Insurance for Healthcare

[SteveF]

I wanted to make a short note about my delayed reply: This past week I more or less sold my home, and my employer needed an unusually lengthy work week. I've got a reply about 60% written for SteveF, and some more questions fro Kaufmannphillips, but its going to take me some time to get the replies done as I am working towards my goal of moving at the end of October.
Peter

Thanks Peter, take all the time you need. I'll be quite busy for the next week or two as well.

Steve

[thrombomodulin]

SteveF,

I've completed the move to the Chicago are, and now being having gotten to be enough settled in I can finally get back to replying. Sorry for the delay.

I appreciate your reply and learning more about your ideas. Your 'stingers' were mild, and your response follows a courteous tone, and it is well written. I'll reply to some points, and pass over others (e.g. Iraq war). I don't want to be guilty of ignoring any point you consider important, so if I've passed over something you think I should not - please point it out.

I think to use this phrase [tyranny of the majority] in the context of an EMT vehicle is misplaced, misguided and possibly overdramatic.

I Agree. I consider the majority is guilty of wrongdoing in Homer's example, but the word 'tyranny' is not an appropriate adjective for his example. However, it is a valid label for the kind of government promoted by kaufmanphillips, where unlimited power and authority is granted to the government.

It would seem strange to me if the loudest group speaking out against an EMT vehicle would be Christians.

I suspect we might be talking past each other on this point. Christians ought not to be against "EMT vehicles" or against "health care". Christians should instead be against compulsory financing of such things, that is against the "government operation of EMT vehicles", or "government administration of health care".

what if ... actually 100% thought it was a good idea.

Let's explore this idea - Is it or is it not true that every individual voter values the money they pay towards the service less than the benefit, or potential benefit, of service they may receive? Is it true for each of the EMT employees that each values the money they receive more than the disutility of their labor?

If others decide to take up this task, why would Christians, of all people, stand in the way of it getting done? Let's say a person is asked to paint a fence and they put it off for weeks and weeks. Finally, since the job must get done, another person is sent and starts to paint the fence. When the first person sees this he protests "Hey stop that, that's my job"

The fence analogy does not parallel the situation in the government administration of services such as health care. The analogy lacks parallels to the government administration of services because two elements need to be considered:
1. Ownership - who owns the fence, and who owns the resources needed to paint the fence (e.g. time and materials).
2. Control - who is the deciding how and when the resources are used ; The analogy has someone who "is sent" - but who exactly is doing the sending and making this decision? Was "another person" coerced by the sender to start painting, or did he do so voluntary?

The mandatory nature of a government program is not about people voluntarily contributing their own resources to a certain end (painting a fence with their own time and paint). A government health are service, however, is all about taking through the use of force, of the threat of the use of force, time and materials which belong to individuals and using them in a way in which they become unwilling participants.

However, if others are willing to take up the task, why not let an organization be established and operated on the basis of accepting donations. If others are as willing and capable to take up the task as I think you are suggesting, why would their donations not prove to be sufficient?

I do think it's fair that the people who profit from a particular society are required to put back a certain percentage of their profit into the society (from which they profited) for its greater good.

The premise upon which this idea is based is a crucial point where you and Emmit share a presupposition that I believe is invalid. The idea that people profit "from society" is not correct. I would like to establish this based upon appealing to a correct theory of value, exchange, and profit.

First, however, I would like to state that I have some reservations about the use of the word "society". It must not be forgotten that society is composed of individuals, and all things which man brings about in this world can be traced back to the specific actions of specific individuals. All human action is the sum of the particular actions made by each particular individual. To associate characteristics, responsibilities, and values to society is, I believe, an error. Such things are always implemented non-homogeneously in terms of particular individuals.

A correct theory of value affirms the following points:
1. Value is not intrinsic to its object, value is attributed to its object by human individuals.
2. Value judgements are made by individuals.
3. Value judgements are subjective.
4. A value judgement is always comparative and relative based upon definite quantities of that which is compared. A comparison takes, for example, the form of: "I value/prefer X1 quantity of item Y1, more/less than X2 quantity of item Y2". A value judgement is judgement of "A more than B" or "A less than B".
5. The value of particular objects is judged differently by different individuals.
6. Value cannot be measured numerically (e.g. cardinal numbers).
7. The value judgements of an individuals change for many reasons - for example, due to time and circumstance.

Because of the above, it follows that pairs of individual citizens will seek to make voluntary exchanges with each other. The wrong idea of exchange is to assume that the items which are exchanged are equal value. They are not. The items do not in and of themselves have value, instead the participants in the exchange have differing and contradictory value judgements about what is exchanged. For example, if I trade four dozen eggs with someone else for a pair of shoes, I have done so because I value the four dozen eggs less than the particular pair of shoes I am receiving. On the other hand, the seller of the shoes values these four dozen eggs more than the particular pair of shoes.

When the transaction is completed, both I and the individual with whom I have exchanged correctly consider ourselves to be better off than we were before the transaction. Real profit (as opposed to monetary profit) is the gain both parties experience as a result of the exchange - because both have attained an increased of their stock of value.

The example I have given above, of course, is based on a barter exchange and not an indirect exchange for a monetary medium. Although the usage of a monetary medium does introduce some complexities it does detract from the argument, for at the end the monetary medium is simply a mechanism for facilitating exchanges of real goods and services between individuals.

Neither one exchange, nor a multitude of exchanges, results in one profiting at the expense of others (so-called "society"). As I have pointed out above, voluntary transactions always occur to the benefit of both parties involved. If, on the other hand, the two parties of a transaction agreed on the value judgement then no exchange would take place. For example, if I value the shoes more than the four dozen eggs, and so does the owner of the shoes - then the shoe seller will decline my offer to exchange the items.

Therefore, it cannot be said an individuals incur a "debt to society" by going about voluntary exchanges of goods and services with one another - even if monetary gain of any magnitude results.

I would like to point out that monetary gain is in fact an indicator that a certain entrepreneur is meeting and satisfying the needs of his fellow citizens - that he is doing good for his fellow citizens. Namely, the reason that he has profited is because they have been able to provide a good or service that buyer's valued more than the money they spent. The monetary profit he attained was because his costs are lower than revenue, and such is direct evidence that they have better economized the scarce resources that exist than others entrepreneurs. In the very act of bringing about the conditions to make a profit he has already been a blessing to society and as such ought not be subjected to any expropriation.

Further, profit and loss serve the role of being valuable signals from consumers to investors and entrepreneurs that scarce resources need to be directed towards certain tasks and taken away from others. When these signals are distorted (e.g. by taxation) the net effect is to slow the process of changing the way resources are used to align with consumer preferences - this is detrimental to "society".

I anticipate you might perhaps object to the above by referencing the narrowness of market prices for certain goods and services as a measure of value. If so, I can explain at more length. It will be along the lines that market prices come about due to the law of supply in demand which itself is a direct outcome of individual value judgements per definite quantities, the scarcity of resources, and the law of marginal utility.

the profiting individual also has a certain measure of individual determination ... he will have tax money returned to him.

This is not a good system. Caesar should not be making value judgements on which causes are worthy and which are not. A man is accountable to God for his giving, and it is to God he must answer for his actions. However, I'll say no more to avoid going off topic.

I was showing that the principle of sharing wealth was in God's law. ... Should we not try to glean principles from God's law?

Yes, I agree that Christians should try to glean and implement principles from God's law. I disagree, however, that Christians should assume that God's requirements given to individuals is tantamount to a license for any man to apply or threaten the use of force to against another when he sees his neighbor failing to obey God.

There are two questions at hand which are different:
1. Is XXXX obeying or disobeying God?
2. If my neighbour violates XXXX has God authorized me or Caesar to do anything about it?

While I agree God admonishes us to give, I disagree that God has authorized Caesar to judge how much giving is required to comply with God's law, and that God has authorized Caesar to do anything about it if one does not give at all. I know we disagree about this "argument from silence". However, I would to mention that the burden of proof should be on the one making a positive claim to divinely granted authority. If Caesar, or anyone else, claims a divine right of ownership over a jurisdiction he must demonstrate that God has in fact granted it to him. Otherwise, the dominion mandate and laws pertaining to property rights (thou shalt not steal) give only a precedent of individual, not public, ownership of resources.

Steve Gregg has sometimes remarked that correct principles when extrapolated do not lead to absurd conclusions. If indeed, it were true, that God desires his people to compel others to obedience to all His principles, we are lead to what I believe are absurd conclusions. For example: Should a magistrate fine, jail, or otherwise punish a husband if his wife is insufficiently loved? Should a magistrate do fine, jail, or otherwise punish a wife who fails to submit to her husband? Should a magistrate punish a married couple if they fail to make diligent efforts to procreate in order to fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1:28? Should magistrates punish atheists who fail to pray to and thank God?

I can say that I find your view of absolutely no government involvement more idealistic and impractical than communism is.

I presume, as per immediately above, you might see these ideas as idealistic because their implementation would yield absurd results. From my perspective I can't see it. Would you be able to articulate how/why you see these ideas as impossible, or impractical?

Perhaps, if you watched this video you would see the need for mandatory
involvement and the fact that not everyone who is uninsureable had a choice in
the matter.

I've watched the video shortly after getting your message. I have not seen it again since. However, I recall it presently only two main problems:
1. The video points out that the opting out of healthy young people is a problem because their contributions are required to keep the costs low for older people who are less healthy. This undermines the point that all Canadians favor government health care. Those who are young value their monetary contributions to health care more than that which the health benefits they expect to receive. If it were not mandatory they would demonstrate in their actions that their values were as such by refusing to purchase.
2. People might go "in and out" of the system when they have health problems vs. when they do not. This, however, is not consistent with what insurance is. Insurance is a contract made conditional based upon future events. Insurance is not a means by which to seek gain by requiring other people pay for ones existing health problems.

Moral Majority ... to be a tyranny of the majority.

I'm not very familiar with this organization. There are probably things I agree with and things which I do not. I think it would best to discuss particular issues or particular principles.

Question, do you consider people's healthcare to be a commodity?

The dictionary enumerates five definitions to this word. I'll answer differently depending on which I choose. Would you be able to expand on what you mean by this question?

- The economic system works best if each person pursues his or her own self-interest, ie, the greatest profit.
- The profit motive drives economics. The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit.

I disagree that it is un-Christian, for it is a pejorative description of capitalism which omits the beneficial outcomes of such a system. There is much more to be said here than I can hope to place in this reply. Individuals on the market engage in both buying and selling. When an individual produces a goods or provides a service for sale they strive to provide such a product or service as they believe best meets the buyer's needs discounted by costs. This is exactly what they should be doing, because such is equivalent to using the scarce resources that exist in the way in which humans value most. The desires of consumers are paramount in directing production and resources. The seller knows the desires of buyers through the price system. Providing such goods and services that meet your neighbor's most urgent needs is a good and Christian thing to do. It is true that one may attain a monetary profit in the process. This is no where condemned in scripture and can be used in good ways - profits can be used to expand the operations of a company (to do more to provide for the needs of other individuals), given away, or as enjoyed as an earthly reward for providing for the needs of ones neighbour. . Per the discussion of value above, pursing one's own interests is harmonious, not contradictory, with supplying the needs of ones neighbour.

Tne other thing to consider is taking away the health cost burden from companies will help them be more competitive globally.

I disagree. Providing health care requires the use of scarce resources. The resources still need to be supplied regardless of the mechanism by which they are collected and allocated. No aggregate gain comes about by shifting the collection from one place to another. Businesses will not be more competitive, what is gained in shedding direct costs (e.g. insurance), is lost in gaining indirect costs (e.g. taxation).

Pete

[SteveF]

I've completed the move to the Chicago are, and now being having gotten to be enough settled in I can finally get back to replying. Sorry for the delay.

Hi Peter, glad to hear you made it to your new home ok. No problem with the delay. I’m glad to know your priorities are in proper perspective!

“I don't want to be guilty of ignoring any point you consider important, so if I've passed over something you think I should not - please point it out.”

That’s fine if you don’t respond to certain points. My intention was to give you a better idea of my point of view. I’ve suspected that we are looking through different lenses and it certainly seems clear that we are (through my lens anyway )

“However, it is a valid label for the kind of government promoted by kaufmanphillips, where unlimited power and authority is granted to the government.”

I don’t entirely recall what Emmit wrote but I will let him respond with his thoughts on the matter if he chooses to. I’m sure he’s already done a good job in expressing his point of view to you though.

“I suspect we might be talking past each other on this point. Christians ought not to be against "EMT vehicles" or against "health care". Christians should instead be against compulsory financing of such things, that is against the "government operation of EMT vehicles", or "government administration of health care".

I don’t think we are talking past each other in this instance. I am referring to it in the sense of government operation. It just seems strange to me that this would be a defining point of Christianity. As I mentioned earlier, I find it even stranger that Christians would select health care as one of their primary targets. On the other hand, Evangelical Christians are statically one of the strongest voices in support of the Iraq war. This irony is not lost the non-Christians I speak with and I simply can’t disagree. This somehow strikes me as Christians participating in and having allegiance to a political ideology instead having their principal allegiance to the Kingdom of God.

“Let's explore this idea - Is it or is it not true that every individual voter values the money they pay towards the service less than the benefit, or potential benefit, of service they may receive? Is it true for each of the EMT employees that each values the money they receive more than the disutility of their labor?”

It’s also possible that the individual may not be thinking of things in strictly monetary terms and what’s good for them. They may be thinking of things more in the sense of what’s good for society as a whole.

“The fence analogy does not parallel the situation in the government administration of services such as health care. The analogy lacks parallels to the government administration of services because two elements need to be considered:
1. Ownership - who owns the fence, and who owns the resources needed to paint the fence (e.g. time and materials).
2. Control - who is the deciding how and when the resources are used ; The analogy has someone who "is sent" - but who exactly is doing the sending and making this decision? Was "another person" coerced by the sender to start painting, or did he do so voluntary?”

The fence analogy was intended to make one point. It was to illustrate the problem I have with Christians protesting that they are the ones that are suppose to handle health care and yet failing to do so. Not only that, but stopping others from doing it. In my analogy, God would be the owner of the fence and the Christian would be the one assigned to the task. The non-Christian would be the one who was asked to step in and do it. In my mind the important thing is that the fence gets painted….whether the Christian is shamed or not.

“The premise upon which this idea is based is a crucial point where you and Emmit share a presupposition that I believe is invalid. The idea that people profit "from society" is not correct….”

Peter, I can appreciate the example you provided but I fail to see how we can apply your simple analogy to every facet of life. Life is more than buying and selling and seeking profit. It doesn’t seem that I share the same view of guiding our societal life via a political ideology. As I mentioned, I see myself as a pragmatist and I have a problem simply stating a principle and basing every decision on it regardless of the consequence….whatever the political persuasion may be

“This is not a good system. Caesar should not be making value judgements on which causes are worthy and which are not. A man is accountable to God for his giving, and it is to God he must answer for his actions. However, I'll say no more to avoid going off topic.”

I offered this as an example of an attempt at fairness not perfection. All of man’s attempts at governance will be imperfect but we can certainly try.

“Yes, I agree that Christians should try to glean and implement principles from God's law. I disagree, however, that Christians should assume that God's requirements given to individuals is tantamount to a license for any man to apply or threaten the use of force to against another when he sees his neighbor failing to obey God?”

The health care scenario is different though. I would agree that Christianity should not be legislated but this is an instance where your society is looking to implement a good thing….from the original influence of Christianity I might add.

“I presume, as per immediately above, you might see these ideas as idealistic because their implementation would yield absurd results. From my perspective I can't see it. Would you be able to articulate how/why you see these ideas as impossible, or impractical?”

