MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘progressive’

Progressive Interventionism Is Ruining American Healthcare

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2023

by Connor O’Keeffe

In other words, the very interventions we were told would make healthcare more affordable have only allowed pharmacies, insurance providers, and drug companies to extract even more money from American consumers. And what’s the solution Democrats like Warren and Republicans like Braun seem to agree on? Even more interventions. This time, we’re told, the interventions will really make healthcare more affordable.

That is Washington at work.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/progressive-interventionism-is-ruining-american-healthcare/

massachusetts senator and democratic presidential candidate eliz

August 10, 2019: United States Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren greets supporters and speaks to fair-goers at the Iowa State Fair political soapbox in Des Moines, Iowa.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the problems with Joe Manchin’s argument that Congress needs to reject the “extremism” in its ranks if it’s ever going to solve the many problems facing Americans.

I argued that the opposite is true. That Congress is almost entirely unified behind a specific pace of progressive interventionism where the predictable consequences of previous interventions are perpetually used to justify more intervention. In this cycle, the government grows, the economy sputters, and the politically connected grow rich.

Then last week, as if to prove my point, Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Republican senator Mike Braun (R-IN) sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) imploring the agency to address one of the consequences of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

The letter was a response to an investigation by The Wall Street Journal’s Joseph Walker, who found that some insurance companies were paying significantly marked-up prices for certain generic drugs. Some, such as the generic version of the cancer drug Gleevec, were a hundred times more expensive when paid for through insurance plans.

The reason the insurance companies are willing and able to pay these absurd prices is because they are the owners of the pharmacies on the other end of the transaction. And in many cases, they also own the so-called pharmacy-benefit managers—the entities that negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

That revelation supposedly drove Senators Warren and Braun to pen their letter to the HHS. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board explained on Saturday, all of this is a predictable consequence of a provision in the Affordable Care Act called the medical loss ratio (MLR), which was championed by Senator Warren.

The MLR tries to impose a cap on insurance company profits. It requires them to spend at least 80 percent or 85 percent of the revenue from premiums on medical claims. Democrats like Warren claimed the MLR would reign in insurance company profits and “make health spending more transparent.”

Instead, insurance companies began merging with and acquiring pharmacies and pharmacy-benefit managers, which they have used to indirectly raise their own profits by forcing higher drug prices on their customers—all while remaining MLR compliant.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sturdy Act-Is this my progressive control freak senator Casey or Monty Python?

Posted by M. C. on September 10, 2023

My beloved senator Casey alerted me to the fact that his Sturdy Act is now law. It contains government direction (the best direction you can get) on building child safe furniture. Feeling better now? I sure am.

But that is not enough! You are to take the further recommended action.

Nailing your furniture to the wall.

I can’t wait to see how Casey handles a relatively worse problem, bathtub deaths. Ban bathing or attaching a loop to the ceiling and looped under the arms or around the neck, whatever government deems best.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

TGIF: Tribalism and the Dark Art of the Package Deal

Posted by M. C. on September 2, 2023

we should be wary about common phrases like moving further to the left/right or becoming more progressive/conservative. The reason is that there is no single-issue spectrum with fixed points to move along. The tribes define, not reflect, what it means to be rightwing, leftwing, conservative, and liberal/progressive.

If you have doubts about this, try stating the principles that unify the conservative and progressive programs or the party platforms. You can’t do it. If you ask a conservative or progressive what principle unifies his program, his answer, write the Lewises, will be a post-hoc rationalization. The tribes could exchange positions (and have) and still rationalize their new programs in terms of their previous answers.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-package-deal/

by Sheldon Richman

Tribalism not only lives; it rules — even more than I thought! I’ve been reading Hyrum Lewis and Verlan Lewis’s book The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America. It’s certainly clarified my thinking.

The Lewis brothers are a historian and a political scientist. What they show is something that I and many others have only partly understood. But for me, that’s changing now. (Here’s an interview with them.)

Their thesis is that the terms leftrightliberalprogressive, conservative, Republican, and Democrat do not indicate opposing sides of a single basic ideological principle that would make their respective policy programs coherent. Instead, those labels identify two social/cultural tribes that are based on something other than ideology. The disparate components of their respective policy package deals change, depending on contingent events, but the tribes endure with few defections. Compare “right-wing” Republican leaders Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. You can do the same with the “left.”

What do those labels really mean? You can’t say, for example, that the left is for big government and the right is for small government: too many shifts and inconsistencies have occurred. Think of their changing attitudes toward free speech, foreign intervention, surveillance and the intel apparatus, free trade, the rule of law, and even tax cuts.  Republicans have joined Democrats in opposing even future cuts to doomed Social Security and Medicare. Why don’t the media report that the Republicans have moved to the left on entitlements? Anything they do is called a move to the right; anything the Democrats do is a move to the left. How can that be?

