I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I will not read Graeber, because I have seen him run into Brad Delong and Henry Farrell, among others, and look very, very foolish. Here is just one of Delong's posts. Here's one of Farrell's. Apple was not founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages.

Shoot. The. Messenger.

He's clearly flawed. The ideas in the book are worth reading. These are two different things.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I suspect that Sebby realizes this and just thinks that people should be paying out of pocket for their maternity care anyway.

No. I think in a structure where Medicare picks up all the people the market won't serve, Ty's argument about lack of liberty in not having the market serve you is pointless.

For some reason he seems to think I'm ignoring his argument. He's a step behind. My reply regarding Medicare expansion rendered it irrelevant.

My advocacy for Medicare expansion is an indictment of my Libertarianism? Ummm... Okay? I've said about 10x I'm not a full Libertarian, Liberal, or Conservative. Shall I say it again? Or shall I just pick a label so people can more easily argue against me?

I'm arguing for Medicare expansion and you're flaying me for it. This is a bizarro universe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. I think in a structure where Medicare picks up all the people the market won't serve, Ty's argument about lack of liberty in not having the market serve you is pointless.

For some reason he seems to think I'm ignoring his argument. He's a step behind. My reply regarding Medicare expansion rendered it irrelevant.

My advocacy for Medicare expansion is an indictment of my Libertarianism? Ummm... Okay? I've said about 10x I'm not a full Libertarian, Liberal, or Conservative. Shall I say it again? Or shall I just pick a label so people can more easily argue against me?

I'm arguing for Medicare expansion and you're flaying me for it. This is a bizarro universe.

This exchange began with your suggestion that it would be better to eliminate the ACA requirements for insurance so that those over 30 could buy catastrophic coverage only, because liberty. I will try to square that with your advocacy for Medicare expansion, but I admit that the whiplash makes it hard.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This exchange began with your suggestion that it would be better to eliminate the ACA requirements for insurance so that those over 30 could buy catastrophic coverage only, because liberty. I will try to square that with your advocacy for Medicare expansion, but I admit that the whiplash makes it hard.

Got to say, the Medicare expansion bill seems to be the first truly great legislative idea Bernie has grabbed ahold of and sponsored in his four decades in Washington.

Oddly, even though this represents the victory of a single payor, centralized system run by the federal government, exactly what lots of folks on the right say they don't want, they like it anyway because their constituents may not like Obamacare but they certainly don't want the gubmint messing with their Medicare.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Matt Levine again:

I am working on a tentative theory of regulation. It goes like this:

1. There are two kinds of regulations: custom regulations and bulk regulations.
2. A custom regulation is designed to accomplish a particular goal. You want people to do something, so you write a rule mandating that they do it and punishing them if they don't. For instance, if you want U.S. companies to keep jobs in the U.S., you might write a rule to mandate that, and to "impose a 'very major' border tax on companies that move jobs outside the U.S." That is an example of a custom regulation, and it is good because it keeps jobs in the U.S.
3. Bulk regulations are the kind that you buy by the yard, ones that you measure by quantity rather than purpose. They don't have a purpose, really; they are just generic "red tape." These are the regulations that presidents frequently announce they will cut in half, or freeze with an executive order. They're the regulations that come not from a reasoned desire to achieve a particular goal, but from a pure impulse to regulate. Bulk regulations are bad because they prevent businesses from doing business-y things without accomplishing anything good.
4. All regulations are custom regulations.
5. All discussion of "regulation" is about bulk regulations, which do not exist.

Good lord, that's beautiful.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm arguing for Medicare expansion and you're flaying me for it. This is a bizarro universe.

No one is flaying you for arguing for Medicare expansion, nor has this been a meaningful part of the discussion.

We should have Medicare for everyone and then we don't even need to worry about the buying power of individual patients.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This exchange began with your suggestion that it would be better to eliminate the ACA requirements for insurance so that those over 30 could buy catastrophic coverage only, because liberty. I will try to square that with your advocacy for Medicare expansion, but I admit that the whiplash makes it hard.

They square perfectly. People get what they want. Those without the product they want get it from Medicare.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No, they don't, because almost all of the world has some sort of government almost all of the time. The normal state of affairs is that a government makes it possible to have markets.

Markets emerge from people trading things with each other. Sure, govts are typically involved. But would they, can they, and do exist without govts? Yes. Trade's essential for survival.

This is one of the basic reasons why people like governments. Finding the rare exception to this rule is one thing -- pretending it is normal is quite another.

The question wasn't whether something was normal or not. It was whether govts must exist as a prerequisite to markets.

The fundamental problem here is that you have a cramped notion of liberty, like a kind of colorblindness. If you are locked in a room, you lack liberty, no matter whether the government has imprisoned you or you've been kidnapped. In the latter case, you may have the right to be free, but if you are unable to escape, you still lack liberty.

I lack the right to run naked through Times Square. It's obvious what you're attempting. It'd render "liberty" so broad that deprivation of almost anything would fit under the umbrella.

This is the crux of it, the thing you are missing about how this particular market works and that you are not understanding from what I am trying to tell you. The private market will NOT always service maternity care. If insurers are free to make maternity care optional, the danger is that you will not be able to obtain maternity care unless you are part of a pool (e.g., buying coverage through your employer).

I got that. The first time. What you're failing to grasp is nobody may force a market to give it anything under the argument, "Otherwise, it's an infringement on my liberty." Liberty's a negative right.

If such coverage is optional, the people who will opt for it will be the people who are likely to to use it, and it will get prohibitively expensive. I have now said this to you in several posts and you show no signs of actually having read what I've said or of having the ideas penetrate your school, so I'm not sure why I'm trying again, but I'm an optimist I guess. The same thing is true with pre-existing conditions -- read the above and substitute pre-existing conditions for maternity care.

See above.

Just stop pretending to be a libertarian.

Stop assuming people are all one thing or another. You yourself are a left-leaning, but generally non-ideological pragmatist. Why does anyone have to fit into the category "Liberal," "Conservative," or "Libertarian"? Do you know anyone who aligns 1:1 with any ideology or political party? Of course not. There is not a sane American alive who can claim he's he even 90% in agreement with any party or philosophy. We're all ideological mutts.

No, I find it bizarre that you are professing to believe that there's so principled problem with the current healthcare system's infringement on your rights that goes away with single payer -- that you have a problem when the government forces you to buy something from one of many private parties, but no problem when you have to buy it from the government.

Both suck. But I'd rather deal with the govt, or corporations, discretely. I do not want to be part of any arrangement where the govt is directing me to buy certain things from corporations using its taxing authority. Call me nuts, but that's just... kind of scary.

I find your slippery slope arguments tedious and underwhelming, for the reasons I already said.

It's the same slippery slope everyone is citing in criticizing the Trump Administration. Govt either directly or indirectly forcing or arm-twisting people to make certain decisions benefiting particular corporations is a bit... problematic?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But would they, can they, and do exist without govts? Yes. Trade's essential for survival.

Not really. Weren't you the one citing Graeber?

Call me nuts, but that's just... kind of scary.

Why? Government does it every damn day indirectly, so why is directly so much worse?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They square perfectly. People get what they want. Those without the product they want get it from Medicare.

From that perspective, sure. But very hard to square with the stuff about liberty and rights that you were arguing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Markets emerge from people trading things with each other. Sure, govts are typically involved. But would they, can they, and do exist without govts? Yes. Trade's essential for survival.

The question wasn't whether something was normal or not. It was whether govts must exist as a prerequisite to markets.

Sebby, you used the word "normal" and so I responded to it. Governments almost always exist as a prerequisite to markets. The idea -- your idea -- that there is some "normal" market occurring in the absence of government is a libertarian fantasy. (I believe this goes back to Locke's theory of property, fwiw.)

I lack the right to run naked through Times Square. It's obvious what you're attempting. It'd render "liberty" so broad that deprivation of almost anything would fit under the umbrella.

So your position is that if someone who isn't the government locks you in a room, your liberty hasn't been diminished at all? That's using the word in a way that makes no sense at all.