It’s hard for me to imagine a society with no public sidewalks and roads (would I need to pay someone to walk down the street?) or no government funded specialists like city planners or geologists (particularly important in a place like California). Our government sold a toll hwy to a private company several years ago and it’s already majority owned by an Australian company. It might be a good idea to keep some parks, roads and land in the publics hands lest your country gets bought by someone else

“I've watched the video shortly after getting your message. I have not seen it again since. However, I recall it presently only two main problems:
1. The video points out that the opting out of healthy young people is a problem because their contributions are required to keep the costs low for older people who are less healthy. This undermines the point that all Canadians favor government health care. Those who are young value their monetary contributions to health care more than that which the health benefits they expect to receive. If it were not mandatory they would demonstrate in their actions that their values were as such by refusing to purchase.
2. People might go "in and out" of the system when they have health problems vs. when they do not. This, however, is not consistent with what insurance is. Insurance is a contract made conditional based upon future events. Insurance is not a means by which to seek gain by requiring other people pay for ones existing health problems.”

A third point is that people with health issues can find themselves uninsured when they lose a job or turn 18. No insurance company will insure them at this point because they are not profitable (I can’t explain to you how unimaginable this is to Canadians). I don’t know what seniors would do if there was no government system for them!
In regards to your first point here’s what I think you’re missing. Canadians don’t mind paying for health care via taxes as long as they know that everyone else is paying there fair share as they are able. That’s why our costs per person are half of yours….because it’s simple. I think your country is in a good position to glean from all of the systems in the world and eventually have a great working system. Unfortunately, political interest groups (like insurance companies) seem to be standing in the way of having a good discussion on the matter. When Tommy Douglas brought universal health care the province of Saskatchewan (here in Canada) the doctor’s union and every newspaper was against him. They said things like, “the government will take your house away’ to scare people. I don’t see much difference when issues like “death panels” are brought up to cloud a good, healthy and factual discussion.

“SteveF wrote:Question, do you consider people's healthcare to be a commodity?


The dictionary enumerates five definitions to this word. I'll answer differently depending on which I choose. Would you be able to expand on what you mean by this question?”

In other words, do you see health care for people to be principally about making money or principally about helping people?
“SteveF wrote:Moral Majority ... to be a tyranny of the majority.

I'm not very familiar with this organization. There are probably things I agree with and things which I do not. I think it would best to discuss particular issues or particular principles”

I’m dating myself. Moral Majority was an organization run by Jerry Falwell that sought to implement Christian morality in America. It was surpassed by Christian Coalition and more recently by the organiztion that Ted Haggard used to be head of (I can’t think of it’s name). Would you consider these groups to be exercising the tyranny of the majority by forcing others to comply by Christian principles?

“I disagree that it is un-Christian, for it is a pejorative description of capitalism….”

I simply don’t see how you can say the following statement is Christian:

”The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit”.

“I disagree. Providing health care requires the use of scarce resources. The resources still need to be supplied regardless of the mechanism by which they are collected and allocated. No aggregate gain comes about by shifting the collection from one place to another. Businesses will not be more competitive, what is gained in shedding direct costs (e.g. insurance), is lost in gaining indirect costs (e.g. taxation).”

It’s proven to be more cost efficient when universally administered through a public system though….although I can definitely see room for improvement in the Canadian system

[kaufmannphillips]

thrombomodulin wrote:
“However, it is a valid label for the kind of government promoted by kaufmanphillips, where unlimited power and authority is granted to the government.”

SteveF wrote:
I don’t entirely recall what Emmit wrote but I will let him respond with his thoughts on the matter if he chooses to. I’m sure he’s already done a good job in expressing his point of view to you though.

Thank you for your generous remark, Steve . I'll wait until I receive a post in direct response from Peter.

[thrombomodulin]

KMF,

I will write a reply to you, but it will be a while. As my time is limited, because I write and think slowly, I'm going to focus on discussion with SteveF.

Peter

[thrombomodulin]

SteveF,

Thanks for writing back, I hope you had a good Christmas and NY holiday.

I do not have strong opinions on the Iraq war. This is one subject about which I do not say much, because I don't consider myself to be particularly knowledgeable about it. When the war began I was in favor of it, however, I have since become less certain of that position. I, of course, agree that our allegiance is and should be to the Kingdom of God alone. I was educated through private Christian schools in here in the US for my K-12 years. As is common in the USA, we were taught there to recite the "pledge of allegiance". In ignorance, I did not see the invalidity doing this for many years, however, I have grown in my understanding to now realize that pledging loyalty to the government has no place at all in God's kingdom. In so far as I am able to understand, my intent is to base my economic and political views upon the laws and principles that God provides in his word. This matter is no exception.

There are several comments from your last reply from which I conclude that I have not succeeded in communicating my thoughts. For example: "Life is more than buying and selling and seeking profit", and "The only basis ... is monetary profit". Within the past two years I have gained exposure to a field called praxeology. Since being exposed to these ideas, I have come to understand and accept these ideas as being the correct framework for understanding human action. It is from this point of view that I am coming from, not some idea that all that matters is money. This field, you and I are all in full agreement that life is more than monetary matters. The praxeological approach to understanding human action does not utilize the assumption that decisions are made on a strictly monetary basis. In fact, this idea is explicitly rejected.

You had described this statement as being inconsistent with Christianity:

"The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit".

Coming from the praxeological point of view there are two errors that in particular stand out in the above statement. I'll attempt here to make a short explanation of praxeology rather than pass links to various writings on the internet which would describe the concepts much better than I can, albeit at more length. First, it is not correct to divide the decisions humans make as being either "economic" or "not economic". Rather, the praxeological approach is holistic and covers all human action. Second, humans do not act to bring about the greatest monetary profit, rather humans act to attain a praxeological profit. It is true that some economists have attempted to evaluate man in such a way that each person seeks after only maximizing their monetary profit - but this is wrong - no one actually acts this way, and erroneous conclusions will result.

Praxeology is a deductive analysis which begins with the axiom that "human action is a purposeful attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one". There is nothing un-Christian about this idea, and nothing implying a special place for money. For example: A person may choose to sell all their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. Such a choice is certainly a personal monetary loss, however, that individual has acted to bring about a state of affairs which he has judged to be more satisfactory than that which was before. Every action carried out will involve some praxeological cost, for as finite beings any action taken at one time precludes the possibility of carrying out a multitude of other alternative acts. Further, there is the disutility (burden) of the labor as well. Individual human beings make unique and comparative value judgements about the potential state of affairs which they believe their actions could change. This is a value neutral proposition, for nothing is said one way or the other here of whether a human value judgement has exalted the end of attaining something which in God's reckoning is good or evil. The success or failure of an action will bring about a Praxeological profit or loss, which is that benefit or loss related to the success and failure of an attempt to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs.

In prior posts I did not define where I was speaking of praxeological profit, or monetary profit. When I had in mind the former, I sometimes had written "non-monetary" profit. My intention in asking the question of the EMT example is to obtain your opinion about whether all participants (voters and workers) are attaining a praxeological profit, rather than a monetary profit. You correctly mentioned that individuals do not make decisions in strictly monetary terms. With the above explanation, I may now ask - In praxeological terms, how would you answer the question about the EMT voters and workers?

A key point of praxeology is that individuals demonstrate their values via their actions. We might do well to make an analogy to faith with or without works. The application of coercion, such as the compulsory financing of EMT vehicles, can indeed be used to change peoples actions (e.g. they begin making payments). However, coercion necessarily violates people's praxeological assessment of value (see prior post) rather than honoring it.

I can appreciate the example you provided but I fail to see how we can apply
your simple analogy to every facet of life.

The praxeological ideas apply everywhere because every human action is subjected to a human value judgement. Even something as mundane and non-monetary as the choice to swat a fly on the wall is subject to a value judgement - I may value the sitting in my chair and leaving the fly alone more or less than the disutility of my labor of doing the work of swatting a fly and thus attaining a more peaceful surrounding.

In my prior post I gave a list of the characteristics of a praxeological value judgement. The crucial point that I want to bring out is that in barter transactions when individuals exchange goods and services it is the sum of profit and loss is not zero. The outcome of voluntary trading is that both participants mutually benefit, and are more wealthy than before. Both attain a praxeological profit.

Now, we could proceed step-by-step and introduce the concept of money into our praxeological analysis of trading (called catallitics). This is indirect exchange because a person trades what they value less for a medium which they expect to be able to trade for what the value more at a latter time. In doing so, the conclusion would eventually be reached that the introduction of money does not affect our assessment of transactions - for both direct (barter) and indirect (money) exchange a transaction is mutually beneficial those involved.

Thus, the statement "The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit" is wrong. Assuming property rights are respected, humans can, will, and should act to fulfill the needs of each other as demonstrated by their value judgements. A buyer values that which he receives more than the money which he gives away. The sellers act of providing of a good valued by the buyer is an honorable and Christian thing to do. There is, nothing non-Christian about providing a good or service for profit. The profit and loss mechanism is an essential component of an economy because it is the mechanism by which resources are transferred from the ownership of those who are less faithful in providing for the needs of consumers, to those who are more faithful in doing so. The market system honors the praxeological values of individuals for what they are, rather than as what any socialist dictator might wish them to be.

The fence analogy was intended to make one point. It was to illustrate the problem I have with Christians protesting that they are the ones that are suppose to handle health care and yet failing to do so. Not only that, but stopping others from doing it. In my analogy, God would be the owner of the fence and the Christian would be the one assigned to the task. The non-Christian would be the one who was asked to step in and do it. In my mind the important thing is that the fence gets painted .whether the Christian is shamed or not.

Yes, it is true that God owns everything. God is the owner of the fence, the people, the paint, and everything else. In this world, however, God has delegated the authority to make decisions about how particular objects are used to individual human beings (e.g. recall the land of Israel was divided down to each family). In a prior post you affirmed that health care choices belong to the individual. I agree. God has given each individual the authority to authorize or deny what treatments may be applied to their own body - in other words a person is the owner of his own body. The owner of any part of the fence, can only be the one whose body is in question. It is not a duty of Christian's alone to provide for the health care needs. Each person, whether they acknowledge God or not, values the health of their body. Thus it follows that a secular market economy will cater to the needs of individuals and provide the bulk of health care services. The poor will always be among us, and there will always be a place for Christians to contribute to the health care needs of those who could not otherwise afford to purchase it. As the path is narrow, I do not foresee that Christians would ever be the majority provider of health care.

In the fallen world that we live in the resources at our disposal to use towards various ends are scarce. Being that the scarcity of resources is a binding limit to satisfying human desires it will always be true that one can assert we are failing to provide for health care needs. For human desires for health care are more or less unlimited, and besides the fact remains that death will come to every person. I think it is too pessimistic to claim there is a failure when God has not provided us with the resources to meet every conceivable need, and further when government inhibits the operation of a market economy in health care by denying voluntary associations. The fence analogy falls short in that as a Christian I am not attempting to stop people from providing health care (e.g. anyone may voluntarily painting the fence). I am against the idea that people should be coerced into providing care (e.g. putting a gun to someones head and demanding that they paint, on penalty of imprisonment for failure to comply).

I would agree that Christianity should not be legislated but this is an instance where your society is looking to implement a good thing

I agree there are good intentions, for intentions usually are. I disagree that what society is implementing is actually good.

It’s hard for me to imagine a society with no public sidewalks and roads (would I need to pay someone to walk down the street?) or no government funded specialists like city planners or geologists (particularly important in a place like California). Our government sold a toll hwy to a private company several years ago and it’s already majority owned by an Australian company. It might be a good idea to keep some parks, roads and land in the publics hands lest your country gets bought by someone else

The roads question is a good one, for if indeed a private system is not feasible then the principles which I understand to be true may here lead to an absured result. I am aware that a book length treatment of the subject was written last year by Walter Block who affirms that it is not necessary to have the government operate a highway system. I have in my plans to read this work, to find out if his reasoning is valid. I am deferring judgement on this point until such a time as I have been exposed to his perspective - thank you for pointing it out.

The other items in the list, however, I don't find convincing. I do not think government administration of city planning, geology, parks, major toll roads, etc,. are necessary at all. If someone does indeed purchase items now considered public then I may indeed have to pay for the use of their resources - that is fine. Besides, it is true anyway now that I have to pay taxes for the maintenance of these items anyway under the present system - whether I use them or not.

A third point is that people with health issues can find themselves uninsured when they lose a job or turn 18. No insurance company will insure them at this point because they are not profitable (I can’t explain to you how unimaginable this is to Canadians). I don’t know what seniors would do if there was no government system for them!

I agree with your assessment of the third point - that insurance cannot be obtained for problems already known, but my overall opinion is different. For no one should be authorized to compel someone else to provide for their wants or needs, in my mind this is simply an instance of what is called theft. Without the coercion of government uninsured citizens would have to pay out of pocket for their health care like they do for every other type of service. Thus the services they receive will, in general, be commensurate with the market prices and their capacity to pay at that price.

In regards to your first point here’s what I think you’re missing. Canadians don’t mind paying for health care via taxes as long as they know that everyone else is paying there fair share as they are able.

I do not believe I am missing your point. I simply do not think that this point holds up under the scrutiny of a praxeological analysis. It is easy to claim a more cost efficient and lower price system, but it is very difficult, if it is possible at all, to demonstrate that it is better and desired by citizens (this requires more than just taking a vote).

But why draw the boundaries of contentedness at exactly the Canadian border? Are Canadians ok with paying for health care, if a market economy exists elsewhere in the world, to which the best nurses and doctors would emigrate to for higher wages. How is this much different that a mixed private/public system within Canada itself, except a lower barrier to moving? If someone has earned a profit by honorably fulfilling the needs of his customers, why should he be forbidden from using the fruits of his labor to purchase more extensive health care services than those another who has done less for others?

There is another point, but I am not ready to advance it since I am not yet satisfied with my level of understanding of the argument - namely I have had some exposure to, Ludwig Von Mises arguments called "economic calculation in a socialist commonwealth". The essence of the argument is that in a socialist system, even where there are market prices for end products, it is impossible to rationally allocate higher order goods - since prices cannot be rationally chosen. However, I'll need to carry out some Q/A on elsewhere prior to using this argument here. From what I have read, it appears that this is the strongest secular argument against socialism - much more powerful than the argument of efficiency between capitalist and socialist systems. When I get my outstanding questions answered, which could be some months, then I will append it to this thread.

In other words, do you see health care for people to be principally about making money or principally about helping people?

I see health care in the praxeological sense, which is partially explained above. Profit and helping go hand-in-hand and are harmonious. Someone once remarked that the market economy is a conspiracy to make all monetary profits proceed to zero. I don't expect you to accept it at this point, but the following the deductive logic of praxeology this can be demonstrated to be true. But to get there, we will have to cover some monetary ideas, and get past the matter of bank credit expansion which has greatly distorted economic calculation.

Re: Moral Majority..

My preference would be to answer on a case by case basis on their platform. I found a brief list of their platform on en.wikipedia.org. I would be generally supportive of the organization, up to the point where they utilize the state against non-Christians, with due exception due to criminal acts (e.g. abortion).

Pete

[kaufmannphillips]

KMF,

I will write a reply to you, but it will be a while. As my time is limited, because I write and think slowly, I'm going to focus on discussion with SteveF.

Peter

Thanks for touching base. No rush - I've got plenty on my hands.

[SteveF]

. I was educated through private Christian schools in here in the US for my K-12 years. As is common in the USA, we were taught there to recite the "pledge of allegiance". In ignorance, I did not see the invalidity doing this for many years, however, I have grown in my understanding to now realize that pledging loyalty to the government has no place at all in God's kingdom.

This is something we don’t need to deal with in Canada since we don’t have pledges. The closest thing I suppose would be in our national anthem where it says “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee”, but it not really a pledge I guess but more of a declaration. I think I would hesitate making a pledge but it may because it’s something completely foreign to me. It’s interesting to note that the phrase “under God” was not added until 1954 as a response to the atheistic communistic countries. They saw it as one way to make a distinction between the two systems at the time (or at least, that’s what I learned in a documentary).

A side question. If you were looking to immigrate to the U.S. would you be willing to take the following oath? I’m not looking for a right or wrong answer, just curious.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God

I think I’m going to need some clarification on your ideas. I originally suggested that a society seeking to implement a system to help others was in line with a Godly principle. You responded that God nowhere commanded a secular government to implement this. I responded that there are a lot of things not commanded in scripture, like capitalism for instance. I also pointed out that, in fact, two of its core principles are not particularly Christian.

- The economic system works best if each person pursues his or her own self-interest, ie, the greatest profit.
- The profit motive drives economics. The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit.

You responded by saying they were not un-Christian and defended them. In your recent post you made the following statement “the statement "The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit" is wrong”. I’m having trouble following your train of thought. I’m sure I’m missing something here. Would you be able to clarify what you’re saying?

. God is the owner of the fence, the people, the paint, and everything else….

Peter, I think you’re reading into my analogy a lot more than what I was saying. It was to illustrate a single point. The point is as follows: Christians protest they are the ones to do health care, not the world. Yet not only are they not doing it, they protest that others shouldn’t be doing their job. You don’t seem to share this view but that is the only point the analogy was intended to illuminate.

I agree there are good intentions, for intentions usually are. I disagree that what society is implementing is actually good.

Is having multitudes of people with no heath coverage good? As I mentioned before, I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. Would the morals be higher if the government did not respond to a national emergency out of principle? I find this ideology hard to get my head around.

I do not think government administration of city planning, geology, parks, major toll roads, etc,. are necessary at all

I find it hard to imagine a city with no city planners. Who would have the knowledge to know and decide what goes where?

If someone does indeed purchase items now considered public then I may indeed have to pay for the use of their resources - that is fine

I must say that your argument here is consistent. If you are willing to pay a Chinese or German company for the use of a sidewalk and even willing to see your entire country purchased and run by foreign investors then you are definitely sticking to your principles.

It is easy to claim a more cost efficient and lower price system, but it is very difficult, if it is possible at all, to demonstrate that it is better and desired by citizens

I can say that every Canadian I interact with would prefer our system over the American. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Canadians, in general, are so afraid of their system becoming Americanized that politicians can’t even mention the word privatize without risking political defeat. I actually disagree with this because I like taking all options into consideration.

Are Canadians ok with paying for health care, if a market economy exists elsewhere in the world, to which the best nurses and doctors would emigrate to for higher wages.

Yes, it is true that Canadian doctors go to the U.S. for more money. On the other hand, the doctor that treated my daughter when she was in the hospital for 12 days worked in the U.S. system and returned to Canada with her husband (who is also a doctor) because they prefer working in the Canadian medical system. Also consider that life expectancy is longer in Canada and the infant mortality rate is lower.

It’s my understanding that there is a larger issue in the U.S. though. Individuals that are intelligent and desirous to make money are not heading into professions like engineering and medical science. They are heading to Wall Street. They invest their intelligence in learning how to “work the system” and make money off of stocks etc… Thus, little production is put back into society. Corporate executives, a generation ago, made 40 times the average salary. Now it’s 400 times. For those who are smart and strictly looking for money this is a powerful drawing force.

My preference would be to answer on a case by case basis on their platform. I found a brief list of their platform on en.wikipedia.org. I would be generally supportive of the organization, up to the point where they utilize the state against non-Christians, with due exception due to criminal acts (e.g. abortion).

Ok, let’s look at homosexual couples that are looking for the same benefits as a married couple. I know both of us disagree with the morals of it but I want to bring this up based on your understanding of the tyranny of the majority. If married couples can more easily settle wills, have hospital visitation, get leave from work for there spouses illness or death etc etc… then do you think it’s a tyranny of the majority to prevent same sex couples from having the same privileges?

The market system honors the praxeological values of individuals for what they are, rather than as what any socialist dictator might wish them to be.

I just want to clarify the use of the word “dictator”. When I think of the word it conjures up images of people like Stalin. I don’t think that’s how you intend it. I think you intend it to mean anyone who implements government sponsored programs. Am I correct? For example, would you consider Benjamin Franklin to be a socialist dictator? He, amongst many other social initiatives, spearheaded the first publicly funded hospital, paved roads and street lights (tax dollars were used for all of them). What about when the government declared the Grand Canyon a preservation area and eventually a national park? Was this the work of a dictator? I’m assuming you would say yes. I just want to make sure I understand how you use this term.

One thing that I think has become apparent is we both see things differently. I hope you are content with that fact. I don’t mind continuing to simply provide clarification on my views on an exploratory level, as long as you don't. I also don’t mind being a sounding board for your views either. We will just need to agree and understand that we see things differently. I tend not to follow ideologies so this leaves me open to freely consider and discuss all options. My primary concern is what works best, regardless of the political persuasion.

- Btw… are you aware of a country that has implemented views similar to yours?

[thrombomodulin]

A side question. If you were looking to immigrate to the U.S. would you be willing to take the following oath?

No, I could not. The first clause of denying allegiances is all well and good; but I cannot affirm the unconditional promises which follow.

I think I'm going to need some clarification on your ideas.

I originally suggested that a society seeking to implement a system to help others was in line with a Godly principle. You responded that God nowhere commanded a secular government to implement this. I responded that there are a lot of things not commanded in scripture, like capitalism for instance.

The socialist system is a system that is based upon government acting to carry out some end. The capitalist system is a system that is based upon government not acting. As such, government does not implement capitalism, but capitalism is the state of affairs that comes about when government does not act. Instead citizens, which have been given liberty, do the acting. It is the socialist system which is making a definite claim of authority over certain affairs of its subjects. Capitalism, however, is an absence of government making a claim of authority over the affairs citizens. My position is simply that God is the highest authority, and all other claims to authorities that humans may make are legitimate only in so far as God has delegated them that authority (e.g. parents over children). If God has not expressed such, it has not been granted. Of course, the capitalist system does indeed require the administration of criminal justice - and this is something which God has authorized Caesar to carry out - Romans 13.

- The economic system works best if each person pursues his or her own self-interest, ie, the greatest profit.
- The profit motive drives economics. The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit.

My issue with these statements is that they are a pejorative and very distorted description of my position. The above description of capitalism exults the making of a 'monetary profit' and having a 'working economy' as if these are primary objectives. They are not. The description also gives no recognition to the fact that capitalism leads to a state of affairs where businessmen, workers, and entrepreneurs act with very diligent efforts to meeting and fulfill peoples most urgent needs and desires. The central idea here is that of granting liberty to individuals to use their property and act according to their values.

An understanding of the value judgments, the consequent praxeological categories of profit, and loss would a long way to help in understanding my position. I've done some searching over the weekend, and found two moderate length articles that I think would be quite helpful in clarifying the position I hold. These offer a more extended treatment than I've placed thus far into my own words into this thread.

Article #1 - Describes the basics of what value is. The classic economists struggled with this idea and got it wrong, much to their detriment. I see an understanding and agreement on what value is to be essential to this topic. The article is here: http://mises.org/story/2422. Pay close attention to the point that voluntary exchange is beneficial to both parties.

Article #2 - Describes profit in both the monetary definition and praxeological definition. Profit and Loss - http://mises.org/daily/2321. This is a very excellent article which well addresses many of the points we have been discussing.

I'll give a few propositional statements that I hope will help to clear things up:

1. Individuals should not pursue only their selfish interest.
2. Individuals should be granted the liberty to use their property in whatever way they see fit, regardless of whether they act with selfish interest or not.
3. Individuals should not be coerced into using their property in ways they do not see fit.
4. Individuals, as they are, do not act to attain the greatest monetary profit.
5. Individuals, as they are, do act to praxeological profit.
6. When private property rights are respected, seeking selfish interests is harmonious not contradictory to providing good for my neighbor. This is due to the mutually beneficial nature of exchange.
7. Restitution should be required when an owners property rights are violated.

Christians protest they are the ones to do health care, not the world. Yet not only are they not doing it, they protest that others shouldn't be doing their job. You don't seem to share this view but that is the only point the analogy was intended to illuminate.

Ok. I understand you to be saying that some Christian's claim the world should not provide health care. Since my view is that the world should provide health care, this analogy is not critique of my particular position. Please say if I misunderstood.

Is having multitudes of people with no heath coverage good? As I mentioned before, I think we are looking at this from different perspectives. Would the morals be higher if the government did not respond to a national emergency out of principle? I find this ideology hard to get my head around.

I would like to challenge the assumption that a capitalist system would results in multitudes of people with no health coverage. I believe a capitalist system would bring about the state of affairs where health care is more accessible and affordable than a socialist system.

Regarding "Is having multitudes of people with no heath coverage good?". Of course, no one can say that a lack of something which humans desire is a good thing. I would like to submit for your consideration, however, that this is an example of asking the wrong question. Let me explain:

1. Because resources are scarce and finite we can only answer this question by considering that using additional resources for providing health care necessarily takes resources away from other sectors of the economy. If the health care industry expands, then some other industry must shrink, ceritas paribus. In order to expand health care, it is inevitable that other human needs will be less well met.

2. A value judgement of the products of other industries must be weighed against that of the health care industry. Let's suppose that we discern that for every additional worker employed in health care, one less worker be employed in the auto industry. Can anyone say there is not some equilibrium point where the number of employees in health care is balanced correctly to meet peoples needs against those employed in the auto industry? Should we cease producing automobiles to have better health care?

3. A part of the calculation argument is that this balance can only be attained where individuals are confronted with making choices of either-this-or-that. Market prices are the outcome of the scarcity of resources, and given my wage I may be able to get a good car, and a bad health insurance policy, or a bad car and a good health insurance policy - but not both. Claiming it to be good or bad should be permitted to reside in the choices of the affected individual - does he value the quality of the car more or less than the quality of his health care? A market economy allows each individual to express and act on his unique preferences. The socialist approach forces all individuals into a common set of preferences as decreed by the State, which will inevitably result in some individuals being forced to have what they value less than the alternative that they could otherwise have attained. Thus, a socialist approach is a loss to citizens, not a benefit.

Yes the morals would be higher. Government can only give to one person what it takes from another. I do not consider that government officials are exempted from the general law that theft is wrong - even if the proceeds of what is stolen is given to the needy.

I find it hard to imagine a city with no city planners. Who would have the knowledge to know and decide what goes where?

The owners of property, investors, and entrepreneurs will make these decisions. They will make judgements about the use of resources. In a capitalist system the control of resources passes inexorably from those who are less skilled at adopting to the needs and values of the people they serve to those who are more skilled and faithful in doing so. There are numerous examples of cooperation in industry (e.g. SAE standards), cooperation in infrastructure and real estate will come about.

I must say that your argument here is consistent. If you are willing to pay a Chinese or German company for the use of a sidewalk and even willing to see your entire country purchased and run by foreign investors then you are definitely sticking to your principles.

Thanks. I have no particular concerns if the owner is a citizen of any given nation. In any case, the mutually beneficial nature of trade is such that I can rest assured of a cooperative situation with the owner so long as the rule of law (the administration of criminal justice) remains operative in the land. I would face concerns over followers of Islam which who disregard property rights of those who do not adhere to their religion.

I can say that every Canadian I interact with would prefer our system over the American. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Canadians, in general, are so afraid of their system becoming Americanized that politicians can't even mention the word privatize without risking political defeat. I actually disagree with this because I like taking all options into consideration. Also consider that life expectancy is longer in Canada and the infant mortality rate is lower.

I have great disdain for the American health care system, and I do not consider it to be a capitalist system. The health care services are very highly regulated, subject to differential tax treatment (e.g. we are forced to rely on out employers for insurance), and subject to lawsuits due to legal liabilities. The operation of the present system is inhibited greatly by these things, and hence its ability to provide for the needs of citizens is hindered.

There are a multitude of particulars about which we could compare systems. I am not of the opinion that it is possible to compare them and draw a conclusion about whether socialism is better or worse than capitalism. There are several reasons for this, but here I'll restrict myself to giving just one reason which is a sufficient reason; I do not consider the US to have implemented a capitalist system in health care.

It's my understanding that there is a larger issue in the U.S. though. Individuals that are intelligent and desirous to make money are not heading into professions like engineering and medical science. They are heading to Wall Street. They invest their intelligence in learning how to "work the system" and make money off of stocks etc; Thus, little production is put back into society. Corporate executives, a generation ago, made 40 times the average salary. Now it's 400 times. For those who are smart and strictly looking for money this is a powerful drawing force.

I lack a sufficient understanding of how wall street works. In principle there is are legitimate and valuable functions which a stock market serves. Namely, it is the mechanism by which investors allocate funds to entrepreneurs. I think the valuable, if not essential, role of an entrepreneur is unfortunately all to often neglected. Entrepreneurs are those who have the vision and foresight to identify what end products are needed at any given time, and what resources should be redirect away from one effort and brought into the service of another effort. Since the economy is not static there is a continually change needed in how resources are to be allocated and processed to yield the end goods that customers wish to buy. The investor is looking to employ his capital in an effort that serves the needs of customers (so he can earn a profit). The stock market seems to be one way this is done. Second, the market provides an opportunity for speculators to be able to act. Speculators who buy up products when the are inexpensive, and sell them when they are expensive provide a very valuable service. These speculators actions result in the preservation of resources which would otherwise have been consumed in order to provide for peoples needs when they are most in demand. As they act to make resources available to people when their need is most acute, I can only say that the profiteering speculator has done a great good - something a Christian should commend, and not condemn. There may be better ways to do things, and people should be granted liberty to make whatever arrangements are necessary to bring this about. How much it will continue to resemble the present stock market, I don't know.

I am unconvinced the corporate exec's are unworthy of their wages. Just to say one makes a lot of money is not in my mind a sufficient argument to conclude that their employment was not worthwhile to the company. After all, were the companies owners not free to higher someone else for the job at a lower rate? Further, if wall street fails to perform its function, what could possibly prevent a competing institution from arising which refrains from paying those who deserve it not. The executives entrepreneurial functions are valuable and as I mentioned above often overlooked. Besides, whatever some choose to pay a person to run their company is not a decision that I am authorized to make. The owners of the company have or should have the authority to use resources in any way they see fit - in this case, to employ whomever they wish at any price they wish.

Ok, let's look at homosexual couples that are looking for the same benefits as a married couple. I know both of us disagree with the morals of it but I want to bring this up based on your understanding of the tyranny of the majority. If married couples can more easily settle wills, have hospital visitation, get leave from work for there spouses illness or death etc etc¿ then do you think it's a tyranny of the majority to prevent same sex couples from having the same privileges?

The State has no authority to be deciding these matters. Neither homosexuals nor the married should seek to use the State for these things. I'm not familiar current issues in the settling of wills to comment on this point, but as for the other two points:
1. Hospital visitation - the State should not be in the business of authorizing who may or may not visit a hospital. The property belongs to the hospital and the owners of the hospital should be granted to sole authority to decide who is permitted to enter their premises. If they were granted this authority what would hospital owners will do? Prudent business owners cater to the needs of their customers, and so we should expect that hospital owners would grant or deny access so as to please their patients.
2. Work Leave - the State should not be in the business of authorizing when someone may or may not leave work. The worker and employer are free to associate or to not associate based upon whatever terms they find mutually agreeable. If their terms are incompatible either the employer or worker should be free to discontinue the association.

The market system honors the praxeological values of individuals for what they are, rather than as what any socialist dictator might wish them to be.

I just want to clarify the use of the word 'dictator'.

I mean that a powerful leader, or a majority of people can impose their values upon an unwilling minority. But businessmen cannot - they are entirely obligated to serve the needs of their customers - whatever those needs are. A businessman does not have the power to censure the values of his consumers. He will go out of business, because he must pass a profit and loss test. A government, however, does not have to pass this test.

I'll give a silly example first: I like to eat meat. But suppose I live in a country which has socialized food processing, and further suppose that about half the people favor animal rights. In the election, PETA wins with 51% of the vote, and in each branch of government they completely take over. Since they value animal rights and the State owns the food processing industry it is a trivial matter to bring about the situation where all food is vegetarian, and no meat is produced. Being taxpayer funded, and having a majority vote they can defy the desires of those voters who value eating meat more than the life of the animal they eat. In a capitalist economy, however, this is impossible. If there were zero people in the business of preparing animals to eat, then my desires are indeed be quite unsatisfied. I would pay just about anything to have some meat to eat, and I would be very appreciative of that entrepreneur who first entered the business. I would value a certain amount of meat more than a certain amount of money, and the business man would value the money more than the meat (because at this point I am willing to pay a high price). In no time at all the high price of meat would be observed by investors, and they would correctly conclude that there is an opportunity here to earn a high profit margin on producing meat. All kinds of resources would be allocated to preparing meat and the high profits would be used to expand the business operations until the size of meat producing industry was at a level commensurate with consumer desires relative to alternative uses of resources.

Now a more serious example: The government in our country has socialized education system. I value having my children taught in a certain way (e.g. God created them, abstinence, etc.). The state desires to teach them that which I do not value (e.g. evolution, safe sex, etc,.). Since we lack a free market in education, I must bear a heavy penalty if I do not consent to have the state direct the education of my children.

In the extreme case we have seen how various dictators have come to power and tried to implement some plan (e.g. the communist dictators of Russia.) Each has his particular ideas of how to arrange a country, and allocate the factors of production. Those who dissented from the plan were not just deprived of goods and services, but of life itself.

For example, would you consider Benjamin Franklin to be a socialist dictator?

He, amongst many other social initiatives, spearheaded the first publicly funded hospital, paved roads and street lights (tax dollars were used for all of them). What about when the government declared the Grand Canyon a preservation area and eventually a national park? Was this the work of a dictator? I'm assuming you would say yes. I just want to make sure I understand how you use this term.

I wouldn't use such strong language for this, but here it is a difference of degree not of kind. I do not favor government administration of any of the areas above.

One thing that I think has become apparent is we both see things differently. I hope you are content with that fact. I don't mind continuing to simply provide clarification on my views on an exploratory level, as long as you don't. I also don't mind being a sounding board for your views either. We will just need to agree and understand that we see things differently. I tend not to follow ideologies so this leaves me open to freely consider and discuss all options. My primary concern is what works best, regardless of the political persuasion.

Thanks, I have enjoyed discussing this topic with you and I am pleased to continuing. I'm not sure that I've been able to successfully communication my position, in particular on the praxeological approach. I cited in this post two articles from the Mises institute, and I would appreciate your being a sounding board as to their validity. You've also raised some various concerns, which I have made an effort to address. I welcome your opinion on the validity of my efforts to address the concerns you raised. I do not follow a utilitarian approach, but I do think the capitalist system can be defended on this basis. Instead my starting point begins with God's law (theft implies private property; authority does not exist unless granted ; freedom of association), and works forward by applying these principles.

Although we have some disagreement about ends, I don't see this as the primarily difference for we both agree with the objective of fulfilling peoples most urgent and important needs. Rather, I believe our difference of opinion is much greater in the area of the means by which to attain that end.

Btw are you aware of a country that has implemented views similar to yours?

Israel - Judges 21:25.

[SteveF]

Peter wrote:

No, I could not. The first clause of denying allegiances is all well and good; but I cannot affirm the unconditional promises which follow.

I would be somewhat uncomfortable seeking Canadian Citizenship as well because I would need to swear allegiance to the Queen (again, it’s simply something I’m not used to doing). The question I have is how do we implement the following injunctions found in scripture?

1Pe 2:17 ….. Honor the emperor.

Rom 13:7 ….. honour to whom honour.

I think I could take the Australian oath without reservation because it seems to paint the ultimate authority as God.


From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

My rational would be if I am taking an oath under God then I would ultimately do what God requires in the case where I was asked to do something against God’s law. I could face imprisonment but I would not be breaking my word.

Just a side question. Do you think (based on the two scriptures above) that it would have been sinful for a Christian to participate in or support the American Revolutionary War against the King of England in the 1770’s? No easy questions here

The socialist system is a system that is based upon government acting…..

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I have a clearer picture now.

I didn’t get back to you for so long because I was looking for an opportunity to read the two articles. Once I started reading them I realized that it was going to take quite some time for me to get my head around some of the concepts and terminology which I’m not familiar with (I’m not trained in economics). I decided to respond now and I’m hoping that sometime in the future I will get to those articles. I did notice that you summarized much of what they said and I did get the gist of what you were saying. BTW…I was going to ask if you if you considered yourself in line was some libertarian ideas and then I noticed that the author of the article is a libertarian.

I'll give a few propositional statements that I hope will help to clear things up:

1. Individuals should not pursue only their selfish interest.
2. Individuals should be granted the liberty to use their property in whatever way they see fit, regardless of whether they act with selfish interest or not.
3. Individuals should not be coerced into using their property in ways they do not see fit.
4. Individuals, as they are, do not act to attain the greatest monetary profit.
5. Individuals, as they are, do act to praxeological profit.
6. When private property rights are respected, seeking selfish interests is harmonious not contradictory to providing good for my neighbor. This is due to the mutually beneficial nature of exchange.
7. Restitution should be required when an owners property rights are violated.

In the light of these 7 statements I wanted to get your feedback on two philosophies from a generation ago in the United States. In the 1970’s the United States, as you recall, was facing an energy crisis. They were running low on domestic oil and using more and more foreign oil. The foreign suppliers essentially turned off the taps and created a crisis for the U.S. (at least that’s how I remember the situation). President Jimmy Carter wanted the U.S. to become energy independent (by introducing various new forms of energy) and not to rely on others. To do this, he said, would not be easy but necessary to ensure the economic independence of your country. To do this he said the consumerist mentality had to be slowed down. He made the following statement:

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

Ronald Reagan’s response to this was to say that American’s didn’t need to go with less, they deserved more. The way to get out of the energy and financial crisis was to spend more and live a better life (apparenly regarless of whether the U.S. became more dependent on forgeing oil or not). The national debt tripled under Reagan.

I realize that neither of these philosphies fit yours, but is there one that resinates closer to your thinking than the other?
I’m also curious to hear your thoughts on some other matters.

1. What do you think of Corporations? Would they fit within your philosophy? In particular, I’m thinking of the fact that they are legally required to seek monetary profit…often at the expense of other values.

2. What do you think of the phrase, when speaking of the economy, “greed is good”

3. If a free market economy is the answer to people being treated fairly then why does the government need to implement laws against collusion etc… to prevent the public from being taken advantage of.

Also, what about in the 1940’s and 50’s in your former city of Detroit, where not a single black person was hired at any of the major car factories? The unemployment rate amongst blacks was at 50 percent. Why didn’t the open market work for them?

Also, what about credit card companies and banks that take advantage of the poor and feeble minded? They get them to sign contracts that trick them into thinking they are getting a better deal but it’s only a better deal for the credit company and a worse deal for the customer. Some in the government are now looking at ways to force credit companies to simplify their contracts. They are, obviously, facing stiff opposition from lobbyist groups. Question, why isn’t the free market working for the poor and feeble minded?

Ok. I understand you to be saying that some Christian's claim the world should not provide health care. Since my view is that the world should provide health care, this analogy is not critique of my particular position. Please say if I misunderstood.

Yes, you got it.

1. Because resources are scarce and finite….. will inevitably result in some individuals being forced to have what they value less.

I’ve never met someone who would not go to the doctor if there was a serious medical concern (although there may be a few…but I haven’t met one). The reason millions of American’s don’t go isn’t because they value something more, it’s because they can’t afford it. If you said to me “I’ll give you 10 million dollars if you first give me 1 million” I couldn’t take you up on the offer even if I wanted to. 10 million obviously has a higher value than one million but I don’t have the 1 million dollars to give you.

Yes the morals would be higher. Government can only give to one person what it takes from another. I do not consider that government officials are exempted from the general law that theft is wrong - even if the proceeds of what is stolen is given to the needy.

Just wondering, you said that criminal prosecution is the only thing a government should do. Do you consider it stealing when a government takes money from citizens to pay for judges, prosecutors, prisons etc… 24 hour policing was first introduced by Benjamin Franklin (they generally didn’t work through the night before that) . If I, as a citizen, think this is excessive is the government to be considered criminal because it’s stealing money from me? What about police officers who, as a part of their job, are expected to assist injured or emotionally distraught people. Would you consider this to be stealing money as well since they are not dealing with criminal justice at that point?

I actually find the argument unconvincing that if God never commanded a government to do a certain thing then it's wrong for them to do it. God didn’t command secular governments to take in refugees, have elections or create binding constitutions either. I see this as an argument from silence. There is no scripture that commands me to watch videos. Does this make it wrong for me to do so?

Just so I understand you correctly. If you were the president and you had the opportunity to send the USS Comfort (a military medical ship that performs medical operations, search and rescue etc..) to Haiti you would say no. You would look the American public and Haiti people in the eye and say, “because I’m a Christian I cannot help you because I can’t use the public’s money. I realize that the people on this ship are available to provide immediate assistance but I cannot steal money from people in order to send them. I would have loved to help but I morally cannot do it. I also realize that many of your relatives and friends have died because of my decision”. Did I get you right?

The owners of property, investors, and entrepreneurs will make these decisions. They will make judgements about the use of resources. In a capitalist system the control of resources passes inexorably from those who are less skilled at adapting to the needs and values of the people they serve to those who are more skilled and faithful in doing so. There are numerous examples of cooperation in industry (e.g. SAE standards), cooperation in infrastructure and real estate will come about.

I want to make sure we are talking about he same thing. When I say City Planner, I’m talking about the profession for which a Degree is required (I see it as a science). I can’t see how there can be a blueprint for a city without a central plan. They need to make decisions based on everything from the type of soil to the needs of the city generations from now. Where is the public voice in your scenario? Are you saying that if I own a giant plot of land next to your house I can turn it into a garbage dump, an airport, a highway or build a skyscraper if I choose? Where is the central planner who makes decisions? Where are the public hearings where a plan is put before everyone so they can voice any concerns?

Are you proposing a private organization to make decisions? If so, who would stop the individuals who won’t listen? It seems that you would also be setting up a governmental agency just like the public one. The only thing that would seemingly make yours private instead of public would be the exclusion of one people group. Those who don’t own land (i.e. the poor).

Thanks. I have no particular concerns if the owner is a citizen of any given nation. In any case, the mutually beneficial nature of trade is such that I can rest assured of a cooperative situation with the owner so long as the rule of law (the administration of criminal justice) remains operative in the land. I would face concerns over followers of Islam which who disregard property rights of those who do not adhere to their religion.

I want to make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that you would not allow an Islamic person to purchase your street or are you simply hopeful that your overlord would be benevolent?

I have great disdain for the American health care system, and I do not consider it to be a capitalist system. The health care services are very highly regulated, subject to differential tax treatment (e.g. we are forced to rely on out employers for insurance), and subject to lawsuits due to legal liabilities. The operation of the present system is inhibited greatly by these things, and hence its ability to provide for the needs of citizens is hindered.

I’m trying to understand what you’re saying here. I heard there are professionals who are stuck working at Wal-Mart so they can get health benefits. Apparently the line of work they are trained to do won’t always provide the benefits. How are you forced to take insurance through your company? Can’t you just pay for it yourself or seek out your own insurance policy? Here in Canada drugs are handled privately (except for seniors). Nobody makes you use the drug plans provided by your company.

In principle there is are legitimate and valuable functions which a stock market serves….

If only that’s how everyone made use of the stock market. For example, have you ever heard of Short Selling?

I am unconvinced the corporate exec's are unworthy of their wages….

Actually I didn’t bring this up to contest their wages, I brought this up to point out that those who are seeking fortunes and are smart are not going into medicine. They are going to Wall Street. I don’t want to divert into a discussion about whether certain wages are justified. I can say that in Canada most of the executives sit on each others boards and vote to approve each others bonuses. The average stock holder (owner) has very little say in the matter.

The State has no authority to be deciding these matters….

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that all of the Christian organizations that seek to restrict these rights from homosexuals through governmental means are in fact a tyranny of the majority**. Did I understand you correctly?

I mean that a powerful leader, or a majority of people can impose their values upon an unwilling minority. But businessmen cannot - they are entirely obligated to serve the needs of their customers - whatever those needs are. A businessman does not have the power to censure the values of his consumers. He will go out of business, because he must pass a profit and loss test. A government, however, does not have to pass this test.

Sorry, I have to disagree. For example, we have a large area of land north of the city called the Oak Ridges Moraine. It is a very sensitive and important part of the ecosystem. This large area of land acts as a natural water filter for rain water. A God designed water filtration system. Most of this water ends up in Toronto’s water drinking system. Land developers sought to pour concrete over it and develop it into housing etc…They said they would filter the water through their own systems (which are proven to not work as well as the natural one). The only way they could be stopped from building on it was through government law. This entire area is now a preservation area. The developers could only see dollar signs. They were not thinking of the public good at all.

The government in our country has socialized education system….

I share similar concerns with education. I earlier provided an example of a province here in Canada that returns $3000 per child if you decide not to make use of the public system and home school. These are the types of things we can seek to change in the system. The only difference I have with you is I do see public education being made available to everyone as a positive thing. I simply prefer fairer options.

In the extreme case we have seen how various dictators have come to power and tried to implement some plan (e.g. the communist dictators of Russia

I don’t foresee a Stalin type dictator in either one of our countries. There has been discrimination against particular people groups in both countries by the majority population though.

SteveF wrote:For example, would you consider Benjamin Franklin to be a socialist dictator?

He, amongst many other social initiatives, spearheaded the first publicly funded hospital, paved roads and street lights (tax dollars were used for all of them). What about when the government declared the Grand Canyon a preservation area and eventually a national park? Was this the work of a dictator? I'm assuming you would say yes. I just want to make sure I understand how you use this term.


I wouldn't use such strong language for this, but here it is a difference of degree not of kind. I do not favor government administration of any of the areas above.

I’m finding it hard to see where you draw the line? Earlier you defined it as “… a powerful leader, or a majority of people can impose their values upon an unwilling minority” Wouldn’t these examples fit the bill?

Israel - Judges 21:25.

Could you explain your thoughts about this verse?

God Bless
Steve

PS…I remember you mentioning about your uncertainty about the Iraq war. I don’t want to get sidetracked but I will post a link to a video that will illustrate the deception and deliberate falsification of information that was used to send your country to war (it focuses mainly on Cheney). When I see Christian media they seem to pick the Democrats apart but are largely unaware of Republican sins. As I mentioned earlier, it makes me wonder if the Christians are being manipulated by and loyal to a political party or are primarily representatives of God’s Kingdom.

Jesus is not a Republican.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Peter, I realize I asked a lot of questions. Take all the time you need to respond. There's absolutely no hurry on my side.


** Interestingly I read that the French political philosopher who originated the phrase "tyranny of the majority" thought that the reason American Democracy worked better than in France was because of the mutual agreement to keep the Church and State separate. He also saw this as the reason religion was flourishing in the U.S. while it was floundering in France.