Have you heard the cliche “This isn’t your father’s Republican [or Democratic] Party?” Tribal change is not new. (That was lifted from an Oldsmobile advertising slogan.)

When you come right down to it, members of Team Red hate members of Team Blue because they wear the wrong color jersey and vice versa.

The Lewises’ “social theory” explains the scene better than the prevailing “essentialist theory.” If the two tribes had ideologically driven platforms, each side’s members could coherently (but not necessarily correctly) say, “My team’s positions are all good because of our underlying vision, and the opposing team’s positions are therefore all bad. But if their lists of positions are grab bags determined by something other than a worldview, then the members can’t reasonably say that.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is Social Justice the Progressive Equivalent of Rent-Seeking Behavior? | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2023

We still see the value the robber barons created from both their commercial efforts and their charitable/social efforts. It remains to be seen whether we will see value from the social justice movement. One thing is for sure, the corrosive effects of rent seeking eat away at the rule of law, which is a foundation of American prosperity.

https://mises.org/wire/social-justice-progressive-equivalent-rent-seeking-behavior

Jeffery Marshall

The term “rent seeking” is a derogatory term that implies companies and people seek to take more than they earn. It hearkens to some Marxist ideology as well. However, especially when combined with regulatory capture and bureaucratic corruption, rent seeking is a valid concept. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot and people and organizations engage in rent seeking from a social justice perspective? Is it rent seeking or corruption for actions to secure social justice? Does the end justify the means?

Investopedia defines rent seeking as follows: “Rent seeking (or rent-seeking) is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity. Typically, it revolves around government-funded social services and social service programs.

Political scientists and economists traditionally apply the term “rent seeking” to capitalists, especially the so-called robber barons from the Gilded Age. However, what the definition does not seem to consider is value creation. Value creation could be a subset of the “contribution of productivity,” but productivity does not mean value creation. We can be highly productive in activities that produce little value or may even destroy value. While the robber barons could be cruel and demanding by virtually any measure, they created the economy and infrastructure that saw the United States through two world wars. The robber barons also provided tremendous social value with the libraries, universities, and museums they funded along with their other charitable activities. These benefits do not excuse their predatory actions, but they created extensive value, which mitigates the amount of rent-seeking behavior.

The term “rent seeking” and its definition hearken back to Karl Marx’s terminology and critique of capitalism. He was most decidedly against any form of rent seeking. Perhaps it is no accident that unions grew and perhaps reached their high point during the Gilded Age. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the West, particularly the US, turned away from anything resembling communism. The term “rent seeking” is still a charged term and concept however.

The definition of rent seeking says it is often a function of government programs. I have covered this in several blog entries (“Defending the Republic: Scenario 1 Regulatory Capture,” “Defending the Republic: Scenario 2 Policy Domination,” “Regulatory Capture and other Bureaucratic Problems,” “DIE Hydra,” and “Critical Thinking and Policy Development and Analysis”). Organizations use regulatory capture to engage in rent seeking from government programs.

A good example of rent seeking among government programs is a homeowner that builds a house in an area with frequent floods, fires, or hurricanes, yet he does not purchase the appropriate hazard insurance. When disaster strikes, the homeowner expects, if not demands, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to pay the costs to rebuild. FEMA does—why? Is there some deep regulatory capture going on by the home lenders and insurance companies? More study is required, but I suspect so.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Alarming Surge In Gun Shop Robberies As Democrats Fail To Enforce Law And Order 

Posted by M. C. on May 15, 2023

When accountability for bad behavior is removed from society, it emboldens criminals. And now these criminals are robbing gun stores and arming themselves with guns while the Biden administration is adamant about disarming law-abiding citizens. 

Some say… We’re living in a clown world. 

I remember an article from several years ago where ATF data showed gun crime surged when some city, in VA I think, offered a gun buy back program.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alarming-suge-gun-shop-robberies-democrats-fail-enforce-law-and-order

Tyler Durden's Photo

BY TYLER DURDEN

Progressive district attorneys’ failure to enforce law and order has resulted in a surge of smash-and-grab thefts across American cities run by Democrats. The rise in thefts, particularly at retail stores, has become a significant problem for the retail industry, amounting to $100 billion in shrinkage in 2022. Even more concerning is that organized criminal gangs now target gun stores instead of clothing, jewelry, and pharmacy stores.

Diving into Bloomberg data, the story count for “gun shop robbery” in all US news media stories soared to a record high in the fourth quarter of 2022, with data going back to 2013. The surge even surpassed levels during the early virus pandemic. 

As of late, a series of gun store robberies in the Mid-Atlantic area have alarmed gun shop owners, local police, state police, and federal agencies. These shops are located in the Washington-Baltimore metro area, where Democrats have been in control for decades. 

