Monopolies work for medicine but not for gas …

On another forum discussing how the concentration of oil refining and gasoline distribution in the hands of a few mega-oil companies is the cause of the current run-up in gasoline prices at the pump, I asked rhetorically – “Doesn’t competition and the duplication of services actually result in INCREASED prices?”

Another poster, who had been arguing for the imposition of a universal, national, single-payer socialized healthcare system in the United States, immediately took offense – reminding me that one of the basic tenents of capitalism is that competition and duplication lead to an increase in supply, and results in a decrease in price.

He continued to chastise me by asserting that “most people” would suggest that a monopoly (the absence of competition and duplication) leads invariably to poorer service and higher prices – as illustrated by local complaints regarding the rising price of cable TV service (a government-franchised service monopoly in our area).

Yep. Bingo.

Reinstating the draft …

Interestingly, many of Rep Rangles stated reasons for reinstating a military draft are the very same reasons that were advanced for doing away with it in the first place – specifically, that “blacks and minorities” (Rangle is color-blind, and clearly not a racist) were disproportionatly being drafted, and were thus disproportionately bearing the burden of war on the front lines.

Aside from an obvious political desire to fan the flames of domestic discontent Vietnam-style by placing the young-and-restless at increased risk of being forced to serve in a manner which they can now easily avoid by choice, a closer look at the Rangle proposal reveals a more fundamental desire to further socialize American society by creating a “requirement” that everyone serve the government in some respect, either militarily, or as an option, in civilian service.

The Dangers of Democracy …

Louise writes:
“I agree with Breckshire that Chavez is a loud mouthed buffoon, however he was elected democratically twice. Venezuala is sitting on a significant oil reserve and the Petroleos de Venezuela S.A (PDVSA) is a world energy corporation, owned by the Venezuelan State …”

The point made about Chavez being democratically elected, (as were Saddam, Hitler, and Pinochet – as were Ahmadinejad and Castro – and as indeed have been just about every other modern despot that you can possibly name for the last two hundred years or more) spotlights many issues regarding the limitations, and even the dangers, of an unfettered democratic process.

Democracy may have the best chance of preserving liberty and freedom, compared to monarchy, but the democratic process by itself cannot guarantee those things- as reflected in the famous quote that I have referenced before in other threads:

The nature of taxes …

frd writes:
“If I, as an example, do not wish to pay for the military spending, can I legitimately withhold them? I know people who have done that and been punished under our laws for it.”

Bingo. Which illustrates precisely the nature of government and taxes.

Tolerance, acquiescence, or marginal acceptance of a small amount of something, does not in itself justify or make acceptable more of the same.

The nature of taxes … funding Iraq and the war on Islamofascism

I am somewhat entertained by Standby and Frd’s efforts (in other threads) to play “gotcha” regarding the issues of fundamental common rights vs legislated entitlements, and the de facto nature of government to act as a coercive force, and thus it’s taxes and unilateral assessments against wealth and income being a de facto act of theft – and my positions in defense of actions being taken in the present global war against groups pressing a violent agenda of Islamist jihadic fascist totalitarianism, and how that gets paid for.

Wars of “choice” …

Glasshammer writes:
“All of fundemental Christianity, all of fundemental Islam, and the entire nation of Iraq, and very soon Iran, have been labeled as expendable and exploitable, no matter what the cost in lives, by the most arrogant foriegn policy ever to be shoved down the throats of a nation that hopes itself to be called ‘democratic’.[sic]“

ALL wars are wars of “choice”. No war ever HAS to be fought.

You can simply roll over, and give in.

We didn’t HAVE to fight a war against the British for independence. It was costly and bloody, and what did it get us but the scorn of the world?

We didn’t HAVE to fight a war with ourselves over the issue of slavery, and man’s inhumanity to man. What value did that have?

Freedom to risk …

When we give up or abdicate our freedom to choose to engage in risky, dangerous, or even potentially dangerous activities, there won’t be much left to life to be worth living.

There isn’t one activity in life that, carried to it’s logical conclusion, does not involve some potential and life-or-health-threatening risk to the individual, or by extention to the community, because of the “loss of productivity, the collective cost of healthcare, the early demise of a loved one and provider”, and so on.

Peter likes to camp, fish, and enjoy the out-of-doors. That’s dangerous. He could fall, hurt himself, stab himself with a fishhook, poke his eye out, start a forest fire, or get lost and require the expenditure of millions of dollars to locate and rescue him. It also degrades the environment, as his footprints compact the soil, kills the plants, and lead to erosion.

Rights vs entitlement and privilege

“True” rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized, and whether or not the ability or the will to defend them exists.

True rights do not impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. In fact, rights exist in greatest measure when we are each simply “left alone”.

If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.

Inalienable rights – and the preventable scourge of affluenza …

frd writes:
“First of all your implication that some dark sordid event in my past causes me to hate rich people is simply foolish. Suffice it to say that I was able to retire and live in what some would call a very high life style in my fifties….If a murderer shoots you to death, your prior statements have led us to the point that you, not having been able to protect yourself,have forfeited your right to life. Since you do not have a right to life, has a crime been committed?”

I of course have said nothing of the kind. In fact, quite the opposite point has been made. Frd needs to read much more carefully.

Rights are inalienable. They are not “granted”. They cannot be forfeited. The fact that you shoot and kill me does not in any way imply that my right to life has been forfeited. The right still exists, even though you have infringed upon it and interferred with it.

Healthcare, taxation, and the role of government …

frd writes:
“All you do over and over is claim that you have the right to determine what the role of government is. And it is to help you achieve the protection of your property. No matter what else you say … your arguments, including the ones that go on and on and on, revolve around greed and selfishness. That’s it. I assume that you would agree that the government has the right to tax to raise an army for mutual defense i.e. protect your life and property. Disease poses just as significant threat to your life as does an outside force. What’s the difference? Or are you suggesting that the government does not have the right to tax you in order to defend American citizens and interests around the world. It seems that you are willing to take the advantages and protections that our country provides but you refuse to admit that you should pay for them, or to extend those rights to others. I agree that I do not have the right to seize your property. But we both have an obligation to each other to contribute to our mutual protection. It is the legitimate role of government to require each of us, even you, to contribute appropriately to preserve our society. You have stated that goverrnment exists to preserve our right to life. I say that extends to basic health care because disease will kill you just as effectively as a terrorist will. Oh, and I don’t have to twist your logic – you hang yourself on your own petard.”

—-

There is a personal story I’m sure, behind frd’s anger, antipathy and covetousness toward the wealth and property of others.

The rest I let stand as a rather graphic illustration of my point regarding the somewhat spectacular leaps of logic needed to arrive at a desired conclusion.

Other points call for their own thread, or the repetition of concepts and distinctions already explained in other posts here.

The thrust of frd’s argument seems to boil down to “your property is yours, until I or someone else decide that we have a better use for it”, which in this case is the provision of healthcare, albeit at the point of a gun.