Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez is a result of Trump

Calling it Good Governance, and leaving it at that is a cop out.

One might say that Obama was good governance. Therefore, lets give this good governance ALL the regulatory power we can. Obama is good governance and he will take care of us from cradle to grave. We will submit ourselves to this government more than Muslims submit themselves to Allah. But then we have an election, and uh oh, the people voted the wrong way! Now we have Trump ! Seemed like such a good idea to give the governing body so much regulatory authority when the government was good, now it's not boo hoo.

You see, the first problem is that in democracy, sometimes the populace makes horrible voting decisions, and elected leaders are corruptible.

Therefore my definition of "Good Governance" is a government big enough to enforce certain laws, borders, and offer some protection against aggressors. But small enough to subdue in a shallow puddle of water when it steps out of line.

 

I doubt that. A lot has changed since 1950 besides regulation. The population has about doubled, as has the percentage of folks 65 and over. So has average life expectancy, from 68 to almost 78. Most of us wouldn't want to reverse those trends, but they do put a strain on medical resources that require some changes from your grandpa's time. Adults 65 and older are expected to outnumber children for the first time in 2035--not as a result of government regulation but as a result of good ol' sex, as Americans cut loose from post-World War II austerity and produced the Baby Boomers. More old folks presents a demographic your grandpa didn't have to deal with. The increased population with varied ailments stimulated the demand for more physicians and especially more specialties and sub specialties, which grew from a few dozen in your grandfather's day to over 150 today. And they are better trained with more years of medical schooling than was typical in 1950. The rise of high priced specialists created new markets for medical malpractice lawyers, which in turn, created new markets for medical malpractice insurance. Medical technology has also changed considerably since your grandfather's time, when X-rays were just starting to become common and CAT scans, MRI's and chemotherapy were still unknown. The new technology and better trained medical specialists caused the price of medical care to skyrocket and stimulated the demand for insurance. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1200478 The private insurance companies, as businesses, want to make sure the care is cost-effective, hence the imposition of standards as preconditions for payment. We could smash those machines, but do we really want to?

Enter the politicians, with those laws you talk about: Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA. All three were responses to medical costs soaring beyond the reach of many Americans. Physicians screamed Socialism, Communism! but came to adjust to the New World Order. After all the railing about Obamacare, Republicans are finding out that voters really don't seem to want to go back. Paul Ryan has set the stage for renewed assault on Medicare and Medicaid by increasing the deficit to fund his tax cut for the corporations and billionaires, but Medicare has been called the "Third Rail" of U.S. politics, so we'll see how that turns out. And yes, the requirements of ICD coding, medical protocols, and electronic medical records have added greatly to the tasks of being a physician and driven many into becoming hospital employees and letting the hospital administrators take care of it all. There are always tradeoffs with regulation, that must be balanced against the tradeoffs of deregulation.

The late Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning fanatical libertarian economist, made a case for abolishing the Food and Drug Administration. Ordinary folks might think the Food and Drug Administration is a good thing, because it protects us from E.coli in our hamburgers and thalidomide in our medicine cabinets. Most people thought it was a regulatory victory when a sharp-eyed regulator at the FDA spotted the danger of thalidoimide being given as a tranquilizer for pregnant women and yanked it off the market just in time to avoid the catastrophe encountered in Europe of kids being born without limbs. Not Friedman, who argued with a straight face that regulating food and drugs was worse than no regulation at all, because government regulators are inherently too risk aversive. For every E.Coli epidemic avoided or potential thalidomide victim spared the crippling birth defects, there would be even more people suffering from ill effects because of some wonder drug blocked by the FDA from coming onto the market. To which, Princeton economist Paul Krugman says horse feathers. Market forces alone can't protect consumers because producers and consumers are in an asymmetric relationship in terms of information about food quality--consumers holding the short end of the stick. And the argument goes on. All policy decisions about regulation involve trade offs. Striking the right balance is always a challenge, especially in light of unforeseeable consequences. Abolishing meat inspections and the FDA are measures I think few of us non-economists are ready for. I'm sure there are plenty of ethical meat merchants and drug manufacturers who wouldn't think of selling unsafe products to the public, just as your grandfather wouldn't think of neglecting or overcharging his patients. But there are enough scoundrels who would that most of us feel better with the regs.

 

So you cry foul and accuse me of painting all leftists with the same brush... but then...

You paint Nazis and right wing libertarians with the same brush here..... What gives?

Yeah, Hitler was all about the non-aggression principle, wasn't he?

 

a gazillion videos out there showing what kind of dumb blundering she idiot is..