On April 30, two gun stores, one just outside the Capital Beltway in Fairfax County, Virginia, and another one in Rockville, Maryland, about an hour north, were targeted by what some in the firearm industry have described as criminal organized gangs. 

One of the owners of Engage Armament in Rockville told FOX 5 that he believes the suspects that targeted his shop and Dominion Defense in Fairfax were part of the same gang. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stopping Murderers – The Postil Magazine

Posted by M. C. on December 5, 2022

The solution to this objection to the death penalty is to employ it only when we are certain of guilt.

Wow! Aren’t all guilty verdicts based on a convinced jury? And then you have this

https://www.thepostil.com/stopping-murderers/

Walter E. Block

There has been a spate of even more unusually horrendous mass murders in recent days, topped off by the monstrousness that occurred in Uvalde, Texas to school children and teachers. But pretty much every weekend there are reports from Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans and other cities run by Democrats of shootings, sometimes stretching into the dozens.

What is going on here, and, more important, how can this be stopped, or, at least, the incidence of this phenomenon radically reduced?

One obvious point is to vote out the “progressive” wokesters in the next election. They have been undermining the morale of the police, trying to deprive them of financial resources by “defunding” them, turning prisoners loose, downgrading felonies to misdemeanors, etc. Before these politicians seized the city reins, there were fewer such murderous outbursts.

Another is to harden the targets. There should be one and only one entrance to a school, and there ought to be an awake guard posted right there. Arming teachers and staff would also go a long way in the direction of dissuading criminals from entry. Left wing politicians oppose these safety measures, but we can pretty much ignore their hypocritical criticisms: they surround themselves with armed guards.

If drugs were legalized, all of them without exception, there would be fewer murders. We have as evidence for this contention the example of booze. Under prohibition, gangs shot each other over turf. Does this now occur at liquor stores? Of course not.

Then there is the break up of the American family, or, worse, its failure to form in the first place. This is due to our welfare system. We had this program in effect for many years, with little ill effect on the family, but Lyndon Baines Johnson, another Democrat, greatly enhanced it in the mid-1960s. Then the family started falling apart. All too many kids nowadays grow up without a dad in the house. A non-intact family is causally related to all sorts of societal ill effects: crime to be sure, but also unemployment, lack of schooling, divorce, etc. Unhappily, if we were to end this pernicious program, it would take a generation or more for the beneficial impact on crime reduction to take place, given the negative social mores introduced in its wake.

Is there no other alteration that can have more immediate effects? Fortunately, there is: public executions. There will be a great hue and cry against implementing any such policy. One objection will be that if a mistake is made, the wrong person will be put to death. But to err is human. There are cases when an innocent man was incarcerated for decades; it hardly follows that no one should be in jail. Also, some of these folks were guilty of other equally serious crimes, and merely punished for the wrong one of many. The solution to this objection to the death penalty is to employ it only when we are certain of guilt.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rents and Race – A Great Weekend Read

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2022

https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=947

Rents and Race
Legacies of Progressive Policies
By William L. AndersonDavid Kiriazis

This article appeared in the Summer 2013 issue of The Independent Review.


Could it be that the institutional racism of Jim Crow occurred not despite the Progressive era but because of it? Not only did the Progressive reforms create new economic rents that could be exploited by whites and by the politicians who enacted those reforms, but many leading Progressives espoused views on racial purity and segregation that put them in the vanguard of the American apartheid system.

Download PDF (19 pages)

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

On Slavery @ 9:30 to 11:00

Posted by M. C. on May 26, 2022

~You can’t say slavery is wrong unless you also believe in individual sovereignty and individual intrinsic value~. Marxist/progressive rants on slavery can’t make sense other than to score political points.

This episode was recorded on April 4, 2022. I discussed gratitude, faith, and suffering in this conversation at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. How can we be sure that pain is a solid guiding principle as we navigate the world? What is the underlying structure of pain, and what does it point at? We also touched on a myriad of topics around those central themes, such as sin and the symbol of the snake, giving advice, resurrection, the relationship between faith and suffering, evil, the effect we have on others, and sunsets.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Leftists Have It Wrong on Rights

Posted by M. C. on February 7, 2022

Not even the crafters of the Bill of Rights believed that. A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it doesn’t purport to give any rights to anyone. Instead, the wording states that Congress (and implicitly the rest of the federal government) is prohibited from infringing on people’s right of free speech. 

Thus when the government enacts a law or adopts a measure that infringes on freedom of speech, leftists are relegated to saying, “We understand that you have given us this important privilege but please be nice and don’t infringe on it.” Libertarians, on the other hand, say, “You have no legitimate authority to do that and so stop it immediately or else we will alter you or abolish you!”

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the central defects among leftists (that is, “liberals,” progressives, socialists, or interventionists) is their wrong-headed view of the nature of people’s rights. Their belief on this issue is one of the distinguishing characteristics between leftists and libertarians.

Leftists believe that people’s rights come from the government or from the Constitution. As such, they view rights not so much as rights but rather more as government-granted privileges.

Libertarians, on the other hand, believe that people’s rights are endowed in them by nature and God and, therefore, that people’s rights preexist government and the Constitution. We hold that the main purpose of government is to serve as our servant whose job is to protect the exercise of our natural, God-given rights. 

A good example of this leftist mindset was recently expressed in a fundraising letter I received from a leftist group called the Daily Kos. The letter stated that freedom of speech is “one of those rights granted to us in Bill of Rights.” It went on to refer to “our First Amendment rights.”

Not even the crafters of the Bill of Rights believed that. A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it doesn’t purport to give any rights to anyone. Instead, the wording states that Congress (and implicitly the rest of the federal government) is prohibited from infringing on people’s right of free speech. 

In other words, unlike American leftists today, our American ancestors didn’t believe that people’s rights come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or from the government. They believed in what the Declaration of Independence stated — that man’s rights come from nature and God and that it is the responsibility of government to protect, not destroy, the exercise of such rights.

We are not just talking about a semantical difference here. The difference between how leftists and libertarians view the nature of rights has profound consequences. 

Given that leftists believe that their rights come from the government, they necessarily put themselves in a position of pleading, or perhaps even begging, that government go easy on them — that is, that government officials give them more latitude in exercising their “rights.” 

Thus, leftists view freedom as living on a leash — they just want the government to let them have a longer leash. What happens when the government begins reining in the leash? Leftists have no principled argument to make against what the government is doing. Since people’s rights come from government, leftists believe, then government can legitimately rein in the leash whenever it wants. 

Not so with libertarians. Unlike leftists, we are not relegated to pleading with or begging the government to treat us nicely. That’s because for us our rights don’t come from government. They preexist government. Government officials are nothing more than our servants whose job is to protect our rights. If they fail or refuse to do so — or if they use their power to destroy or infringe our rights — we have the right to alter or even abolish government and restore its rightful responsibility — the responsibility to behave as our servants whose job is to protect the exercise of our preexisting natural, God-given rights.

Thus when the government enacts a law or adopts a measure that infringes on freedom of speech, leftists are relegated to saying, “We understand that you have given us this important privilege but please be nice and don’t infringe on it.” Libertarians, on the other hand, say, “You have no legitimate authority to do that and so stop it immediately or else we will alter you or abolish you!”

The leftist view of the nature of rights is one reason why you can never count on leftists to protect our rights and liberties. Anyone who wants a genuine defense of our rights and liberties needs to join up with us libertarians. 

EMAIL

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Swiss Way – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on January 12, 2022

Impartiality is now an unknown word to young journalists, who have been brainwashed to see only diversity or lack thereof. Which brings us to the surreal misinformation world that the Zuckerbergs, Dorseys, and Soroses of our society control. This world is the ultimate tyranny, the victory of evil over good, the end of the greatest civilization ever‚ that of Christian Europe and America.

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-swiss-way/print

Taki

A revisionist-historian-anthropologist-anarchist, whose name is not important because his works are based on personal assumptions and prejudices, insists in a book he co-wrote before his recent death that agriculture was to blame for the sorry state humanity finds itself in at present. According to the departed, hunter-gatherers lived happily in bands, then agriculture was invented, and that led to surpluses, population growth, private property, tribes, cities, chiefs, tyrants, bureaucrats, kings, capitalism, and so on.

I could have told him as much—and I’m no genius, far from it, unlike the departed, who has been called an intellectual superstar by those sandal-wearing (with socks) bearded horrors of the left, otherwise known as professors. The anarchist virtuoso claims that long before the Athenians, in Mesopotamia, councils and citizen assemblies had real power and authority. Another genius, the great classical scholar Taki, disputes that particular theory based on his close friendship with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. “These tales originate with con men who spread fake news for profit in the agora and have been and will be around forever,” according to the three wise Greeks. Read The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and the rest of the lefty media for con men.

Any theory, however outlandish and ridiculous, is grist for publicity-hungry wannabes nowadays, so I won’t go on about how magnificently people in Tarzan loin skins democratically managed their affairs. What I will do is praise the Athenian system because it was selective democracy, the purest of the pure of all systems as far as my direct ancestor Taki the elder was concerned.

Not too long after Jimmy Carter had vacated the White House, at a rather rowdy New York party, I posed the question of selective democracy to him. Admittedly I was in my cups, but my question was valid: “Why should a violent drug dealer have the same right to vote as a brilliant doctor or scientist who has benefited society?” “It’s an interesting question,” said Jimmy, before signaling to his Secret Service people to gently remove me. The ancients had no doubts about this, nor did the Brits until recently. One had to show responsibility before earning the right to vote. As I write, in New York, the state assembly has passed a law permitting noncitizens to vote in local elections.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »