Insights, Snippets, Quotes, Epiphanies & All That Sort of Things

[kishnevi]

This post makes sense. The libertarian mindset really does aim for some good stuff, such as personal responsibility and freedom, but it completely overlooks how to get there, which unfortunately does often involve... the government.

I'm luckily not drowning in debt already after being halfway through school, because of... the government. I can go to school in the first place because it's there and there is a minimum wage law which means I actually have time to go to school because of... the government. If I got fired, I won't starve because of... the government. Going to school means a chance to be happy in my life; I get to go to school because of the government... so, there's still some good points about the government.


What would happen to Life, Liberty, and Property under an extreme Libertarian scenario of no minimum wage + no government assistance?

Government is one of those things... when it's good, it's really good. When it's bad, it's really bad.

The libertarian/conservative agrument is that government intervention and manipulation is the main reason that education and health care are so expensive now: government programs and direct/indirect subsidies to students and patients have allowed schools/doctors/hospitals/medical equipment providers/pharmaceutical companies to charge higher and higher prices.  I've fallen behind in education costs, not having kids of my own.  In the late 70s I attended a private university, and the total cost (paid for mostly by school sponsored scholarships, a school run job program, and the government backed student loan program of that era) ran about $10,000 per year.  That included not merely tuition but the charges for living in the school dorm, eating on campus and off,  books and supplies, and doing the stuff which is the real purpose of going to college--going to concerts and bars in Atlanta on the weekends,  sharing pitchers of beer at the pub just off campus on weeknights,  throwing/giving parties as an alternative to the other two, etc. etc.  I had jobs over the summer when I was at home,  but during school terms I only worked perhaps 10-15 hours per week in that school program--and it was a job that allowed me to study intermittently while on the job. 

The only real change in education between my era as a student and yours is the advent of computers and wireless communication.  (Back then,  the IBM Selectric was the typewriter of choice among my crowd,   35mm cameras were either not yet in use or just starting out,  files were manila folders full of paper documents, and if you got stuck on the road with a car problem,  you had better figure out quick where the nearest payphone was.)

So deduct what you think is reasonable amounts to represent that sort of technological change, and the difference between what you (or your peer at a not quite big name private school like my alma mater) pay and what I paid is, in essence, all government induced inflation.  And remember that a hundred and twenty years ago plenty of men worked their way through school--or had middle class parents who paid for their college years without needing to contemplate  bankruptcy.


I do know one thing about education costs now, from stepfamily:  to attend a school to get the necessary qualifications to work as a cosmetologist now costs about the same as what I paid per year to get a BA in English.

Another position which is kind of bizarre to me is the fear that Universal Health Care would be a success because then people would "rely on government more." So if you are uninsured you'd rather either just die or go into massive, unpayable debt if you get sick rather than get government aid? I'm not saying I definitely support Obamacare or know that it is even a good idea now, but most of these conservative arguments against it are downright retarded. The only valid argument against if I've heard so far is the negative impact towards businesses, hiring, hours, etc.

The basic conservative argument against any sort of national health insurance is that, ultimately,  there's not enough money in the world to actually pay for. No country, not even the USA at its most prosperous, could afford at current rates to give its residents truly first class health care, with all the doo dahs and whizbangs and wonder drugs available through modern technology.  So some people won't get first class care, and under government run programs,  it would be government bureaucrats deciding, almost literally,  who shall live and who shall die, and doing so for budgetary or political reasons, not medical reasons.    The flaw in that argument is of course that under our current scheme, it's corporate bureaucrats who make that sort of decision, and that's not really any better.  (The conservative answer is that without government subsidies, etc,  costs would actually be less, and you'd not be dependent on your employer's health plan--you'd be able to find a provider/insurance plan that actually meets your needs.)

Question to Florestan--how much of that lack of Romanian progress was due to living under an Ottoman regime that had a vested interest in keeping up the status quo and depressing Romanian nationalism?

[Parsifal]

There are two reasons education has gotten expensive.  One is that public education is no longer subsidized to the extent it was.  In 1970, the state paid 3/4 of the cost of educating a student at the University of Michigan (the archetype of a US state university).  Now the state pays 1/4.  That is typical of the US system.  Another reason is that education is one of the few things in the economy which has not been automated, it is still done "by hand."  Everything else got cheaper and education stayed the same, so education is now more expensive relative to everything else.  The measures the cost-conscious schools are taking to make education cheaper - replacing regular faculty with adjunct lecturers who are paid shockingly low wages and given no benefits - is not making education better.

With regard to health care, your argument makes no sense to me because the government, which you blame for causing health care costs to expand, pays the lowest rates for health care.  Medicare/Medicaid is more typically blamed for putting health care practitioners into bankruptcy because of their low reimbursement rates.  Big corporations and their insurers also drive hard bargains.  Only people without health care are billed "retail" prices.  Last year I had a very minor, outpatient surgery.  The process took about 15 minutes, plus 30 minutes of prep time in which they did things like take my blood pressure, measure my heart rate and make me sign waivers.   When I got the statement from my insurer, I found that they had been charged $7,000 for the procedure.  The insurer stated that their price schedule would reimburse about $600.  The charge was adjusted to $600.  If I did not have insurance I presume I would have been sent a $7,000 bill.  That's the system that people want to protect from "Obamacare."

I think the main hope for the US economy would be to adopt something like the Canadian system.  Of course, that will never happen because of the control that big economic interests like the health care industry exert over the government.

[kishnevi]

There are two reasons education has gotten expensive.  One is that public education is no longer subsidized to the extent it was.  In 1970, the state paid 3/4 of the cost of educating a student at the University of Michigan (the archetype of a US state university).  Now the state pays 1/4.  That is typical of the US system.  Another reason is that education is one of the few things in the economy which has not been automated, it is still done "by hand."  Everything else got cheaper and education stayed the same, so education is now more expensive relative to everything else.  The measures the cost-conscious schools are taking to make education cheaper - replacing regular faculty with adjunct lecturers who are paid shockingly low wages and given no benefits - is not making education better.

Computers/Internet/wireless technology is education's version of automation. 
And please note my experience was at a private university, so government loan and grant programs had impact, but state structuring of tuition was irrelevant.

With regard to health care, your argument makes no sense to me because the government, which you blame for causing health care costs to expand, pays the lowest rates for health care.  Medicare/Medicaid is more typically blamed for putting health care practitioners into bankruptcy because of their low reimbursement rates. Big corporations and their insurers also drive hard bargains.  Only people without health care are billed "retail" prices.  Last year I had a very minor, outpatient surgery.  The process took about 15 minutes, plus 30 minutes of prep time in which they did things like take my blood pressure, measure my heart rate and make me sign waivers.   When I got the statement from my insurer, I found that they had been charged $7,000 for the procedure.  The insurer stated that their price schedule would reimburse about $600.  The charge was adjusted to $600.  If I did not have insurance I presume I would have been sent a $7,000 bill.  That's the system that people want to protect from "Obamacare."

I think the main hope for the US economy would be to adopt something like the Canadian system.  Of course, that will never happen because of the control that big economic interests like the health care industry exert over the government.

Medical prices inflated because of Medicare and government subsidies.  Government essentially spent three decades pumping in free money to the medical system.  Think of it this way--if Medicare had not existed,  you'd probably be a total bill of perhaps $1000, to be worked out between you and whatever major medical insurance plan you signed up for.   There wouldn't be the nonsense of sending out multi thousand bills knowing that Medicare and insurance companies would be shave off 90 percent or more of the total. 

And I bolded one portion of your post because it's an important point.  Medicare is doing that because of financial constraints.  Under any sort of national health insurance,  that would end up happening to everyone, not just Medicare/Medicaid patients and providers.

[Florestan]

Question to Florestan--how much of that lack of Romanian progress was due to living under an Ottoman regime that had a vested interest in keeping up the status quo and depressing Romanian nationalism?

Actually, the Romanian principalities were rather autonomous; the Ottoman influence was restricted to extracting a yearly amount of money and products and, between 1720 and 1821, to nominating / deposing the Princes, selecting for that office only Greeks. After 1829 when the commercial monopoly of the Ottomans was broken as a result of the Adrianopolis Peace, their influence withered away almost completely. The formal proclamation of independence in 1877 only sanctioned a de facto state.

Anyway, the modernizing of Romania was the result of deliberate and steady governmental plans and actions and it couldn't have been any other way. The vast majority of Romanians were illiterate and poor peasants; had the libertarian dogma of minimal government been applied, they would have remained illiterate and poor to this very day.

[ibanezmonster]

In the late 70s I attended a private university, and the total cost (paid for mostly by school sponsored scholarships, a school run job program, and the government backed student loan program of that era) ran about $10,000 per year.  That included not merely tuition but the charges for living in the school dorm, eating on campus and off,  books and supplies, and doing the stuff which is the real purpose of going to college--going to concerts and bars in Atlanta on the weekends,  sharing pitchers of beer at the pub just off campus on weeknights,  throwing/giving parties as an alternative to the other two, etc. etc.  I had jobs over the summer when I was at home,  but during school terms I only worked perhaps 10-15 hours per week in that school program--and it was a job that allowed me to study intermittently while on the job. 

