Don't Give Big Insurance What it Wants

The biggest mistake Republicans can make at this point is to fall for the line that big insurance will join in the effort to repeal Obamacare.

ObamaCare is manna from heaven as far as big insurance is concerned. The program centralizes regulation of insurance is a group of captured federal regulatory agencies (opposed to dispersed regulatory authority among the states). Above all, it does the incredible. It makes buying insurance mandatory ... which relieves insurance from competition of self-funded care (which erodes profits).

From the perspective of big insurance, the only downside to Obamacare is that it's administered by people hostile to big profits. The ideal world for big insurance would be for neocons to take over the administration of insurance and for idiot Republicans to allow big insurance to sell products across state lines ... which would lead to even greater consolidation of the industry.

Those wishing to repeal Obamacare must realize that big insurance is the enemy of reform.

To preserve our freedoms, the repeal of Obamacare must focus on strengthening local control and providing alternatives to insurance.

Strengthening local control means continuing the tradition that insurance can't sell across state borders. It also means created mechanisms for self-funded care that can compete against insurance.

Redistributive Justice

The concept of redistributive justice is a self-destructive logical fallacy, as the act of taking with the purpose of redistributing is itself an act of injustice.

Proponents of redistributive justice often favor large centralized states to do the redistribution. The process of centralization has the effect of concentrating wealth which is counter to the stated claim of redistribution.

The modern mind loves the paradoxical nature of slogans like "Redistributive Justice." However, such concepts have the effect of undermining society and leading to conflict as the people redistributed from get reduced to subsistence.

Institutionalized injustice does not create a higher state of justice.

Redistributive Justice and Insurance

We tend to associate the term redistributive justice with socialists desiring a totalitarian state. The concept of redistributive justice is as problematic in the private sector.

The insurance industry sells products that are supposed to result in redistributive justice. We buy into a pool. That pool then redistributes the health care resources to those in need.

The actuality of insurance is that, by placing everyone's health care resources into a pool, the industry effectively concentrates wealth and decreases access of care to those outside the pool.

As insurance companies transformed our health care system into monopolies, we find millions of people underserved by their toxic products.

A private industry hawking paradoxes as a product can do as much damage to a society as a government hawking paradoxes.

If we want to preserve our freedom and prosperity we need to create alternatives to insurance and government controlled health care ... such as the Medical Savings and Loan. (NOTE, as there is a high default rate on loans in the medical savings and loan, the system does redistribute resources from well to ill. The system is not built on the concept of redistributive justice.)

States Don't Have Rights, States Have Powers

The following is an open letter to Thomas E. Woods, author of Nullification (buy at Overstock.com)

Dear Mr. Woods,

I enjoyed watching a zombie pick your brains during your YouTube interview.

I agree with your assessment that we are being played for suckers. I hope that distinguished scholars, such as yourself, will work diligently to counter the manipulation of our language by the left.

A month ago I was trying to argue the cause of States Rights and was immediately labeled a "neoconfederate-racist."

While posting the wording of the Tenth Amendment the umpteenth time, it dawned on me: States don't have "rights" they have powers.

I am now curious about the origin and usage of the term "States Rights."

As you are more learned and have access to better resources than me, I would be honored if you took time out of your busy schedule to address this very important distinction.

My research of the Founders indicates that they created a multidimensional political structure where the people had rights. The States and Federal Governments had limited powers.

If this is true, then the slogan "States Rights" is antithetical to the Constitution. Advocates of limited government run the risk of undermining their cause if they use the loaded term "States Rights."

If what I believe is true, and the slogan "States Rights" is paradoxical creation of the enemies of limited government, then proponents of nullification need to strike the term from their lexicon and actively challenge its use by emphasizing "States don't have rights, only people have rights. The Constitution grants limited power to the different levels of government."

Nullified by a Zombie

In the work Nullification (buy at Overstock.com), Thomas E Woods advocates that states use nullification to check the powers of the Federal Government. He makes the inplausible argument that abolitionists used nullification to fight fugitives slave laws and was, more often than not, used to protect rights of the people when the Federal Government steps out of bounds.

Of course all that we learn of the powers of the states is that, prior to the Civil Rights Movement, the supporters of segregation and Jim Crow laws made appeals to "States' Rights." (PS, the states' rights slogan is an absurdity, state's have limited powers, not rights)

In the video, Thomas Woods areguments are shredded by a zombie who points out that Thomas Woods is clearly a neoconfederate, racist supporter of slavery.

I wondered if the zombie is Jason The. Mr. The loves to point at people and make irrelevant and unfounded accusations.

In conclusion, Thomas Woods is a racist neocofederate who seeks to use nullification to counter the centralized government.

Consensus Building Judge

The accusations that Supreme Court Nominee doctored memos from doctors to frame the partial birth abortion debate in ways favorable to Bill Clinton's position are important, and should be investigated in the Supreme Court hearings.

The thing I disliked most about my education was the professoriat was teaching students how to frame arguments to fit leftist ideology instead of teaching us ways to challenge all ideas in the pursuit of truth.

If it is true that Kagan changed wording on an opinion of a group of doctors to support a political opinion then, in my opinion, she disqualified herself for a position on the Supreme Court.

While this process of framing issues for political ends is the style for common discourse, the Supreme Court needs people striving to engage in a higher form of discourse.

I suspect that what we see on the Internet on this topic is largely partisan hot air. So, I wish to use the accusation to lead into a different plaint.

So far, in his two Supreme Court nominations, President Obama led into the nomination by listing attributes that really were not conducive for a Supreme Court nonimation. The Sotomayor nomination praised Sotomayor for her empathy. This is a wonderful attribute for a local judge or lawmaker ... but not for the Supreme Court which is the one court that deals with laws at an abstract level.

For the Kagan nomination, Obama praised the candidate for consensus building. The ability to build consensus is an admirable attribute and useful for many political posts from legislation to administration. However, the attribute is not as valuable to Supreme Court where people are looking for clarity in both the minority and majority opinions of the court.

Having a great consensus on the court could even harm the court as opinions might be written as a compromise or with an eye toward framing a political debate rather than as an attempt to clarify to the legal community a legal opinion.

The stuff coming out of the Supreme Court is supposed to be dry, boring legal analysis and not political copy or campaign material.

Having empathy or being able to build consensus are wonderful things, but they are not attributes that are most important for the job at hand.

Why does Obama praise nominees for attributes that are not central for the job?

A good administration is someone who understands the attributes needed for different positions and appoints people with those attributes to the position. So I am dumbfounded each time I listen to Obama nominations.

Contrast v. Dichotomy

The last post might appear hypocritical to some. I say that, to counter the Marxian dictomy between the worker and owner, one should contrast the difference between a union and a professional society.

It appears that I am trying to replace one dichotomy with another.

The post is a good example of difference between contrasting and dichotomizing.

Drawing up a contrast between two ideas is not a bad thing. We humans perceive things through contrasts. We build our understanding by drawing contrasts between things.

The goal of my last post was to draw up a contrast between professional societies and unions. Both structures are member organizations designed for the benefit of workers. The two organizations share many things in common. For example, both structures provide educational opportunaty and career services for members.

The similarities between the two structures are well and good. In my article, I wished to bring up the differences between the structures.

The primary focus of the professional society is advancing the career of the individual professional. The focus of the union is the creation of a political force for collective bargaining in a perceived conflict between workers and management.

The contrast between professional societies and unions leads immediately into a conversation about the focus of the two groups and how the focus plays out. One has a focus on the career of the individual professional and tends toward decentralization. The other has a focus on creating a political force for collective bargaining and tends to industry centralization.

The contrast between these two structures allows us to talk about how different political structures play out in society at large.

The process of dichotomizing happens when one seeks to build a conflict into the structure of the system. I've been using the term "Foundational Dialectics to describe the process.

Unions were built around the idea that there is a fundamental conflict between workers and management. This perceived conflict is the central organizing force of the union.

The fact that professional societies and unions have a different focus is not fundamental to either the professional society or the union. The contrast simply allows us to talk about the difference between the two structures.

The perceived conflict between workers and management is central to unions.

People join professional societies as the see the membership organization as a way to advance their career. People join unions to create a political force in a struggle against management.

In our contrast of unions and professional societies, we find that unions were built on the perception of a central conflict, while professional societies were not.

Paradoxically, unions were constructed with the purpose of uniting one class (the worker) against another class (management). The effect of unionized unification is a deeper division.

Notably, the contrast between unions and professional societies provides a way to talk about the different ways of organizing society. Professional societies fall within the classical liberal view. Unions are a products of the paradox ridden modern world view.

Workers of the World, UNTIE!

The extremes gains power by magnifying conflicts and division.

One of the best ways to create deep divisions is to unify segments of society against each other.

Modern thinkers love the paradox that they can create division by projecting an image of unity. Uniting "us" against "them" is an act of division, despite the fact that speaker uses the term "unity."

The master of the left, Karl Marx, ended his manifesto with the immortal words: "Workers of the world unite." Marx's goal was to gain power by uniting the working class against the middle class in a peoples struggle. Marx's unity built totalitarian dictatorships that led to hundreds of millions dead and untold suffering.

Despite the widespread devastation of Marx's dialectics, the modern left is still drunk with the power gained through the promotion of class division.

Nowhere is that seen clearer than in the union movement which seeks to pit workers in a class struggle against management.

The shrill debate about unions generally centers on the conflict between workers and owners.

The claim of the union is that workers must unite into a centralized political force to counter the evil owners. The interesting effect of this centralized collective bargaining is that business must consolidate to counter the influence of the powerful centralized union. This effectively shuts down the mobility between worker and owners.

There are, of course, evil business owners who love the process of unionization. Business tycoons use the centralizing force of unionization to consolidate industries and to shut out competition. Business tycoons also benefit from the shutting down of social mobility as this process establishes the tycoon as the upper class.

There are big elite business owners who feed on the division created by the unionization process.

The long term result of unionization is a system with big powerful union bosses, big powerful tycoons, and a diminished worker.

The unions, of course, are working on a false dichotomy. There is generally a mutually beneficial symbiotic relation between the different parts of a business.

The conflict between worker and owner is really a chimera.

Workers own their labor and should be looking for ways to build equity in their careers. The owners usually work really hard, often alongside the other workers. Usually owners work for the mutual benefit of themselves and others with a stake in the business.

Combating Unions

As with all of the false dichotomies presented by Marx's Material Dialectics, one cannot combat the thesis by arguing the anti-thesis.

For the people who love freedom to counter the divisiveness and political centralization that results from unions, they must take a different path.

The different path realizes that good business develops healthy symbiotic relations between all of the players in the business. Workers, business owners are customers are all engaged in a mutually beneficial process.

Rather than rallying against the abuses of big unions and big business, the defenders of freedom must approach the problem from the side and develop working alternatives to unions.

The Professional Society

A professional society is a member owned organization that works to advance the careers of its members. A professional society provides educational resources, counseling, coaching and employment resources.

A professional society sees its members as a vibrant whole beings who own their own labor and talents and who reinvest their labor and talents for to benefit of the profession and society at large. As such, professional societies should actively work to help members become the next generation of owners.

Unlike unions that magnify class division, professional societies actively promote social mobility.

Professional Societies v. Unions

Rather than arguing for business against unions, the defenders of freedom should argue for professional societies against unions.

Unions were built on the Marxian notion that society advances through class struggles and that workers must have a big centralized political entity in the peoples struggle against business owners.

The centralization of big labor leads to a reactionary centralization of big business.

Professional societies realize that everyone is an owner and that there is a symbiotic relation between businesses and the professionals within the business.

As professional societies coach members through their careers, they help encourage the process of social mobility, which has been a hallmark of the American free society.

The centralization created by the collective bargaining process effectively alienates the individual worker and magnifies divisions within society. This effectively reduces social mobility.

Unions as Professional Societies

I should emphasize that there is not an absolute dichotomy between professional societies and unions. Unions ofter work as professional societies providing training and resources to its members. Professional societies often work in setting professional standards and often end up involved in wage negotiation.

Professional societies can end up being every bit as oppressive and top heavy as the unions.

Rather than promoting the idea that there is a dichotomy between professional societies and unions, it really is better to imagine there being a scale that runs from the idea of promoting individual careers on the right to the establishment of a centralized power base on the left.

The ideal professional society dedicated to providing career enhancing resources to its members sits on the right. The ideal of a powerful union engaged in collective bargaining sits on the left.

Conclusion

Unions were built to magnify the division between labor and business. Unfortunately, one cannot counter this centralization process by taking the side of business. Effort to argue the anti-thesis simply amplifies the thesis/anti-thesis conflict.

To counter the ill effects of unions, one needs to promote an alternatives to unions. The most effective alternative is the professional society. To save our free society, we must create institutions and small businesses that help individuals achieve their career goals as individuals.

We need to reject the false dichotomies of the left. One does not advance the cause of social justice through the creation of intellectually dishonest centralized political groups. One advances social justice by building a strong free society.

One does not create unity by uniting people against each other. One creates unity by creating structures that advance all people in society. To truly achieve social justice, we should reject the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" and adopt the slogan "Workers of the world, untie!"

Breaking the Cycle

The last post spoke about the symbiotic relation between big law, big insurance and big politics.

There are many different ways one can proceed from that post.

The radical left is interested in engineering fundamental change. As such, they are dedicated to perpetuating the cycle. They attack insurance companies but oddly end up creating political structures which feed even more wealth and power into insurance.

The reactionary right, of course, argues on behalf of big insurance against big law ... getting all sorts of contributions in payment for the effort.

The people on the outside of the system get squished.

The people who wish to maintain their freedom must find a different path from the radical left and reactionary right.

My solution to the problem of Big Insurance is the Medical Savings and Loan.

I am completely distraught. The left/right dichotomy, which dominates politics, has completely shut out the discussion of real solutions.

The Republicans that are ascending in reaction to Obama seem poised to argue for big insurance and not for a solution.

Big Law and Big Insurance

Big law often sues big insurance for big bucks.

Apparently, these big lawsuits have many convinced that big law is there to protect the little people from the abuses of big insurance.

Such thoughts are a big mistake.

A better way to understand this system is to follow the big money.

When there is a big lawsuit with a big claim, a big money moves from big insurance to big law. Big insurance then runs back to the small business and exclaims: "Did you see that big lawsuit? We have to raise your premiums."

In this system, big law gets bigger. Big insurance gets bigger, and small business gets smaller.

There is a symbiotic relation between big insurance and big law.

From the perspective of big law, insurance is manna from heaven. It turns out that, since people are silly emotional creatures, it is really easy to win a big lawsuit.

The difficulties lie in collecting money. It is difficult to collect money from people who don't want to pay up.

Let's say a baby dies during a difficult birth. An empathetic judge and jury will want to award the grieving parents something. No parent should lose a child!

An expensive haired lawyer putting on a good show will jerk tears from the jury and win big bucks in the settlement.

The lawsuit is easy. The problem is that obstetricians don't like paying up. Even worse, people really like baby doctors and will side with the doctor when it comes time to pay.

Big insurance changes this equation. They have big pockets and are happy to pay the settlement as they are able to charge the settlement back through to all doctors.

So, by playing the submissive whipping boy, big insurance creates a mechanism that allows big law to collect the big money (keeping a percent for their efforts).

The final character in the big money show is big politics. Big politics takes money from big insurance and big law. In return, big law passes regulations designed to keep the pot stirring.

And so the symbiotic relation between big law, big insurance and big politics creates a mechanism that brings immense wealth to the few, while impoverishing the many.

Conservatives Undermining Conservatism

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote a fun little thesis in college titled "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933" which examined how the socialist movement in the United States undermined its own interests. The article ends with a fun little twist on "Workers of the World Unite":

"Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope."

I was in school just a few years after Kagan. The professoriat asked me to write up essays on how to revive the socialist movement and on ways to undermining the free market and American Republic. The standard conclusion was that the best path to restoring socialism was to infiltrate and undermine.

The first goal was to infiltrate the schools with gatekeepers and ideological enforcers stationed throughout the university and public schools. The second step was to encourage the development of financial tools SUCH AS EMPLOYER BASED INSURANCE that centralized the market and created systemic risks.

If the progressives could just avoid undermining their own cause, the United States would be theirs for the taking in a few decades.

These last few decades have been a horrible thing to watch as conservatives blindly sat by as the traps were set.

It is great that the excesses of Obama, Pelosi and Reid have ignited a fire under the feet of conservatives, but unless conservatives realize the nature of the traps set for them, they are apt to become their own worse enemies.

We have reached a point in this country where defending freedom requires more than just hot air from Conservatives. We need people to sit down (in the same fashion as Elena Kagan and the professoriat) and ask the tough questions about the things we do that undermine our freedoms and how to rebuild our social institutions in ways that prevent them from being infilitated and turned against us.

We cannot regain our freedoms with the same underhanded techniques used by the left to oppress freedom. But, with strong attentiveness to the foundations of discourse and logic, those wishing to preserve a free society could reignite the discourse of liberty.