Comments on: How to increase entrepreneurship

By: Mike W.

Mike W. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:35:42 +0000

ARRRRRGH!!! I just typed a well thought out comment that didn’t make it. I’ll just call you so we stop talking past each other on this.

By: Centrist

Centrist — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:34:29 +0000

So the ideal is a completely righteous anarchy? Not on this planet. Until we have a WHOLE lot more righteousness, anarchy will breed injustice. On the other hand, so does government. I think that, until this world is ruled by a perfect Sovereign, the least of all evils will be a government that knows where to draw the line. This is the essence of politics–where does the line go (oh, and how much money and power can I grab in the process).

In order for our government to draw the best lines, we need wise representatives and a lot of oversight by the people. Unfortunately, we have neither.

By: Mike W.

Mike W. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:48:42 +0000

One potential shift that would allow for government to be more willing to give back power (or push to a level closer to the sovereign people) would be hard term limits to eliminate the career politician. That way they wouldn’t have interest in protecting their office and would just do the right thing for the people.

By: Mike W.

Mike W. — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 12:46:33 +0000

The problem, then, is that I don’t know of anytime in the history of government when it has voluntarily given back power to the people or to the lower level of government. That’s is why I am hesitant to use government to do what is “expedient” because it will never (at least to this point) give the power back. And when a government increases in power and force, freedom decreases.

By: Centrist

Centrist — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:49:06 +0000

I agree completely. But it’s the only just thing that can be done NOW while we wait for the movement to move. When I get elected, I’ll try to push everything possible one level lower: federal to state, state to county, county to city, city to neighborhood, neighborhood to HOA (just kidding–then we’re right back where we started).

I bought Resurrection; I’m going to start it after I finish the three I’m currently reading.

By: Mike W.

Mike W. — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:40:02 +0000

My concern is that everything we hand over to the government then has the force of jail and guns behind it. I agree that the selfishness that accompanies many conservative ideals is very problematic. I just don’t see turning the administration of things over to the one entity that can through me in jail for not complying. Much better (in my opinion) but also messier and slower moving and more painful is a movement that actually encourages and promotes (in specific ways) methods by which we as individuals, families, and communities can take care of each other rather than inviting the federal government into everything.

Please read Resurrection. It will help you understand where I’m coming from.

Also, this quote from George Washington regarding government is interesting:

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!”

En fin, I agree with you about the serious problems we face. I disagree that government in possession of force is the best solution.

By: Centrist

Centrist — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:27:05 +0000

Why do people hold to the idea that paying for all the healthcare needs of our country will cost more than paying for all the healthcare needs of our country + corporate profits, management retreats, dividends, etc.? The total sum of the country’s payments for healthcare will NOT increase–in fact it will decrease because 1) people will be more likely to see their physicians earlier and more frequently, and 2) people will be less likely to use the ER for non-emergencies. We’re already paying HMOs what we would otherwise pay in taxes.

Some people may see this as a “why am I paying for all the sick people” deal (until they get sick), but it’s the same argument as for a socialized fire department, police force, education, etc. All our most basic needs are “socialized”: roads, education, fire response, police, military, but not healthcare. I think healthcare belongs in that group.

It’s for the greater good. From a heartless economic perspective a healthier population is a more “productive” and “efficient” workforce. There are a lot of very money-smart copmanies that spend budget for crazy things like in-house daycare, health-club memberships, flu shots, etc.; Why? Because it’s an investment that yields a financial return.

Do you think that taxes for healthcare would be significantly higher than insurance premiums, for individuals or companies? I don’t. I think that a single-payor system would be no moe expensive, and maybe less so, than our current system.

By: Mike W.

Mike W. — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:13:46 +0000

I agree that much of the apprehension about starting a new business venture is the concern about health care. The question is, Dave, how are you going to fund the single-payor system? It will require a large increase in taxes, which already hit the middle class significantly. It seems that your idea will just move money around, and instead of the small business owner buying his own health insurance and that of his/her employees, he/she will be paying higher taxes.

I don’t have the answer, but I just don’t think that it automatically follows that providing universal health care will make it easier on small business owners. The tax burden may become too onerous; some small business owners already claim it is there.