10-15 hours per week... away from home? Must have been quite a bit of money you got from those scholarships and loans. Probably had to use a lot for living expenses.

I do know one thing about education costs now, from stepfamily:  to attend a school to get the necessary qualifications to work as a cosmetologist now costs about the same as what I paid per year to get a BA in English.

Depends on the school. I've known a few cosmetologists that graduated at a school I attended, and it's only about $3,000 or less for the whole course.

And remember that a hundred and twenty years ago plenty of men worked their way through school--or had middle class parents who paid for their college years without needing to contemplate  bankruptcy.

Okay... this is a bit hard to believe. So if I were a poor person who grew up in a poor family, 120 years I could have just "worked through school." Seems like everyone would have had a bachelor's back then. And if what you meant to say was that you definitely had to be middle class first (was there even a decent-sized middle class in the 1890's?), well then, that's not quite an American ideal. The American ideal is that anyone can achieve their dreams if they work hard enough, regardless of what you were born into.

[kishnevi]

10-15 hours per week... away from home? Must have been quite a bit of money you got from those scholarships and loans. Probably had to use a lot for living expenses.

Quite so. The debt I owed at the end of my schooling was not small by standards of that time, but I paid it off by the time I was thirty.  But what I got was about the same as my peers, and I apparently paid as much for the four years as some people pay for one year now.

Depends on the school. I've known a few cosmetologists that graduated at a school I attended, and it's only about $3,000 or less for the whole course.

Possible.  I wasn't comparing costs, just told what someone was paying.  And it may vary depending on the precise career goal.  I have no idea what she intends to do when she finishes this.
And of course student loans taken to pay for cosmetology school count as student debt just as much as loans taken to pay for a year at Harvard.

Okay... this is a bit hard to believe. So if I were a poor person who grew up in a poor family, 120 years I could have just "worked through school." Seems like everyone would have had a bachelor's back then. And if what you meant to say was that you definitely had to be middle class first (was there even a decent-sized middle class in the 1890's?), well then, that's not quite an American ideal. The American ideal is that anyone can achieve their dreams if they work hard enough, regardless of what you were born into.

Don't forget that a college degree was much less important for career prospects back then.  Unless you wanted to be a doctor, lawyer, preacher, teacher, or scientist, you generally could start at entry level directly out of high school, and hope to work your way up the food chain from there.  The 18 year old stockboy could realistically hope to be the middle aged manager with home and family in due course. In a sense, the idea that everyone should go to college before starting their first job was something that did not come into being until after WWII, and the GI Bill had a large impact in that.  And those men (being realistic about who was going to school then) who did attend school often did have jobs on the side, just like you are doing now.  (On the issue of gender,  there were plenty of teacher's colleges or normal colleges, as they were called,  which focused on meeting the needs of young women who wanted to teach.)

[Florestan]

Quite so. The debt I owed at the end of my schooling was not small by standards of that time, but I paid it off by the time I was thirty.  But what I got was about the same as my peers, and I apparently paid as much for the four years as some people pay for one year now.Possible.  I wasn't comparing costs, just told what someone was paying.  And it may vary depending on the precise career goal.  I have no idea what she intends to do when she finishes this.
And of course student loans taken to pay for cosmetology school count as student debt just as much as loans taken to pay for a year at Harvard.Don't forget that a college degree was much less important for career prospects back then.  Unless you wanted to be a doctor, lawyer, preacher, teacher, or scientist, you generally could start at entry level directly out of high school, and hope to work your way up the food chain from there.  The 18 year old stockboy could realistically hope to be the middle aged manager with home and family in due course. In a sense, the idea that everyone should go to college before starting their first job was something that did not come into being until after WWII, and the GI Bill had a large impact in that.  And those men (being realistic about who was going to school then) who did attend school often did have jobs on the side, just like you are doing now.  (On the issue of gender,  there were plenty of teacher's colleges or normal colleges, as they were called,  which focused on meeting the needs of young women who wanted to teach.)

Jeffrey, let me ask you a question, if I may: all things considered, would you rather live today or 120 years ago?

[kishnevi]

Jeffrey, let me ask you a question, if I may: all things considered, would you rather live today or 120 years ago?

As a quick answer,  probably today.  There are things I would have liked that I could have done back then,  but couldn't do now.  But the things I could do now, but wouldn't be able to do then, are far more numerous.  And it's easier (meaning less overt anti-Semitism) to live as a Jew now than it was then.  (I'm assuming we're talking about living then in circumstances roughly equivalent to my current economic, social and cultural situation--in America, Jewish,  lower middle class with as high an education as would be available to me.)

