income) & you think that won't change the way you vote? or the way the politicians campaign?

& I could see a contradiction if I thought privatization was dependent on the goodness of human nature. It's not. It's dependent upon a few variables, just as every institution. The difference between private entities & governments are that governments are not as susceptable to makret forces as a free market is. thus the populace can more easily & quickly control the market. Controlling government is about as easy as herding cats, & it takes longer.

See government tempts a persons lust for power. A free market tempts a persons lust for profit. We can control profit, & it's perpetual. No one has so much profit that they can't be affected by the free market. No actually there probably are a few, but so few that it wouldn't matter much. But there are too many people who are affected by power, & once they get beyond the point of needing people to support them, then it gets real dangerous for the people.
So of the two human charecteristics, one we can work to a mutual advantage, the other we cannot. Thus it's not contradictory for me to say the a free market plan wil work better than governments because of government inherent dependence on humans with flawed natures to run it. I see a difference between the two motivators. I also see how one can be controlled by the natural tendencies of the populace whereas the other seeks to control the populace. You perhaps may not see these things, so you'll have to take my word that I see a difference & I'm not contradicting myself.

& before the late unpleasantries betwixt the States, we had a different society. Different economics, different markets, different goals. The government ahd been dabbling in education here & ther eprior, but it wasn't until the late 19th century that thye really started to get wound up about it. It was the 20th century before the feds stepped in. But I do not see any proof that thye initiated something that wouldn't have occurred naturally within the society. They may have actually hindered something that society was better capable of doing on their own. Again, government involvement in education & literacy rates are correlary, not casusational.

& nope, no proof. Just a couple of theories that could disuade you, but neither one of us can prove anything about our arguments without a very strictly controlled basis for comparison.

Finally: You make the error of thinking that a government big enough to provide certain needs will not be big enough to take others away.

Or perhaps: You make the error of thinking that a government is not at best dangerous.

I oculd go on, but i'll be lucky if your comments system accepts the post the way it is.

Although I do want to tell you that I appreciate the conversation, even if we're in disagreement.

Posted by at October 18, 2003 08:36 PM

Nothing can be truly supported based solely on theories now can it?

True. Which is why I don't try. Reality is key.

But insofar as you don't seem to be following me, I'll try to explain why the theories I have are more logical than the theories you have.

I follow you, but logic is far less important than patterns of behavior…particularly those that are inherant in our structure.

First of all, let me point out that in one breath you accusse capitalists of caring solely about maximizing profits, then you deride them for not doing something for the 'general good'.

And there is no contradiction there. Because their motivation is maximization of profit, they do not act out of concern for the general good. Therefore, that must be attended to by someone other than the Capitalists.

But the gist of it is people will only pay what they afford & what they think the goods or services are worth to them. That's what keeps the profit-lust in check.

Your error is you assume everything is optional. Necessities are, by definition, not optional and therefore should fall outside the free market structure you describe. But they do not, and that give the free market crew more coercive power than a government can dream of. Power capable of corrupting the government and turning it into the very thing you decry.

If you can get the necessities out of the free market we would be in much closer accord. And those necessities would be placed in someone or some group's charge. That person or group would be the one that serves a governmental function.

This will never be automatic. It will always require the attention of the governed. And as I said, this is not logic, it's a pattern of behavior that is inherant in our structure.

Actually, an excellent parallel to our different approaches has just come to my attention. It's an essay by Clay Shirky on the development of the Web, and why the messy, chaotic way the web came into existance not only worked but is the only thing that could have worked.

But the upshot is, we CAN know which of us is right.

Me.

Because what I'm describing is the many variations which is the way things are. And what you're describing never came ito existance in existance, because it can't.

Posted by at October 18, 2003 09:35 PM