no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Democracy is Great!

It Depends on What the Meaning of Democracy Is…

June 18th, 2007

Get ready for the newspeak:

The EU is not a European superstate, [Italian President Giorgio] Napolitano said, it is a “a new form of democracy.”

Sounds like pan-European hegemony, if you ask me. Democracy’s many, many demerits notwithstanding, it is by definition a government of the people. Whatever you take that to mean, removing the people from the political process is fundamentally a negation of democracy, no matter how much you dress it up. When the constituents of a “democracy” are subject to a higher, overriding power, democracy no longer exists. It’s either democracy (which is not a value judgement), or it’s not.

The EU is an aspiring Super-state which can only be realized if the old States relinquish power. This is unlikely to come from within, and therefore its genesis must be foreign. A slave does not choose willingly a harsher, stronger master. Now, the E.U. calls itself a democracy, while attempting to usurp the historical sovereigns, and in no way accountable to their respective serfs. The Britons (or the French, or the Dutch, etc.) will never have the popular appeal to unilaterally effect change within their borders – as long as they are subject to the E.U.’s brand of democracy. And if they will not give up the power, it must be taken from them.

Of note, is the classic rationalization for representative government: the people are too stupid to make appropriate decisions on matters concerning politics, therefore it is necessary that an autocrat/dictator/philosopher king/etc. make these decisions for the people. Typically slipped in the back door is the fact that the autocrat/dictator/philosopher king establishes his own rules about how future autocrats and dictators can be chosen, and also about who may become the future leaders – this, as always, is to protect the people from themselves.

But if people are too stupid to judge what needs to be done, they can’t really be counted on to elect the right people to make these decisions in the first place. Which raises the question: “How in the hell do we figure out who’s in charge, if we’re all so goddamned stupid?”

And furthermore, if we’re all so stupid, we cannot be expected to judge post hoc the consequences of the policies put into place by the leaders we’re unfit to elect to solve the problems we’re unfit to evaluate. The argument for authority can be reduced to the internally inconsistent “I judge that I should not judge,” and therefore must be false. Like the hydra of mythology, no matter how many times this lie is beaten down, it comes back with yet another head.

Such is the price of vigilance.

+++
H/T: Brussels Journal

Half-staff

June 16th, 2007

I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to flag displays – mostly because they’re everywhere, they don’t stand out and they don’t really draw my attention. But lately, by which I mean at least the last 6 months, it seems like every time I do see one, driving past the library, down Investment Drive, the local middle schools, etc., the flags are displayed at half-staff.  Honestly, I couldn’t tell you the last time I saw a flag that wasn’t displayed in such a manner.  Are old presidents kicking mad buckets – which would be the only justification for prolonged half-staff display – without my knowledge?

Has anyone else noticed this? Is there a reason for this perpetual mourning? Or is it just more propaganda?

…Mr. Orwell from the grave
adding fresh ink to the page
As the unpresident declares an endless war…
Welcome to 1984!

Eh.

Kill it with Regulation!

June 14th, 2007

Radical health-nazis, like the PNPH are quick to tell you that over 30% of every health-care dollar is spent on administrative costs, profits, and bureaucratic paperwork. Who knows whether this is appalling or not? Insurance is a tough business – about which most people don’t have a fucking clue. Fortunately, Presidential candidate John Edwards, has a “solution” to this “problem.” As potential Health-Care Kommandant, his vision of the future of the industry involves more ham-fisted regulation:

Three out of every $10 in insurance premiums now go to patient care and the rest goes to administrative costs and profits. I would require that to be 85%.

First things first: Do patients get $7 worth of care for $10 worth of premium – as per the PNPH, or do they only get $3, like Mr. Edwards claims? If what Mr. Edwards claims is factual, then it ought to be abundantly clear that only legislation and regulation can reduce an industry to such a level, and that no amount of additional regulation can rescue it. But if he’s wrong, and he almost certainly is wrong, Edwards is still asking them to halve their costs of doing business; from 30% to 15%.

That sounds noble enough, no?

Listen closely so I don’t have to repeat myself: if any of these companies could cut their costs in half, they wouldn’t need Johnny-boy to provide the impetus. The motive for profit will suffice, as it always has in the past.

The hardest of all costs to cut are administrative costs (do you want a person to answer the phone, or do you want an automated-phone-system), but in particular, compliance costs and regulatory burden, for which no process improvement is possible. It’s not like you can just write up your flow-chart, and decide which regulatory burdens you’re not going to care about this year, which ones you can axe, which ones can be streamlined, and which ones need improvement. These decisions are not up to the businesses who are merely trying to operate in a regulatory jungle; Mr Edwards would add another layer to the canopy that blots out the sun.

I’d suggest, as a first measure, removing 1/2 of all regulatory burdens placed on insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Let’s see how that shakes out, because, Mr Edwards, you can’t re-write the laws of economics.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics