Democracy Bound on the Ship of Fools (updated 28jun2011)

George Rebane

Lately our American ship of state has taken an historical pummeling, and the beating literally goes on as you read this.  The remarkable part is that our country was designed and built so well that it can take a decade (generation?) or two of utter mismanagement, and still provide a world class home for its citizens, most of whom don’t know and don’t care what is happening.  You see, the pummeling is coming from the inside, we’re doing it to ourselves.

Our leaders in the aggregate are fools who were sent to the capitols by their equally foolish constituents – that’s us.  So today we see them monkeying with the machinery of state, pulling levers and turning knobs the effects of which they have not a clue.  They do it for the show that we expect to see from our leadership – don’t leaders always pull levers and turn knobs on the ship of state?

In recent days we have seen everything from “leadership from behind”, to the breakdown of the national fisc, to buying votes with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to admission (by the Bernank) that no one within the beltway really knows what is happening.  The only real game that is being played by all the electeds is ‘How can I make sure the crap doesn’t hit me so that I can get re-elected?’  We really are putting to the test the question ‘are people in the aggregate capable of governing themselves?’  The historical answer by princes and philosophers has been a resounding NO.

Then along came this concurrent miracle of place, period, people, and men of peerless vision, courage, and intellect.  They saw a way to answer YES, albeit within a set of rules that were almost too difficult to cobble together.  But they persevered and gave us our Constitution that defined a republic “if you can keep it.”

Over the last two centuries that republic has almost slipped from our grasp on several occasions, and today half of us are actively working to get rid of the whole thing – Republic and Constitution – and replace it with, yes, Democracy.

The unstudied among us, who form the plurality, know neither the fine points of a republic nor of a democracy.  However, connecting unqualified majority rule with democracy has always given that form of governance an unbridled advantage with the great unwashed.  Our Founders knew better and told us so.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." -- James Madison, from Federalist #10

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -- Alexander Hamilton, Speech on 21 June 1788 urging ratification of the Constitution in New York

"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." -- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." --James Madison, Federalist No. 55, February 15, 1788

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural address, 1801

All democracies start downward with the violation of the so-called Bastiat Triangle as explained by Frederic Bastiat in The Law (1849), and contained in a dedicatory summary in this blog (upper right column).  Autocrats of all ages know that the surest path to power is to marshal the mob under the banner of democracy.  Have them sign up to the infamous and impossible exhortation of the French Revolution – ‘Liberte, Egalete, Fraternite!’ – and you’re already half way to a dictatorship.

Today in America the federal government under its progressive leadership is doing everything it can to hasten the day when the states, as envisioned by the Founders and codified in the Constitution, will cease to exist except in name.  Everything in the land is rushing pell mell into a unified, ubiquitous, and uniform amalgam – one size will fit all.  And all things will be as closely as possible of one mandated size, starting with income.  No one understands that equality and liberty sit at opposite ends of the see-saw, each ascends only at the other’s descent.

President Obama and his minions will remind us from here until November 2012 that their work is only half done, and the fundamental transformation of America will require four more years. Given the administration’s accomplishments to date, there is no reason for anyone to doubt this.

And it will all come to pass on our road to democracy.  For along that way stand the throngs we last saw in a Chicago stadium, tears streaming from their upturned eyes as their anointed one strode from between alabaster columns down a majestic runway that reached into their midst.  Albert Speer with his 1937 Cathedral of Ice in Nürnberg had nothing on Barack Obama’s 2008 Chicago spectacle in Grant Park.

Walter Williams could be right, we may have found our Man on a White Horse.

[28jun2011 update]  This YouTube video comparing economically free vs unfree countries was sent by a reader.  The numbers are there for comparison and refutation.  In it we see a 'Christmas Yet to Come' for our country. 

Comments

[Todd Juvinall]

The Commerce Clause is the states demise. Somehow we allowed this usurpation of state's rights. Most people probably don't even know their state is a separate entity, though a part of something bigger, but still separate.

[Russ Steele]

Victor Davis Hanson: There are no socilaists

. . .Only technocratic overseers who wish to give someone else’s money to others as a means of winning capitalist-style lifestyles and power for themselves — in a penultimate cycle of unsustainable spending. When this latest attempt at statism is over, Barack Obama will enjoy a sort of Clintonism, a globe-trotting post officium lifestyle of multimillion dollar honoraria to fund a lifestyle analogous to “two Americas” John Edwards, “earth in the balance” Al Gore, a tax-exempt yachting John Kerry, a revolving-door Citibank grandee like Peter Orszag, or a socialist Strauss-Kahn in $20,000 suits doling out billions to the “poor.”

That is just the way it has been and will always be.

How we stop these technocratic dispencers of our money. Bankrupt them!

[Douglas Keachie]

Rebane defines himself, as a "Prince Philosopher.'

Nicely done!

Reminds me of the prince who just ascended to Kingship, in, "Game of Thrones."

[Douglas Keachie]

"How we stop these technocratic dispencers of our money. Bankrupt them! "

You mean like we did with B of A, Goldman Sachs, and a host of others? Back then, what we you saying Russ? "Too BIG to Fail," maybe?

[George Rebane]

"Rebane defines himself, as a "Prince Philosopher.' "

Mr Keachie, from a cognitive perspective this blog must be an extreme disappointment to you.

[Douglas Keachie]

I find the dysfuntionalism here entertaining.

[Todd Juvinall]

Sorry to say Keachie, but you couldn't be more accurate about yourself in how we all view you. George is five times smarter and a much more reliable American patriot than old fart teachers from the Bay area who never saw a peace sign they didn't want.

[Ben Emery]

George,
I agree with most of the post, so the question is who controls our government? It's definitely not the people. Could it be the 35,000 lobbyists and their employers who fund the two parties and their campaigns?

3,000 from the financial sector alone and over 250 of them used to work in our nations capital as public servants. 3,000 heavily funded and powerful lobbyists for 535 legislators and 1 President and Vice President. In the decade of the 90's $5 billion was spent on lobbying congress for specific deregulation's that are directly linked to the financial crisis.
CFMA 2000
Gramm-Leach-Bliley 1999

[Ben Emery]

I have to retract my I agree with most of the post. I didn't see the link for the whole rant until after I commented.

Right now we have a federal government and increasingly state governments running on a corporatist agenda, it is using the facade of democratic representative form of government to facilitate Mussolini type fascism. Socialize the losses and externalities and privatize the profits through the merging of corporate and public interests.

Instead of having Chamber of Faci and Corporations (Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni), we have wholly owned subsidiaries called the republican and democratic party leaderships. At least in Italy they directly sent reps from the corporations to represent different regions of the country.

[Barry Pruett]

Ben: I agree with you that lobbyists are a problem. The solution is not more government and more regulation. When government regulates and choses winners and losers, lobbyists seek to advocate for their clients to be the winners.

More government regulation and greater government spending begets more lobbyists. Reducing the size, scope, and spending of government will naturally lead to fewer lobbyists.

With less government control, lobbyists would have nobody for whom to lobby.

[Mikey McD]

Yup!

"With less government control, lobbyists would have nobody for whom to lobby."

Posted by: Barry Pruett | 27 June 2011 at 05:23 PM

[Todd Juvinall]

BenE, why don't you start a nationwide movement to ban lobbyists from meeting or influencing the legislators? Do something that will implement your anger.

[Scott Obermuller]

OK Ben - 'Right now we have a federal government and increasingly state governments running on a corporatist agenda.' I thought you wanted gay marriage! Now you bemoan the control the corporatists have. You never told us if you wanted the govt to control marriage or not, and now you are back wailing about corporatist agenda. Do you want that or not? PG&E have a pro-gay agenda They are corporate. Are they bad? GE is pro gay. Are they bad? They are corporate and the head of GE is sitting in Obama's lap. The people put Obama into office and the corparate welfare has sky rocketed. Why aren't you happy? Is this something you want or not? You want the feds to take our money and then you complain about who they hand the money out to. Of course, your politics are "diverse" so you can complain about anything even if it's what you clained you wanted in the first place.

[Paul Emery]

George

As someone who is opposed to the democratic process why do you so enthusiastically support the proposition process in California. I as referring specifically to prop 23 in last years election?

[George Rebane]

"opposed to the democratic process"?? "enthusiastically support the proposition process"??

PaulE, I have no idea where you perform these leaps of logic. I oppose democracy as a form of governance, preferring instead a democratic republic. Democratic republics include and involve a number of democratic processes. An expanded topic, perhaps for another time.

These pages are replete with my critiques of the California proposition process. The process is nothing but a device for Sacramento's dirtbags to duck their duty as the people's elected representatives. But ducked it they have, and now we must work with what we have. That does not mean that I "so enthusiastically support the proposition process in California." Are you doing this on purpose Paul?

[Paul Emery]

George,

In this case the elected representative in California through due process passed AB 32 as part of their responsibilities as elected representatives. A group of dissatisfied citizens, unhappy with the bills provisions decided to nullify AB32 through the proposition process which requires a simple majority vote.

As you wrote " connecting unqualified majority rule with democracy has always given that form of governance an unbridled advantage with the great unwashed."

Your unqualified enthusiasm for prop 23 means that, in turn, you support the proposition process whenever the duly elected legislature passes unfavorable legislation. Your campaign for prop 23 both here and publicly does amount to a display of enthusiasm for the majority vote legislation process or "mob {rule} under the banner of democracy."

In other words, bring out the unwashed mob in times of crisis.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

[George Rebane]

PaulE, nothing you said contradicts my stable position that we have to work with the tools that are at hand. Were I king, the tools would be changed as I have described. Supporting an issue that is wrapped in a proposition, and available only in that wrapping does not imply that the wrapping is supported. I'm afraid your logic is showing.

[Russ Steele]

Paul,

I am interested to know how you would go about changing a law that you thought was based on bad science? If you read the reports and studies that were use to justify AB-32, you will learn that they were based on flawed data which has been demonstrated in peer reviewed studies published in scientific journals. The Climategate e-mails showed how the scientist that wrote the UN IPCC misused data, and prevented opposing views to be published, and the computer models that were used to calculate global temperature contained made up data and fudge factors to make the world warmer. Even one of the lead authors of the IPCC report, that were used by CARB for justification for AB32, declared that there had been no significant global warming for 15 years. Yet, in those 15 years CO2 continued to increase, yet none of those increase show up in the global temperatures. We now know that AB32 was based UN IPCC Reports which contained questionable data and flawed computer models.

Our legislators were making public policy that was going to cost tax payer huge amounts to solve a unverifiable problem, justified by flawed studies written by scientist with a warmest agenda. Yes, that made “A group of dissatisfied citizens, unhappy with the bills provisions.”

When the miserable bastards in Sacramento failed to lead using real science, we the people took action. And, we continue our fight to reach a solution base facts, not feelings and dodgy computer models.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, so you must feel the same way about not one republican voting for the Obamacare? Because it was duly passed?

[Paul Emery]

George, Russ

The correction is to convince voters to elect a Legislature and Governor that is sympathetic to your opinions. The Proposition alternative is a justification for the mob rule that you described so well earlier in this posting.

George,
I am questioning the integrity of your position when you dump your higher calling and resort to grovelling in majority rules Democracy exercises to satisfy your calling. You can't have it both ways and maintain your stated position.

Todd, I don't get the relevance of what you're saying. Can you restate your question.

[George Rebane]

Oh yes I can PaulE. The process that brought propositions into being, their existence now as the predominant vehicle for promoting/opposing public policies in California, and a specific public policy issue floated via a proposition are all semantically and operationally orthogonal (q.v.).

Because I don't like the way public policy issues are formulated and disposed of in California does not require me to withdraw from exercising my rights of free speech as a citizen and be silent from the dialogue and absent from the voting booth.

We indeed live in different universes overseen by logics grossly variant if, in your eyes, the "integrity of (my) position" on an issue such as AB32 and its attendant Prop23 is called to question. Nevertheless, I rejoice that the web and RR can serve as welcoming forums to illuminate and highlight such differences to the reader.

[Paul Emery]

George

It's not the integrity of your positions on AB 32 and Prop 23 that I question. Those are legitimate opinions based on whatever sources and methods you use to formulate form them. It's the fact that you contradict yourself by going to the Proposition process as a remedy which seems directly opposite your concerns about mob rule Democracy used to establish public policy. I don't understand how you can justify having it both ways .

[George Rebane]

"... going to the Proposition process as a remedy ..."

I believe I have more than answered this several times already.

[Paul Emery]

And so did the California voters both through their representatives in the Legislature and their solid no vote on prop 23.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, I have never contested the Prop23 outcome, only mourned it.

[Paul Emery]

I know how you feel George, I have mourned many a legislative and popular vote decision in my time. I suffered through 16 years of Reagan. For shear grief I bet you can't beat that.

[George Rebane]

Oh, if only we could trade two years of Obama for another 16 years of Reagan "grief". But then, one man celebrates while another grieves. Was it ever thus?

[Greg Goodknight]

Paul, can you point to any No on 23 campaign ad that mentioned global warming, or the name of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act? After the vote, there was plenty of claims that the voters had spoken in favor of throttling CO2, but that wasn't the story before the election.

Voters were told about pollution, kids with asthma, and affordable renewable energy. They weren't voting for sky high prices for electricity and gasoline to provide an illusion that the renewable energy was affordable.

Bait and switch. Works in retail sales, works in retail politics.

[Paul Emery]

Well, you better find electable candidate that you can live with or you'll be suffering till 2016. The thing that's missing in politics is pragmatic wisdom. The last real politicians we had that knew how to take care of business was Clinton and Newt.

[Todd Juvinall]

So Paul, since you are so steadfast in your support of the majority win on Prop 23, how do you explain your opposite position on Prop 8?

[Paul Emery]

That's a decision that the voters made that I was opposed to. You win some and you lose some. What else needs to be said? I'm sure it will come around again and next time I believe gay marriage will prevail in California. It's up to the Courts right nos so we'll see.

I actually profoundly dislike the Proposition process but it's part of the political culture of California so we're stuck with it.

[Todd Juvinall]

Thanks for your exoneration of your points against George. Excellent.

[Paul Emery]

Tod

I don't claim to be as high minded as George is. George sets us up with an essay about the evils of majority rule and Democracy and then uses the same process to attempt create a favorable change in Legislation. This pretty much sums up his expostulation.

"However, connecting unqualified majority rule with democracy has always given that form of governance an unbridled advantage with the great unwashed. Our Founders knew better and told us so."

What he's referring to Todd is the Proposition process pure and simple.

[Russ Steele]

Thomas Sowell has some thoughts on the Viability of Democracy at Townhall today that echo Georges words here

In the middle of the next century, Abraham Lincoln still posed it as a question whether "government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Years earlier, Lincoln had warned of the dangers to a free society from its own designing power-seekers -- and how only the vigilance, wisdom and dedication of the public could preserve their freedom.

But, today, few people seem to see such dangers, either internally or internationally.

A recent poll showed that nearly half the American public believes that the government should redistribute wealth. That so many people are so willing to blithely put such an enormous and dangerous arbitrary power in the hands of politicians -- risking their own freedom, in hopes of getting what someone else has -- is a painful sign of how far many citizens and voters fall short of what is needed to preserve a democratic republic.

The ease with which people with wealth can ship it overseas electronically, or put it in tax shelters at home, means that raising the tax rate on wealthy people is not going to bring in the kind of tax revenue that would enable wealth redistribution to provide the bonanza that some people are expecting.

In other words, people who are willing to give government more arbitrary power can give up their birthright of freedom without even getting the mess of pottage. Worse yet, they can give up their children's and their grandchildren's birthright of freedom.