I got that. The first time. What you're failing to grasp is nobody may force a market to give it anything under the argument, "Otherwise, it's an infringement on my liberty." Liberty's a negative right.

It's a little hard to tell, but I think what you're arguing here is that there is a meaningful deprivation of what I call liberty when the market doesn't give you meaningful choices, but that you advocate a system of legal rights in which the government should lack the power to do anything about it. It's hard to tell why, since having argued above that we mean different things when we talk about "liberty," you just rely on the word without explaining what you mean. I'm asserting a view of liberty which is about preserving freedom for individuals, including the freedom to make meaningful choices. So let me try to make it without using "liberty." My point is that if regulated in the way you propose, healthcare markets will not let insurers offer certain kinds of insurance, will not let consumers buy that insurance, and will reduce mutually beneficial transactions between willing counterparts (e.g., doctors and patients). All of these parties are worse off in materially obvious ways. In what way do you think they are better off?

Stop assuming people are all one thing or another. You yourself are a left-leaning, but generally non-ideological pragmatist. Why does anyone have to fit into the category "Liberal," "Conservative," or "Libertarian"?

Dude, once again I am responding to something *you* said in *this* exchange. If a few hours have passed and you no longer wish to describe yourself as libertarian, just say so.

Both suck. But I'd rather deal with the govt, or corporations, discretely. I do not want to be part of any arrangement where the govt is directing me to buy certain things from corporations using its taxing authority. Call me nuts, but that's just... kind of scary.

Why? Many people believe that markets do a better job of allocating resources and providing many goods and services than the government does. (I would have put you in that category.). E.g., the government buys fighter jets from Boeing et al. instead of building them itself. That's not scary.

It's the same slippery slope everyone is citing in criticizing the Trump Administration. Govt either directly or indirectly forcing or arm-twisting people to make certain decisions benefiting particular corporations is a bit... problematic?

Oh, come now. There's a world of difference between defining objective criteria that health care has to meet and saying that you need to buy it from any private party that meets those criteria, and having the government pick winners or losers in other markets (hotels, shoes, etc.). Calling that a slippery slope suggests you can't draw a principled distinction.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Stop assuming people are all one thing or another. You yourself are a left-leaning, but generally non-ideological pragmatist. Why does anyone have to fit into the category "Liberal," "Conservative," or "Libertarian"? Do you know anyone who aligns 1:1 with any ideology or political party? Of course not. There is not a sane American alive who can claim he's he even 90% in agreement with any party or philosophy. We're all ideological mutts.

Yeah, man, that's some groovy shit you're talking there. People are people, man, not labels. People who use labels just want to put us all in boxes, which is totally uncool and a really great way to reap some really bad karma. Those people need to open their hearts and understand that people should be in meadows, not in boxes. Every time you use a label, a daisy dies.

Liberals and Modern Conservatives are pretty much indistinguishable in terms of govt spending.

Conservatives should be locked in rooms with Jeffrey Sachs and Robert Reich, and your sort should be locked in a room with a copy of Mobs, Messiahs and Markets, Tyler Cowen, and Jaron Lanier.

Which is why Libertarians favor gutting the defense budget.

I get to do this with Lefties here, then do the same thing with Righties in other conversations.

You're just a limousine-- errr, Uber XL liberal.

Congrats to all the Righties and Lefties who tribalized us into these warring faction of idiots.

You realize the Left (you) and Right are dismantling the Republic one brick at a time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Yeah, man, that's some groovy shit you're talking there. People are people, man, not labels. People who use labels just want to put us all in boxes, which is totally uncool and a really great way to reap some really bad karma. Those people need to open their hearts and understand that people should be in meadows, not in boxes. Every time you use a label, a daisy dies.

Hi! I'm a mod here. We've overbooked socks replying to Sebby here, so I'm going to need you to delete this post. We can offer you the ability to post on the Minnesota Board instead. Have a nice day!

[Adder]

Not even Hitler made his own people delete themselves, Hank.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Even Spicer can't be this fucking stupid.

TM