And of course, that would mean I would almost certainly never hear a note of Mahler (and heaven knows who else), so definitely--better to live now than six score years ago.

[Florestan]

As a quick answer,  probably today.  There are things I would have liked that I could have done back then,  but couldn't do now.  But the things I could do now, but wouldn't be able to do then, are far more numerous.

Thanks for your honest answer. That is the crux of the matter. State or no state, market or no market --- we are far better off right now than our ancestors were 120 years ago. 

And it's easier (meaning less overt anti-Semitism) to live as a Jew now than it was then.  (I'm assuming we're talking about living then in circumstances roughly equivalent to my current economic, social and cultural situation--in America, Jewish,  lower middle class with as high an education as would be available to me.)

Well, let me tell you something: in Romania 120 years ago a Jewish, lower middle class family offspring, if he wouldn't have gone into an industrial / commercial career, he would have went into being a physician, a pharmacist, or even a Romanian-language philologist, e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazar_Saineanu), whose Dictionary of the Romanian Language was an authoritative source for generations to come.

That doesn't mean that anti-Semitism was completely absent from Romanian politics 1918-1947 and beyond; it means only that the educated, moderate middle class --- who until 1947 comprised the majority, and after 1947 was the main object of Communist persecution, has never attached too much importance on who's have been born into what religion...

Case in point: the husband of my paternal grandmother's sister was a Hungarian Jew who came to Romania in 1930's and never ever learned to speak Romanian proper; everytime after 1980 I asked him why he had come to Romania he always answered: Because Romania was far better than Hungary at that time! (1930's).  May you rest in peace, uncle Dezső!:D

And of course, that would mean I would almost certainly never hear a note of Mahler (and heaven knows who else), so definitely--better to live now than six score years ago.

As a low middle-class offspring, I rest my case. 

[kishnevi]

Of course, I come at that from a slightly different perspective.  120 years ago (and less--my father's parents didn't actually get to the US until the 1920s--they were the ones who lived in Moldava) my family were subjects of the Czar of all the Russias, and while life was good for some Jews back then, the policy of the Russian government in that era was supposedly aimed at having one third of the Jews emigrate, one third assimilate via conversion to Russian Orthodoxy, and one third starve to death.  (There's actually a semi-confirmed quote from a Russian prime minister of the era that said exactly that.)  Apparently all four of my grandparents had no fond memories of Russia, since they never said much of anything about what life was like to their children or grandchildren.  We're not even sure of the exact name of the towns anyone of them came from.

But I was thinking less of governmental policies and legal discrimination than of social discrimination here in the US.   The late nineteenth century was the period when hotels felt free to advertise that they did not accept Jews as guests.  Ironically, the most famous case involved a hotel in upstate New York (Saratoga Springs, to be precise), which in due course became the prime vacation location for American Jews looking to escape the city for a week or two in summer.  And even more recently--supposedly, after WWII, Jewish doctors in Miami found it necessary to start a hospital of their own because none of the existing places would give them admitting privileges.

[Wakefield]

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

-- Yeats, "The Second Coming"

Resignation

KEEP off your thoughts from things that are past and done;
For thinking of the past wakes regret and pain.
Keep off your thoughts from thinking what will happen; To think of the future fills one with dismay.
Better by day to sit like a sack in your chair;
Better by night to lie like a stone in your bed.
When food comes, then open your mouth;
When sleep comes, then close your eyes.

-- By Po Chu-i (translated by Arthur Waley)

Is all of this true?

[Florestan]

-- Yeats, "The Second Coming"
-- By Po Chu-i (translated by Arthur Waley)

Is all of this true?

The first one is debatable; the second one is bull, if you'll excuse my French. 

[Florestan]

Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. 6, 1870

It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. 

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. 

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. 

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. 

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. 

In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated: 

"Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore."

It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to "support the government," it needs no further argument to show. 

[Wakefield]

"Even paranoids have enemies, son."
-- Said by Ricardo Piglia's father to his son

[Wakefield]

As a part of the artistic project "Play me, i'm yours", these days 20 pianos have been installed in streets of Santiago:

http://www.youtube.com/v/02wV8xX_-s8

http://www.streetpianos.com

[Karl Henning]

Were they ahead of Boston on that, do you suppose?

[Florestan]

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope." - George Carlin

Valid also for Romania. 

[ibanezmonster]

That's why working with the public is the greatest thing ever. Especially for people who have to work this morning with the public.

[Karl Henning]

I shall have the pleasure of waiting upon the shopping public the latter part of this afternoon and this evening.

[Florestan]

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.― Woodrow Wilson