[Paul Emery]

Here's another myth exposed. The draconian predictions that the "Socialistic" Scandinavian nations are near bankruptcy is completely wrong. The international sovereign credit ratings show Norway as having the best credit rating of any nation followed by Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. All have high tax rates and national health care programs. Obviously if they were on the brink of bayonets in the streets they would not have these ratings. Here's the best organized summary chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating

[Scott Obermuller]

Paul - please give us the links to the predictions of these nations "nearing bankruptcy".
I notice that you put Socialistic in quotes. Do you think they are not? You point out they have high tax rates and national health care programs. Is that the only difference between this country and theirs?

[Paul Emery]

Let's try this for a start

"I'm sorry Paul, but none of what Denmark is doing is sustainable. We will all see that when we pull the plug on our Navy's eleven (one's already gone) carrier task groups. That socialism is not sustainable is not a theory, it is a bald-faced fact of history."
Rebane

It seems odd that countries that subscribe to such terminal economic policies would receive the highest credit ratings. Socialism is your definition. I call them modern democratic economies.

The differences between our country and theirs is a different and expansive topic.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, their credit ratings are neither a mystery nor remarkable as long as they continue sinking slowly with America obviating their defense spending, and extractive energy resources paying the bills. Norway is similarly blessed, as is Russia. Imagine their credit ratings and socialism if they couldn't sell what they pull out of the ground. Even Venezuela can keep up with their crappy version of socialism for a while longer, but not much since those bastards don't even know how to drill baby drill.

Like to most liberals, including ours in Washington, the free-fall is ignored and everything is sustainable until it goes splat. We sang this song months ago.

[Paul Emery]

I guess you know something that the credit raters don't know. By the way, the unemployment level in Norway is 3.3% another sign of a sinking economy.

[George Rebane]

Apparently I (and many others) do know something that the credit raters don't and didn't. For some years now, investors have known that institutional credit ratings come in two flavors - political and bough-and-paid-for. The history of the industry is replete with high credit ratings until the night before collapse.

But you are again responding past the points that I have made and seem unwilling to come to a consensus of what is a sustainable economy - i.e. what economic and fiscal parameters define an economy that is not on a known path into the mud. Your like-minded ideologues on the subject have been in the Washington DC wheelhouse for years, and still see no reason to change course.

Do you really see any progress that we're making on this thread?

[Scott Obermuller]

Paul, you need to brush up on the Scanda-hoovians a bit. Their demographics and topography are just a bit different than ours. They are not the socialist dream you think they are. I would guess it is their weather for the most part, but they are a very cohesive, disciplined and frugal sort of folk for the most part. Their standard of living looks good from the stand point of a euro-serf, but I would not tolerate the tiny abodes, lack of mobility and opportunity there. They have good schools for the most part from what I can gather, but the teachers and profs don't get the kind of pay they would get here. They also have the lack of ambulance chasers there that the conservatives in this country would like to see removed from our health care system. I found a recent article on Sweden you might find interesting - seems they are lowering taxes to revive their economy.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-14/opinion/frum.sweden_1_fredrik-reinfeldt-swedish-way-civil-servants?_s=PM:OPINION
Anyway - just to say that we need to jack up taxes and have socialized health care in this country and we'll be fine is absurd. And your semi-reply to my question was not on point nor complete, but I guess it was the best you could do.

[Douglas Keachie]

With less government regulations, corporations will have no need for lobbyists, as they can then do whatever they damn well please, and nobody is there to stop them.

[Douglas Keachie]

"The ease with which people with wealth can ship it overseas electronically, or put it in tax shelters at home, means that raising the tax rate on wealthy people is not going to bring in the kind of tax revenue that would enable wealth redistribution to provide the bonanza that some people are expecting."

So maybe it should be a crime to shift cash overseas to avoid taxation, and the USA should stop all trade with countries who keep such transactions confidential?

[George Rebane]

DougK, it is beyond boredom to again point out that if ALL the income of the 'rich' were confiscated (100% tax rate), it would make a negligible contribution to solving our fiscal crisis.

However, making it a "crime to shift cash overseas to avoid taxation" is a page out the totalitarian handbook well-worn by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, ... . It starts with the tacit communist axiom that all wealth belongs to the state (er, "the peepuhl"). Your sentiments continue to illuminate and confirm.

[Ben Emery]

The proposition initiative process is a way for very special interest to swindle the low information voters into voting against their own best interest. With the internet it is becoming harder to do, such as prop 23 and prop 16. But as prop 8 showed outside money and a wedge issue it still can be successful.

As for lobbyists in Washington it is the other way around. Our government is getting bigger due to the lobbyists influence. I did campaign to close the revolving door of government and private lobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIt9rNKvQl0

[Paul Emery]

Scott

"Paul - please give us the links to the predictions of these nations "nearing bankruptcy".

"Denmark is a country where the Peter/Paul Principle is firmly entrenched. Until they hit the wall - i.e. run out of other people's money - they are happy as clams."

"Tomorrow’s Denmark – Denmark is a typical EU country, that if it maintains its current public policies, is rushing headlong into a brick wall. It has an unsustainable economy, an unsustainable tax structure, and unsustainable demographics. Looking at the country’s current docility in the face of this is akin to the experience of someone falling off a very tall building – the view is great, weightlessness is comfortable, and the breeze is enjoyable. Denmark is quietly rushing into a brick wall, and they know it."

Rebane

Do you need more?

So although this region of the world which has the highest credit rating, lowest unemployment, highest satisfaction with their government and lowest corruption is, according to this forum, actually suffering under the tyranny of socialism and lack of freedom and will soon suffer the fate of totalitarian takeover.

The problem is that history does not show this evolution from countries with long standing history of freedom. Show me one, just one, Norway type country that slipped into this situation. This is a total fear based fabrication that cannot be sustained in an intelligent conversation.

Also show me one, just one, modern country (Asian city states not included) that are blossoming under the free trade, less regulation socialist free banner that you parade?
George

[Paul Emery]

Scott

Thanks for the Sweden link. What's happening there is a reasonable adjustment to changing economic times. However, nowhere do they plan to gut their social welfare systems.

[George Rebane]

PaulE, "... Norway type country ..."? - Greece, and a number of others to follow. Keep your eye on Europe.

"Blossoming" countries - I'll start with what America was as the greatest example and add to that the post-Renaissance Low Countries that made Europe into the world's richest continent.

Eliminating the top two, today's top economic rankings continue with Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland. All of these have had serious and economically tragic love affairs with socialism, and then returned control to its citizens (became more capitalistic) and witnessed economic rebirth. (Modestly, I throw Estonia into those rankings because its status as 14th out of 179 countries is especially noteworthy because of what it had to suffer under the USSR. But as a test case with the other two Baltics, Estonia stands out economically because of its unabashed adoption of the principles in Friedman's 'Free to Choose'.)

I think we've been around this barn a couple of times already, and I don't expect much progress. The world now is different than it was then, and we will always claim that the other is comparing apples to oranges. But the one thing I am sure of is that my 'fabricated fear' of the consequences of socialism and democracy is greater than your fear of any version of free market capitalism. (And yet in practice, you are one of the most ardent free market capitalists I am privileged to know. Go figger.)

[Michael Anderson]

So George...to what do you attribute Paul E.'s economic philosophy as he explicates it on this blog compared with how he behaves "on the ground?"

[Paul Emery]

Scott

Thanks for the Sweden link.
Fair enough. I don't deny the healthy tug and pull of private and government run services and adjustments in tax structures.

George
Europe and Greece have a long history of public demonstrations and disorder as an expression of dissatisfaction as does this country (Watts, Chicage '68). That is different that the bayonets in the street permanent totalitarian takeover that you vision.

The countries you cite all have government run "Socialistic" health care systems. There is not one modern country that I know of that has anything like the Republican free market system proposed.

Let's look at New Zealand's current health care system to start. We could be so lucky.

http://www.expatforum.com/articles/health/health-care-in-new-zealand.html

In New Zealand, the hospitals are publicly run and these offices treat citizens or permanent residents free of charge and are managed by District Health Boards. The current system subsidizes in health care and this system is funded by taxes. These services include free prescriptions and treatments at public hospitals, free x-rays and laboratory tests when carried out from public hospitals or clinics, free service charges for pregnant women, free dental care for children at school age, and free breast screenings for women aging fifty above......

Australia

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/healthcare.html

The Australian Government funds universal medical services and pharmaceuticals and gives financial assistance to public hospitals, residential aged care facilities and home and community care for the aged. It is also the major source of funds for health research and provides support for training health professionals and financial assistance to tertiary students.

State and territory governments provide a variety of direct health services, including most acute and psychiatric hospital services. State and territory governments also provide community and public health services, including school health, dental health, maternal and child health, occupational health, disease control activities and a variety of health inspection functions.

Switzerland

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

At first glance, Switzerland's health care system looks like it could be the perfect political compromise for the United States.

As Republicans would prefer, individuals — not employers or the government — choose from a broad array of health plans, sold by private insurance companies.

And as Democrats urge, everyone in Switzerland has health coverage (it's required by law), with the government providing generous subsidies for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

Estonia has a single payer insurance system

http://www.epsu.org/a/2242

The main source of health care finance are the public health insurance, accounting approximately 66% and people’s own contribution, 21% of total expenditure on health care over last years. Other public sources include state and municipal budgets, accounting approximately 8% and 2% of total health care expenditure respectively. So, health care in Estonia is mainly financed publicly.

[George Rebane]

MichaelA - your question is the perennial one. There are so many people who painlessly sport this dichotomy - intellectual socialist and practicing capitalist. I don't think there is one single answer or cause to this syndrome. For example, Warren Buffett most certainly arrived there on a path different from PaulE's - after all, there are many paths up any mountain.

Without intending to diminish the import of your question - for I believe it to be one of the fundamental quandries facing our country - I would be interested in your own answer to it. More so because you are an entrepreneur and independent businessman who is also a thinker concerned with public affairs and policies. And since you also have been known to exhibit this dichotomy (at least IMHO), you may be able to communicate how it all integrates into one coherent whole in your belief system.

And if this explication requires a more expansive format than is provided in these comments, I would be glad to post it as an essay on RR that would, no doubt, launch a very informative and revealing comment stream. This invitation is, of course, extended to PaulE. Please consider it.

[Paul Emery]

Michael

George may be referring to my observations of the Marijuana cultivation and distribution industry that adds so much to our local economy. I observe that due to the fact that it's illegal, it flourishes and has high profit margins because of the assumed manageable risk of illegality and the absence of taxation or regulation . Pure free enterprise that contributes millions to our local economy. The general lack of support from Conservatives for Prop 19 was greatly appreciated by those who thrive in the current situation.

[Paul Emery]

George

For the purposes of dialogue I will succumb to using the descripto "Socialism" to refer to government provided services and the taxation that funds those efforts. I think this has little to do with Marxism
which to me is the more precise reference to the word. The labeling of my beliefs as a dicatomy is your invention and works well because of your preference to organize ideas in carefully defined catagories that fit you're pre dedermined prophecies.

Maintaing a healthy balance of "socialism" and capitalism is a no brainer. That's why I look to the Scandanivian models as examples to be considered. We can however expand that list to include some of your favorites especially New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland and Estonia and observe to what extent they have maintained "Socialistic" systems of services and taxation despite what you describe as "serious and economically tragic love affairs with socialism..."

[George Rebane]

PaulE, in my attempt to use labels I try to be precise, and have written a piece on 'Who is a Socialist?'
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/07/who-is-a-socialist.html

I use it in that sense and invite criticism on my usage.

[Paul Emery]

So George under your definition is Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland Socialist countries on the path to Communism?

"Socialism is a form of governance that seeks as its endgame the state ownership of the means of production and distribution which it executes through a centralized process of planning and control. Socialism teaches that it can be achieved through a bit by piece transformation of capitalism, there need be no sudden overturn of the existing system or “basic character of the state”.

[Paul Emery]

grammar ...are.... Socialist countries

[George Rebane]

PaulE, I have no idea. But their state run programs seem to be gobbling up an ever greater fraction of their GDP. As the song says, 'Something's gotta give.'