 

Libertarians aren't about the Non-Aggression Principle either, except as a rhetorical device for rationalizing their claims to protection from taxation and regulation. Libertarian professor Matt Zwolinski acknowledges its practical inconsistencies, and that it can work against the greatest good for the greatest number by protecting billionaires from minimal taxes and regulation. I think the Hitler connection is stretching it, but the Non-Aggression Principle offers empty words to protect us from dog-eat-dog capitalism.

 

She is a total airhead who is completely unable to articulate on anything she claims to stand for, but who cares... she is an attractive female minority, and you are just a bigoted white male. You do not matter.

 

Everything is fucking stupid.

 

Hitler was a government-eat-jew socialist

 

Serious but sarcastic question...

Why don't you people who support Ocasio-Chavez just move to Venezuela?

You people who promote socialism sicken me to the very core, as socialism has brought nothing but suffering and death to the world.

 

Why not move to Venezuela? Are things that bad? Probably not. And if they are, I could die instead of living in fucking America with all of its useless bullshit.

 

Durdur WhY dONt YoU cOmMiES mOvE tO VEnEzUeLA

Lol pr thinks he's an original thinker

 

She really is amazing giving it her best Tony Montana

 

Mel

Oh I heartily agree that they are not important, but it is a lot of fun, please Mel please let me play with the toys. I promise to be serious tomorrow.

Love

Balbus

 

6

Sorry but it’s you that has the bigger reputation for bitching, moaning, been huffy and running away.

SO once again we have been through all this and I’ve given my solutions a few times – these have included education, a universal healthcare system and regulation of the food industry, I could go on and on but what is the point you clearly took no note of what I said the last few times so why would you now?

I went and had a look and your stance doesn’t seem to have change much it still seems based on fat shaming just of a lesser intensity than you did before.

 

6

LOL – but it’s you that is constantly finding things to be offended by and who seems constantly outraged by it.

As I’ve you seem to be the least self-aware person I’ve meet in many years

I mean I could write a long list of all the things you have been outraged by

You are the thing you claim to hate.

 

6

Sorry but you clearly haven’t understood anything that’s been explained to you in relation to good governance, we have been over it a few times did you never take notice of what was been said?

It not about the size of the government – in what way do you think the size of the government will dictate if that governments laws and governance will be good for and help the people it is governing over?

 

6

Again we have been through this and again you clearly didn’t understand what was been said.

To repeat I’m saying that in policy terms the Nazis and right wing libertarians are very much not the same - but that 1) their methodology in trying to spread their ideology is similar 2) they both are based on social Darwinist type thinking with the Nazis emphasis been on race while the right wing libertarians been more about economics.

As to the non-aggression principle again that has been covered at length the last time I posted something on it was in a thread you ran away from but I’ll print it again for you.

 

Libertarianism and the non-aggression principle

It is hard to talk of libertarianism in an American context because most of the people in the US that call themselves ‘libertarian’ are actually right wing libertarians.

As I’ve pointed out on many occasions there are actually many forms of libertarianism. Now as I understand it left leaning libertarianism is all about helping others and so is very much in favour of types of equal, mutual and distributive societies, places where there is education and healthcare for all for example. It has an emphasis not only on individual freedom but also social equality.

Right wing libertarianism on the other seems to base its thinking more on Social Darwinist lines and is therefore more about helping one’s self, helping others is secondary at best or unimportant.

Individuals have to ‘fight for themselves’ and inequality along with the holding and accumulating of resources for purely individual usage is accepted if not encouraged. This also means that the exploitation and suffering of others who are less advantaged than others is also accepted in a system that would actually promote it.

For left wing libertarians it is about freedom from exploitation, freedom from suffering, and freedom from want.

And this is where we come to the non-aggression principle that is talked about by right wing libertarian like 6.

This is basically the idea of doing no harm.

The problem to me with the non-aggression principle in relation to right wing libertarianism is that the ideology is all about doing harm to others.

It is basically about having access to resources - if you haven’t the access to resources or are unable to get them then you suffer even unto death.

Have no work then starve, don’t have the money for a cure then suffer and die and the ideology also makes it more difficult to get out of being disadvantaged by making access to education and training also linked to resources.

An individual right wing libertarian might not be directly causing another individual harm but would however like to cause that harm thought the ideology they follow.

So to me when such people talk of the non-aggression principle it comes across as a bit of a sick joke.

For right wing libertarians it is about freedom to be exploited, freedom to suffering, and freedom to want even unto death.

 

O

But the question is could YOU defend those videos from criticism in an actual debate?

 

Rat

And that’s the problem with many on the right they are fuelled by hatred rather than rational and reasonable argument - that’s why they never seem able to address the many outstanding criticisms of their ideas in any rational or reasonable way.

LOL and you are so grounded with your beliefs that a secret cable of left wingers (and possible Satan worshippers) are conspiring to take over the world and bring about a tyrannical New World Order.

Oh that’s not airheaded at all.