The Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan???

[Menace Wilson]

I thought their friendships with John Stamos or the Captain and Tennille were cringeworthy enough but the Reagans???  The Beach Boys as right-wingers just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

 

It would seem like these guys were completely open about their respect for Reagan (just like the worst of the Republicans)

Can we just blame Mike Love (which is always the easiest way out)?

All from the initial post.  This thread was never on the rails to begin with.

By the way, I'd be willing to bet that roughly half of BBs fans are conservatives.    Hope this doesn't throw anyone into an existential panic.

[Jason]

Depends how you define conservatism.

I identify as a classical liberal, socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That is more in line with true conservatism than any modern-day conservatism, which is just the center-right trying to be the new radicals.

[Alex]

That $700 billion TARP bailout went into the American public debt. That's not capitalism; that's socialism. .

It's certainly not free-market capitalism, but I wouldn't call it socialism. "State capitalism" would be a somewhat more appropriate term. "Socialism" is when the proletariat/working class/99% rise up and seize control of the means of production from the bourgeois/capitalist class/1%. True socialism is a bottom-up phenomenon, and in theory would only work properly if the entire world went socialist. And I doubt that will be happening any time soon. (Cue the good ol' "What is human nature?" debate.) The USSR and "Red" China were/are socialist in name only.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

By the way, I'd be willing to bet that roughly half of BBs fans are conservatives.    Hope this doesn't throw anyone into an existential panic.

I have to agree with The Real Beach Boy's response on this. The fact is that the term "conservative" has been hijacked by the current wave of the Republican party. In reality, Republicans do not represent true conservative values. Many of these values date back to figures like Adam Smith. As I noted Adam Smith is often credited as the creator of free market capitalism but, much like 20th Century Russian communists who were supposed to revere Marx but not read him, contemporary capitalist-enthusiasts are likewise not meant to read Smith. If they did, they would see one of the most important conservative points being articulated. Namely, Smith concludes that capitalist division of labor would lead man to become "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible to become for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life." For Smith, and most conservatives of his day, the primary importance was liberty and freedom - the ability to control your own life. What Smith ultimately recognized in The Wealth of Nations was that capitalism would reduce those possibilities leading man to lose control, becoming "stupid and ignorant" because, as he said, " those who live by labour, that is, ...the great body of people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two" - namely, serving the interests of the owners, meaning a total lack of real freedom and liberty. This is why, ultimately, the first Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln who, in fact, did represent true conservative values deplored what they called wage slavery - or what is now otherwise known as the capitalist system that is fiercely protected by people who claim to be conservatives.

In this regard, I would say that I am far more able to say that I base a lot of my views on conservatism than most people who name themselves Republicans since the party is about as far from conservatism as one could possibly be.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That $700 billion TARP bailout went into the American public debt. That's not capitalism; that's socialism. .

It's certainly not free-market capitalism, but I wouldn't call it socialism. "State capitalism" would be a somewhat more appropriate term. "Socialism" is when the proletariat/working class/99% rise up and seize control of the means of production from the bourgeois/capitalist class/1%. True socialism is a bottom-up phenomenon, and in theory would only work properly if the entire world went socialist. And I doubt that will be happening any time soon. (Cue the good ol' "What is human nature?" debate.) The USSR and "Red" China were/are socialist in name only.

Exactly, check out my post on the previous page.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Others can do it better, but let me give the semi-abridged version:

A lot of this was blown waaayyyy out of proportion. Leave it to the political scholars to argue that one on the how's and why's, but the version(s) some in this thread are reading isn't 100% accurate.

Ronald Reagan didn't ban the Beach Boys from anything. They played the show in 1981 and again in 1984. That should be the end of the story. But here's the rest:

James Watt was Reagan's Secretary Of The Interior, a cabinet position. One of his duties was to oversee the national parks and facilities, including the concerts held on those grounds. In 1981, The Beach Boys played. In 1982, The Grass Roots played, and Watt's office received complaints about drug use, assaults, and an increase in people treated for drug- and alcohol-related health emergencies and injuries that day. A group of a few hundred people there staged a smoke-in supporting legalizing pot at the show.

Watt is/was an unabashed conservative - apart from hearing reports of both the usual booze-fueled idiots and intoxicated concertgoers making it hard for families to enjoy the show, his solution was to write a memo in late 1982 about "attracting families" and offering "patriotic and inspirational" entertainment at the July 4th concerts in the future, in response and reaction to the complaint and the stats he received about intoxication and assaults at the Grass Roots show. It was his response - agree or disagree, he wanted to make the concert more family friendly in response to complaints on his desk.

According to Watt, he or his staff never mentioned the Beach Boys by name, never banned them or anyone, and says when he wrote that memo, the Beach Boys had not been booked for the concert that next year (1983). What turned into a media firestorm which saw him being called out and his resignation being demanded was based on hearsay and lies, and the assumption he "meant" The Beach Boys despite not naming them because they played in 1981 - ignoring The Grass Roots concert completely. Again, Watt claims his memo (the one reported on in the news of the day) did not mention the Beach Boys, they had not been booked for the 1983 show, and he was responding to the happenings at the 1982 concert where the BB's did not play. And he was almost publicly destroyed once the rock community picked this up from the print media, I believe the Washington Post ran the initial story in print.

Now going through the how's and why's that memo got turned into headlines saying Watt "banned" the Beach Boys from the DC concerts and in this thread how Reagan "banned" the Beach Boys...that's getting into political stuff, left-versus-right, and I don't wanna go there...here.

So what happened? Watt was publicly made a scapegoat, you see footage of him accepting a "foot in the mouth" award from Reagan in the "American Band" video along with a completely phony news voiceover describing the so-called "facts" of the story, along with video of the BB's hanging out with Ron and Nancy Reagan. It was a horrible PR move to alienate a few million potential voters in the year before an election year, especially with a band as American as the BB's, and Reagan and his advisers were trying to smooth things out by becoming strong champions and friends of the Beach Boys as "America's Band". That's politics, right and left. Whether the band goes along with it is their right as a citizen to believe what they choose. If Mike liked hanging with the Reagans, if he found them nice people or whatever else, that's his business. Don't hold it against the music if you don't like Reagan.

What the Reagan White House did with the BB's is called damage control; politics is nasty and they have to protect the guys at the top by throwing underlings under the bus, making scapegoats out of names the general public barely knows.

Am I defending James Watt? Whatever one wants to think - I'm just offering up his version of the story, which I think is crucial to telling the whole story for the sake of history. Maybe Watt is covering his own a**, again judge for yourself after reading more on this.

But Reagan didn't ban anything, let's set that straight and bust the myth, and it would appear the guy who got blamed for it didn't ban anything either, despite news reports which created the firestorm.

If anyone has more insider info or can clarify any points above, please do!

Kim Fowley claims that President Reagan actually liked The Beach Boys...and that Ron & Nancy also liked the band 'Sparks' enough to attend one of their Southern California concerts in the 80s.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Don't forget Rick santorum and his plans for an American theocracy.

I've already forgotten him.

[GreatUrduPoet]

A good 99% of the clowns in the Republican Party are liberals in Republican suits who want more war, more taxes, more spending, more government, more intrusions. Rick Santorum is certainly among them.

The only man who works within and builds upon the actual credentials that the Republican Party was founded upon, like it or not, is Ron Paul. And he scares the living hell out of the establishment. As great as it would be to see him win the election (and he's the only member of the GOP who stands a snowball's chance in hell against Obama), the man has so many people against him, ranging from the media, the Mittens/Newt the Reptile/Tricky Ricky fanboys, and guilty white liberals who are allegedly so anti-racist (but will cry "n*****" if pushed hard enough). And even if he were to be elected, I'd half-expect him to be assassinated by some radical member of AIPAC or the Mossad.

I like his son Rand Paul better. He's got his daddy's Constitutional values but isn't a senile, anti-Semetic old coot.

[Jason]

Explain how Ron Paul is an antisemite. And don't say it's because he wants to cut aid to Israel, because he wants to cut all foreign aid.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Explain how Ron Paul is an antisemite. And don't say it's because he wants to cut aid to Israel, because he wants to cut all foreign aid.

Hard to say for sure whether he's antisemitic but he certainly seems homophobic and racist. He also believes that if somebody dies because they don't have health insurance that it's a tribute to American freedom. He is a conspiracy theorist when it comes to climate change. He doesn't believe in evolution. And that little bit about cutting "all foreign aid" sounds good and dandy when you take account of the US history of supporting dictatorships and totalitarian regimes but it also means that the most privileged and wealthy country in the world would have no responsibility in, say, helping to reduce the AIDS pandemic in other parts of the world. All this coupled with his stance of simply letting corporations do whatever they want to do, including paying people however much they want to (which historically translates to as little as they can get away with), and removing any means of public power, means that he's a dangerous charlatan.

But, yeah, constitutional values. Whoopee!

[Jason]

I love the liberal thought process. He actually has the most "progressive" (to use a term you liberals adore) views on LGBT and race relations, that being "keep the government out of all of it", which is more than fair enough. Just go to the church or notary or whomever and marry who you want. Keep the government out of it. End the drug wars and ridiculous welfare state measures which have done nothing but contribute to (read: they INCREASE) poverty and crime.

People who die because they don't have health insurance are not a tribute to American freedom; they're a tribute to how f***ed up the health care situation is in the United States. And, like it or not, Dr. Paul's plan for health care reform is very simple and will prove to be the most cost-effective...it's called free market health care. One vendor is too expensive, you go to another. No one has a right to someone else's labor, and that includes health care.

His views on climate change and evolution are his own and do not impact his policies. I don't agree with him on those topics either, but it's no reason to discredit the man.

Corporations already control the state, so therefore we must INCREASE the state?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I love the liberal thought process. He actually has the most "progressive" (to use a term you liberals adore)

I've already stated amply on this thread that I'm neither a progressive nor a liberal. If a "liberal" like me adores the term "progressive" then why is that two pages ago I stated that "I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form", noting in my subsequent post that "progressivism is just about social, political, and economic reform, following in the tradition of classical liberalism."

Tell you what, I'll deal with the substance of your post when you stop talking to the fictional construction of me that you made up, since you seem to only be able to deal with what I say when you place me in a category that I have already adamently shown my opposition to in this thread alone.

[Jason]

I love the liberal thought process. He actually has the most "progressive" (to use a term you liberals adore)

I've already stated amply on this thread that I'm neither a progressive nor a liberal. If a "liberal" like me adores the term "progressive" then why is that two pages ago I stated that "I'm not a progressive in any way, shape, or form", noting in my subsequent post that "progressivism is just about social, political, and economic reform, following in the tradition of classical liberalism."

Tell you what, I'll deal with the substance of your post when you stop talking to the fictional construction of me that you made up, since you seem to only be able to deal with what I say when you place me in a category that I have already adamently shown my opposition to in this thread alone.

Poor choice of words on my part. Truth be told, that "he's a racist/an antisemite/homophobic" thought process is not specifically a liberal one, although liberals predominantly are quick to bring it up. Apologies all around.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I love the liberal thought process. He actually has the most "progressive" (to use a term you liberals adore) views on LGBT and race relations, that being "keep the government out of all of it", which is more than fair enough. Just go to the church or notary or whomever and marry who you want. Keep the government out of it.

Well, in terms of race, this isn't progressive at all. It ignores the basic fact that certain races remain marginalized and ghettoized after years of policies tipped against them - that the ruling white class became the ruling white class because of enormous protectionist measures. Naturally, it makes perfect sense to middle class to upper class enfranchised people to say, "Well, just take the government away" now that they've had the luxury of being granted a position of social privilege and authority precisely because of a history of protectionism and state-sanctioned exploitation. It's a good way of ensuring that the relations of power basically remain the same, while at the same time works to reinforce that age-old myth that anyone can make it if they work hard enough.

End the drug wars and ridiculous welfare state measures which have done nothing but contribute to (read: they INCREASE) poverty and crime.

I agree with you about the drug wars and to an extent about the welfare state measures. To that extent that I agree with you, it's because in the United States the welfare state has been historically for the wealthy elite, and naturally this would contribute to poverty. Whether or not this would change with Paul is hard to say. A few years ago, Paul was praising Bill Gates, without acknowledging that Gates's enormous wealth from the internet is a consequence of three decades worth of public subsidies. The fact that Paul did not acknowledge this suggests one of two things: either he is in favor of welfare for the rich or he is simply unaware of how capitalism ultimately works.

People who die because they don't have health insurance are not a tribute to American freedom;

Tell that to Ron Paul who said exactly that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMHY21VA8WE

And, like it or not, Dr. Paul's plan for health care reform is very simple and will prove to be the most cost-effective...it's called free market health care. One vendor is too expensive, you go to another. No one has a right to someone else's labor, and that includes health care.

Free market health care is not cost-effective but it is profit-making. In fact, the framers of the HMO policy acknowledged that a free market health care is the best policy for the United States because it really works - namely, you provide less care, and profits go up. Yeah, that is simple - it's also murderous and Draconian. Not only do I not like it, I think Ron Paul shows utter contempt for humanity in general for even proposing it, but unsurprising for a man who believes that a society that lets a 30 year old man without health insurance die is a society we should be aiming for.

His views on climate change and evolution are his own and do not impact his policies. I don't agree with him on those topics either, but it's no reason to discredit the man.

First of all, his views on climate change absolutely do impact his policies. Anybody who understood the reality of climate change wouldn't let corporations get away with contributing to the destruction of the human species.

Corporations already control the state, so therefore we must INCREASE the state?

It depends what you mean by state. If you mean, we should increase public power and the public voice rather than eliminate it entirely in the name of unadulterated, unfettered, and unchecked concentrated wealth and power, then yes.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

double post

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No one has a right to someone else's labor, and that includes health care.

But it does exclude almost all of labor in the capitalist model that Paul supports, since labor is in fact exploited, owned, and controlled by an ownership class. In a properly functioning capitalist model, no one has a right to have any control over their own labor.

[Jason]

Certain races DO remain marginalized and ghettoized after years of policies tipped against them - namely the drug wars, ridiculous amounts of illegal activities that are victimless activities, the WELFARE STATE. Sheesh, if there was anything that was designed to keep people down, it's the welfare system. And yes, the white race in the United States HAS benefited from enormous protectionist measures. But if you approach it under the principles of liberty by repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which only allows for exploitation), the 16th Amendment, all of the drug laws, have a free market incentive for all products and services (which will mean lower prices), there will be an equality in this country that has never been seen before. Free markets lead to perfect equality.

You're adding two and two and getting twenty-two in your beliefs on Ron Paul's policy on health care. He's not saying that people without insurance should just die. He's saying that people need to take responsibility for themselves. What's so wrong with that? No hospital will turn away someone in need of treatment, but once you've been treated, guess what? YOU SHOULD GET A BILL. Personal responsibility. I know Americans are so deathly afraid of being their own masters, but try it on for size. You might find health care a lot more affordable after that. Ending the Medicare/caid programs and repealing Obamacare would work wonders as well. For the record, the rest of Dr. Paul's response is a great argument for free market health care. (Personal addendum - Wolf Blitzer is a despicable shill)

As far as climate change and corporations go, even the ridiculous regulations in place haven't done much to curb climate change, have they? No. Because you have the government (who is in the pocket of the corporations) working really slow under the pretext of "we're getting things done". So the same government policies and status quo rhetoric you're trying to defend with regards to climate change are much more diabolical.

As far as public voice and public power, of course, it should be increased. Everyone should be out in the streets when injustice occurs. A Ron Paul presidency would be more than willing to accommodate the public opinion - more than you can say for most administrations since the 1960s. Corporations can behave as they wish as long as their behavior does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is a clearly stated objective.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Certain races DO remain marginalized and ghettoized after years of policies tipped against them - namely the drug wars, ridiculous amounts of illegal activities that are victimless activities, the WELFARE STATE. Sheesh, if there was anything that was designed to keep people down, it's the welfare system. And yes, the white race in the United States HAS benefited from enormous protectionist measures. But if you approach it under the principles of liberty by repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which only allows for exploitation), the 16th Amendment, all of the drug laws, have a free market incentive for all products and services (which will mean lower prices), there will be an equality in this country that has never been seen before. Free markets lead to perfect equality.

Free market capitalism if it functions properly, is dependent on inequality - the very system is structured unequally. It demands an ownership ruling class, and a subordinate labor class, whose work is necessarily exploited by the ruling elite. That is simply what free market capitalism is. In no world does it have anything to do with "perfect equality." And that's putting aside whether it is to function well. If it is to function both properly and well, in which there is a maximization of profits, there needs to necessarily be a maximization of exploitation and domination over another.

If there is social welfare for the marginalized in the U.S. (and I should repeat there is very little, in comparison to the enormous social welfare safety net established for the wealthy) then it should be supported and vigorously since it's the only thing that could possibly help restore some balance in an inherently unfair and exploitative economic system such as capitalism which demands social and economic inequality in order to function properly.

Let's be clear about this: Ron Paul is not opposed to the Civil Rights Act because it "only allows for exploitation." Rather, in his congressional speech of 2004, he noted that the problem with the Civil Rights Act was that it "forced integration" and diminished the liberty, not of the racial groups who were long oppressed, but rather of "every business of the country." Forgetting about the liberties it brought to racial minority groups, Paul lamented that the Act violated "the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." Paul's concern, naturally, was for private power to operate unfettered - that if a private company wants to be segregated, have thoroughly racist policies, that that is a consequence of a free society. It has been long acknowledged that the Civil Rights Act worked to redress what was and continues to be systemic oppression - it worked to make the system a little less unequal than it would have been without intervention. And, of course, there was opposition to it and the reasoning was transparently racist. So you had figures like Barry Goldwater who, like Paul, opposed the Act on the grounds that it decreased freedom for private tyrannies to operate unfettered. But of course, as it was pointed out, Goldwater did not oppose segregation laws that seemingly constrained liberty and freedom as well.  

You're adding two and two and getting twenty-two in your beliefs on Ron Paul's policy on health care. He's not saying that people without insurance should just die.
He's saying that people need to take responsibility for themselves. What's so wrong with that?

You mean putting aside the fact that it is utterly irresponsible to let someone die because they don't have health insurance? Personally, Paul is in no position to comment on "responsibility" since he clearly shows contempt for the term. Putting that aside, this may come down to differences. Personally, I think that a civilized society is one that finds that we are responsible for each other not simply ourselves - that is, if we are to assume that we have progressed beyond a cave man mentality. It could possibly be that - but ultimately, I think that if this is what Paul believes then he has a warped view of what "responsibility" actually means.

No hospital will turn away someone in need of treatment, but once you've been treated, guess what? YOU SHOULD GET A BILL. Personal responsibility. I know Americans are so deathly afraid of being their own masters, but try it on for size.

But, of course, this isn't the society that Paul has in mind. Rather, his policies lead to the strengthening of the masters. His policies mean that private tyrannies should be unrestricted and that the public should lose whatever power they have. That's not a call for people "being their own masters", it's a call for totalitarian rule and further marginalization of the public.

You might find health care a lot more affordable after that.

That is, of course, specualtive and, as far as I'm concerned, improbable. What's undebatable is that socialized medicare would be a lot more affordable and we know that since the United States has the most expensive health care system in the indusrialized world and the one that most resembles a "free market" system.

As far as climate change and corporations go, even the ridiculous regulations in place haven't done much to curb climate change, have they? No. Because you have the government (who is in the pocket of the corporations) working really slow under the pretext of "we're getting things done". So the same government policies and status quo rhetoric you're trying to defend with regards to climate change are much more diabolical.

Again, you're making up  my position. I am not trying to defend government policies and status quo rhetoric. Rather, I am fully aware of what Paul's policies mean. If the problem with environmental solution is that the government "is in the pocket of the corporations" then clearly it would be only madness to strengthen the power of corporations and diminish the power of the government. It seems like you can only envision two possibilities: a government controlled by corprorations, and a society controlled by corporations. There are other possibilities and they are much less frightening than silencing the public voice.

As far as public voice and public power, of course, it should be increased.

In that case, you oppose Ron Paul.

A Ron Paul presidency would be more than willing to accommodate the public opinion - more than you can say for most administrations since the 1960s. Corporations can behave as they wish as long as their behavior does not infringe upon the rights of others. That is a clearly stated objective.

Is it a right of others to have control over the work they do? To have say over what they do, when they work, how much they work, etc.? Obviously not. These are major questions - and central concerns in not only genuine libertarian movements (not the bastardized extreme-right wing non-libertarian movement that Paul means when he uses the term) but conservative movements, workers movements, and so on. Under Paul's system it would be quite difficult for a private corporation to "infringe upon the rights of others" since people will have virtually no rights at all.

[SMiLE Brian]

Barry Goldwater was a non social issues guy and couldn't stand the religious conservatives of the 1980s, which I like. He also didn't like the John Birch society and worked with William F. Buckley Jr. to remove them from the Republicans.

[Bean Bag]

You might find health care a lot more affordable after that.

That is, of course, specualtive and, as far as I'm concerned, improbable. What's undebatable is that socialized medicare would be a lot more affordable and we know that since the United States has the most expensive health care system in the indusrialized world and the one that most resembles a "free market" system.

No, he's right -- you're wrong.  It's not speculative at all.  We know what happens to prices in a free market -- they fall.  We have tons of examples of this.  That's not politics or opinion -- it's fact.  It's sad that someone needs to explain this -- which speaks volumes of just how much our education system has failed you.  Education -- another government-run, socialized institution leaving people behind.

If your horrifying socialist "business" model were applied to grocery stores -- milk would probably cost $120 a gallon, or more.  You would probably have to submit a request and wait six weeks to hear back from some agency to know if you were even eligible to purchase it.  And have to travel an hour to find the Government run grocery store nearest you.  How's that for speculation!?  

Thank GOD the government does not run food.  I've got three huge grocery stores in my little small town.  Three!! The shelves are over-flowing with an abundance of affordable, fresh foods.  And that's not speculative at all.  It's reallity!  Beautiful, miraculous reality!!

Here's the rub.  Free markets provide for people INFINITELY better than ANY government EVER could.  And that drives big-gov't leftists crazy -- I know it does.


Where you go astray in your statement above is assuming that our current health care system is a "free market."  It is not.  The government has it's greasy hands all over it.  I don't "buy" doctor's services.  I go through an insurance company.  And I don't even buy my insurance company -- it's paid through my employer.  WTF?  Explain that!  The government's all twisted up in the process.  By design.  The Real Beach Boy is absolutely correct -- if we went to a true free market solution, health care would be so cheap.  Going your way will only seal our doom.

[Bean Bag]

No one has a right to someone else's labor, and that includes health care.

But it does exclude almost all of labor in the capitalist model that Paul supports, since labor is in fact exploited, owned, and controlled by an ownership class. In a properly functioning capitalist model, no one has a right to have any control over their own labor.

With all due respect, that's just crazy.  You're saying that no one has a right to control their own labor in a true free market?  What are you thinking?

First of all -- the term "right."  You have all the rights that God gave us.  No more, no less.  Under no circumstance should anyone have control over your own labor or the fruits thereof.  If they do -- your enslaved.  That is the definition of slavery.  Under no circumstance should that ever be the case.  And I have never, ever heard anyone ascribe that definition to free market capitalism.

I am aware of governments illegally stealing the fruits of our labor (taxes) and "deeming" people's labor a right for other to take (ObamaCare or a "right" to health care).  Both of those are slavery.  Think about it.  Please, for the love of God, think about what you're saying.

 

[GreatUrduPoet]

You might find health care a lot more affordable after that.

That is, of course, specualtive and, as far as I'm concerned, improbable. What's undebatable is that socialized medicare would be a lot more affordable and we know that since the United States has the most expensive health care system in the indusrialized world and the one that most resembles a "free market" system.

No, he's right -- you're wrong.  It's not speculative at all.  We know what happens to prices in a free market -- they fall.  We have tons of examples of this.  That's not politics or opinion -- it's fact.  It's sad that someone needs to explain this -- which speaks volumes of just how much our education system has failed you.  Education -- another government-run, socialized institution leaving people behind.

If your horrifying socialist "business" model were applied to grocery stores -- milk would probably cost $120 a gallon, or more.  You would probably have to submit a request and wait six weeks to hear back from some agency to know if you were even eligible to purchase it.  And have to travel an hour to find the Government run grocery store nearest you.  How's that for speculation!?  

Thank GOD the government does not run food.  I've got three huge grocery stores in my little small town.  Three!! The shelves are over-flowing with an abundance of affordable, fresh foods.  And that's not speculative at all.  It's reallity!  Beautiful, miraculous reality!!

Here's the rub.  Free markets provide for people INFINITELY better than ANY government EVER could.  And that drives big-gov't leftists crazy -- I know it does.


Where you go astray in your statement above is assuming that our current health care system is a "free market."  It is not.  The government has it's greasy hands all over it.  I don't "buy" doctor's services.  I go through an insurance company.  And I don't even buy my insurance company -- it's paid through my employer.  WTF?  Explain that!  The government's all twisted up in the process.  By design.  The Real Beach Boy is absolutely correct -- if we went to a true free market solution, health care would be so cheap.  Going your way will only seal our doom.

Very well said, Bean Bag. Now can we all please return to the subject of this thread? I think my post about Ron & Nancy going to see Ron & Russ (Sparks) live is 'megawatts' more interesting than tired old Leftist arguments about "evil" capitalism and health care.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I should say that I am hesitant to get involved in this discussion further, not merely because of the rather childish nature of the rhetoric employed above, but more importantly because I am in the final month of preparing for a major exam in the completion of my doctorate, and I have already left another political thread dangling for that reason (hopefully I can get back to that one eventually, since it is a far more civilized debate).

So with hesitation, I will respond to the above though I will not address the shameful rhetorical trick suggesting  “how much our education system has” failed me, since that speaks for itself.

No, he's right -- you're wrong. It's not speculative at all. We know what happens to prices in a free market -- they fall. We have tons of examples of this. That's not politics or opinion -- it's fact.

I’m sure it would be nice to imagine an abstract world where this is a possibility but unfortunately the reality of the situation does not correspond to your description. Again, I will repeat that the US health care system is the most expensive in the industrialized world – about twice the per capita cost of most industrialized countries - and it is the one that most closely follows a so-called free-market capitalist model. The studies have shown, in fact, that it is precisely because the health care system is run on this capitalist model that it is so expensive to the American public. In fact, if you look at the socialized aspect of the US health care system, you find that the administrative costs there are a fraction of the cost of privatized health. So in that case publicly subsidized health care in the US have kept prices lower than privately controlled health care. This, incidentally, isn’t too surprising when you look at US economic history. So, for example, if you look at the economic boom of the 90s, what was referred to as one of the most successful economic periods in US history, you’ll find that the products most responsible for the boom were heavily subsidized by the public. And, really, since WWII, modern high-tech products have had an enormous amount of support by the state.

Now part and parcel to this is the question of why drug prices are so high in the States. Again, we can put this down to the capitalist model. In a capitalist system, the main impetus of a drug company is to make profits. This is why companies have been shown to spend an overwhelming majority of its research and development on copycat drugs to stay competitive in the market. Just doing a quick search, the most recent figures I could pull are from 2004 (though I assume not much has changed too drastically since then) when 27 billion of 41 billion dollars of drug company research spending went into the development of copycat drugs.  This de-mystifies two great prevailing free-market myths at once: one, that a free market system would reduce costs and two, that a free-market system spurs innovation.

Furthermore, unlike other countries with a socialized health care system, the US is by law, prohibited from negotiating drug prices and a consequence of this is that the prices are much higher in the States than any other industrialized country.

So my conclusion from this would be that not only is it not “a fact” that a free-market system would be less expensive, the facts we do have suggest the opposite.

If your horrifying socialist "business" model were applied to grocery stores -- milk would probably cost $120 a gallon, or more. You would probably have to submit a request and wait six weeks to hear back from some agency to know if you were even eligible to purchase it. And have to travel an hour to find the Government run grocery store nearest you. How's that for speculation!?  

Since all there is is speculation, I’m afraid you’ve answered your own question.

Here's the rub. Free markets provide for people INFINITELY better than ANY government EVER could.

I’m curious which free markets you are referring to. After all, there has never been anything close to a free market system in the first world. Take, the United States for example. In the US, the economy from the beginning was stabilized by a variety of protectionist policies (trade tariffs, subsidies, etc.) enacted by Alexander Hamilton. And while there have been some periods that are less protectionist than others, it is only because the country could take the risk after a period of substantial protectionism. And the same holds for every other first world country. The only countries that have something resembling an unfettered free market is in the third world where capitalism has been violently shoved down their throats. These countries, like Nicaragua and Haiti, don’t have the luxury of protectionism because they are the third world, typically producing for the interests of the first world and therefore have little say about how their economy operates. Consequently countries like Nicaragua and Haiti have become the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Fortunately other countries like South Korea pulled themselves from the brink of economic disaster by rejecting IMF and World Bank advice, incorporating instead a state-oriented Japan-inspired model which led to the creation of their highly efficient and successful steel industry.

And that drives big-gov't leftists crazy -- I know it does.

The conflation of “big government” with “leftists” is a bit of an oxymoron. After all, it is really only on the left where the government can disappear entirely with socialism, libertarianism, anarchism, etc.

Where you go astray in your statement above is assuming that our current health care system is a "free market." It is not. The government has it's greasy hands all over it. I don't "buy" doctor's services. I go through an insurance company. And I don't even buy my insurance company -- it's paid through my employer. WTF? Explain that!

Explain how insurance companies are “The government”? I agree that the current Obama-proposed medicare system is a big gift to the insurance industry but that’s something radically different than a socialized health care system.

With all due respect, that's just crazy. You're saying that no one has a right to control their own labor in a true free market? What are you thinking?

I’m merely stating the elementary principles of capitalism which demands that an owner controls and owns labor. The laborer does not have any control over their own work, what they do, how they do it, when they do it, for how long they do it, and what they receive for doing it. So what I said was exactly true.

First of all -- the term "right." You have all the rights that God gave us. No more, no less.

God does not give any rights. Rights are hard-won and fought for in any societies with a power structure, which is why people have different rights now than they had during the feudal period.

Under no circumstance should anyone have control over your own labor or the fruits thereof. If they do -- your enslaved. That is the definition of slavery. Under no circumstance should that ever be the case. And I have never, ever heard anyone ascribe that definition to free market capitalism.

In that case, you need to be more familiar with conservative philosophy. The term “wage slavery” (i.e. a capitalist model of labor) and comparisons between labor and slavery have been around since the days of Cicero. This view of the capitalist model of owners and laborers as wage slavery was one typically held by conservatives in the conservative tradition which is why Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party believed “that those who spend their entire lives as wage laborers were comparable to slaves.”

I am aware of governments illegally stealing the fruits of our labor (taxes) and "deeming" people's labor a right for other to take (ObamaCare or a "right" to health care). Both of those are slavery. Think about it. Please, for the love of God, think about what you're saying.

The comparison between taxation and slavery is not quite correct, since wealth is a social product not an individual one. But what you suggest speaks to a deeper problem – that is, the malfunctioning democracy in the United States. If the US was a truly democratic state that people wouldn’t have a problem with taxation. So, there is a substantial argument that one could make, but you’re not quite making it, because you haven’t quite considered the complex nature of how wealth is created and made.

[Bean Bag]

Oh "rockandroll."

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts.  God bless you!  You write well.  Your thoughts are clear.  You will do fine on your exam.  I know it.  I wish you the best on getting that amazing milestone accomplished.  Please continue to accept challenge to the ideas you have expressed.  You have the capacity to go further on this.

[MBE]

And Dennis who knows.

I can't believe, with all of the research various people around here do, and with the fact that it was President Reagan who cleared the way for Dennis' body to be buried at sea, that nobody has mentioned that Dennis was the original connection to the Reagan family...
Back when Ron was merely the Governor of California, his daughter Patti Davis rented an apartment from me in Santa Monica.  This building, just about 10 blocks up the road from Brother Studios, came to have an interesting life almost of its own during the seventies.  Painted in a way that resembled The Beverly Hills Hotel up on Sunset, people often referred to it as The Beverly Hills West. And, while there were just about a dozen apartments, every one of them was inhabited by some of the most unique interesting characters of the sixties, and one of these was Reagan's daughter Patti Davis!
Patti was a great looking woman/child when she came to us; she was working in a restaurant up the street from us where all the help had to be performers.  So Patti's friends from work, (girls like Rickie Lee Jones & Katey Sagal), joined in with our little misfit gang, and Patti mingled with my friends from work, people like Dennis & Brian, and eventually Bernie Leadon, who would whisked her away from us to Topanga Canyon.  Eventually my family & I joined them up there in Topanga as the seventies drew to a close....
You can read quite a bit more about this in Patti's autobiography; I love how she describes our building, "I was finally living someplace I liked, where all the tenants were my age; everyone smoked grass and played their stereos too loud."* She goes quite a bit into her 'friendship' with Dennis, and this is an element of Ron and Nancy's connection to the Boys that shouldn't be overlooked.

* from "THE WAY I SEE IT", an autobiography by Patti Davis

In the book she mentions how Dennis once emotionally tried to talk her out of having an abortion.