Analytics

Monday, February 15, 2016

Miscellany: 2/15/16

Quote of the Day
The first characteristic that people look for in a leader is honesty.
Don A. Sanders

Tweet of the Day
Cool Science



Guest Post Comment: What kind of socialist is Bernie Sanders?

At the risk of oversimplification, democratic socialists are distinguished from State/authoritarian socialists. (There's a decent Wikipedia piece on the subject.) These would be like your classic anarchists (which do not recognize property rights) or left-libertarians/AnComs.) Think of a more inclusive form of communitarian leadership. They would attempt to operate in the social context (e.g., using economic weapons like boycotts). They would probably argue some "excessive" property is accumulated or sustained under a corrupt State and hence is tainted and that the "fairest" criterion is a democratic vs elitist resolution of rights conflicts. (To illustrate the concept, consider Microsoft's dominance on the DOS/Windows platform. To a large extent, this was built under government-protected intellectual property rights. Many libertarians argue that there's no such thing as IP.)

 There is something paradoxical about AnCaps (or AnComs) seeking power in the State monopoly. To a certain extent, I analogize Sanders working through the social democrats/progressives in the Dems to the minarchist/AnCap Ron Paul trying to operate in the GOP. This could explain why he vs. other progressive Dems like Cherokee Lizzie Warren voted for the bill to audit the Fed.

 Basically we should not confuse democratic socialists (which Sanders claims to be) with social democrats or progressives of the Democratic Party. As I tweeted over the weekend, the social democrats are not necessarily anti-capitalist so much as pro-regulation; this is why Clinton specifically attacked Sander's socialism. Clinton is more of a left-fascist: you can have your private company so long as it subordinates to the State. The social democrats also advocate a social welfare state.

 The northern European countries that Sanders champions do not have the same business regulation or confiscatory taxation schemes that he and the Democrats advocate. He likely sees the social welfare net as an interim stage proxy for expanding the scope of positive or so-called human rights under a democratic veneer.
[editor response] So, Ronald, how do you explain Bernie taking a honeymoon in the Soviet Union as opposed to a democratic country, or celebrating communism in Cuba or the Sadinistas in Nicaragua, instead of say Social Democrats in Sweden (prior to the 1990s) or Labour in New Zealand (prior to the 1980s)?

 What do you think when people approvingly use the expression "Peoples Republic"? Do you think of … the Peoples Republic of China, along with the Great Leap Forward, the use of starvation as a means of social control, and totalitarianism, or do you think of, say, the "social market" as it has developed in Germany?
In response to the editor: first of all, I do not speak for or agree with Bernie Sanders. I will point out, as WashPo does (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-a-democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders-tries-to-redefine-the-name/2015/10/17/d722ba80-7370-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html): 

 "The Democratic Socialists in the United States want a system where workers or the government own factories and other means of production." The point that Sanders would make is that government and worker-owned facilities are inclusive versus elitist owned and operated.

 The distinction here is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on production but workers can compete through collectively-owned businesses.

 The cited piece basically argues that Sanders is more of a radical social democrat who wants to expand and supersize the social welfare state. It was political opponents who called him a 'socialist' and rather than run away from the name, he embraced it.

 There is no doubt that Sanders is a leftist. As a Vermont mayor, he had sister cities in socialist regimes. However, he was never an apologist for state socialism. He admitted, for instance, in visiting Russian Yaroslavl that US had better housing and healthcare, but it was much more expensive in the US. He sees the higher cost as being imposed and reaped by the plutocrats under a plutocrat-manipulated federal government. (See http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420228/bernie-sanderss-soviet-honeymoon-john-fund.)

 You are somewhat distorting the story of Sanders honeymooning in sister city Yaroslavl. This was no doubt a choice of leftist solidarity, but he decided to get married just before leaving on the prearranged official trip.
Ronald, workers are free in this country is own the means of production. (You know this, don't you?) UPS and Publix supermarket are two examples. Germany prides itself on worker participation in the management of companies. But, worker coops aren't part of revolutionary socialism. And state ownership isn't the same thing as worker ownership. State ownership is part of plan of communism to foster revolutionary socialism. Ronald, you must know these things. Bernie Sanders certainly does.

Regarding health care in the Soviet Union, Bernie went there on his honeymoon in the 1980s. If you would look at the charts on page 2, U.S. expenditures per capita was NOT out of line with expenditures in other democratic countries back then. So, Sanders wasn't comparing the cost of health care in the U.S. to its cost in democratic socialist countries. Rather, he was comparing the cost of health-care in the U.S. the its cost in non-democratic, i.e., revolutionary countries.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2011/Jul/1532_Squires_US_hlt_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf

It is an interesting question as to why the cost of health care (and of higher education) have been escalating in the U.S. during the past forty years. To some extent this is because we richer (and health care is a super-normal good), to some extent, this is because we're aging, and to some extent this is because we have third-party payer system without universal budgeting.

Ronald, accepting the realities that health care is a super-normal good and that we have an aging population, the question before us is whether we induce private decisions to consider cost (as would happen with catastrophic insurance supplemented perhaps by health savings accounts (i.e., the East Asian solution) versus the adoption of universal budgeting and the rationing of health care by the government (the socialized medicine approach).

So, we Republicans have a proposal to deal with the escalating cost of health care in this country, and the Democrats have theirs. "Free stuff" is only a hook. Nothing is for free. The question is who will pay and who will ration. When other people pay, the government will ration. 
Who is this guy named [some commenter]? Apparently he deleted his post which I was copied on, apparently calling ME a Marxist? (I see a subsequent comment from someone named Jimmy thinking it was aimed at him. It would help if you direct your comments to the writer. I'll retain my initial reaction immediately below just to make a point.)

 Because I'm explaining Sanders version of socialism vs. attacking him? Buddy, I'm a classical liberal in the Bastiat tradition, and Bastiat was a high-profile critic of socialism during Marx's lifetime. In today's terminology, I'm a pro-liberty conservative, a right-libertarian and somewhere between an AnCap and minarchist. I believe in property rights, including intellectual property. If I'm explaining Bernie Sanders, it doesn't mean I'm agreeing with him. I'm a former professor, and I separately hold a philosophy degree and a Master's minor. I have a blog listed in this website's blogroll, and I also have an active Twitter account. If you've read my blog or my tweets, you would know that I have been a harsh critic of Sanders, the left-fascist Clinton, and the right-fascist Trump. I simply disagree with the editor's description of Sander's socialism. That doesn't imply I agree with Sanders. But I think you have to look at the record and state it fairly. This is something I've done since I read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica in my teens.

 Now as for the editor's second comment: pointing out that employer-owned companies already exist in our mixed economy is beside the point. I'm trying to explain the difference between democratic and state socialism. Under state socialism you have a monopoly of the means of production under the State. The democratic socialists argue that a disproportionate amount of the income/wealth goes to a privileged elite.

 Now as the Wikipedia article mentions there are multiple flavors of democratic socialism, and one of the articles I've read points out that many democratic socialists here and elsewhere would argue Sanders is not one of them. Libertarian groups seem to be highly intolerant of heretics; AnCaps, for example, accuse minarchists of being Statist whores, like a little State is like being a little bit pregnant.

 I don't think any of the European social democracies would be considered democratic socialist countries--you are inverting terms. As for the costs of healthcare, I do not know what, if any statistics Bernie Sanders was referencing; my take, from the description, is that it was anecdotal in nature and probably heavily, if not completely subsidized by the State, like many basic expenses. The remark came from some video he did during or after his dog-and-pony-show visit.

 You seem to be thinking that I agree with Sanders' critique, e.g., healthcare. I'm well aware that senior entitlements are an unsustainable Ponzi scheme and Bernie Sanders wants to further supersize Medicare system to include everyone. I'm not an apologist for Bernie. I don't think he's economically literate.

Political Potpourri

I don't think that Trump's performance in the latest debate helped him at all--he totally lost it and took some shots, not only at his competitors but at George W. Bush who is generally very popular in the GOP base. Of course, one never knows--Trump has survived stuff like insulting McCain's heroic tenure as a POW.  But he was so out of control and absurd--at one point, alleging Bush threatened to moon the press; he was angry and got booed several times. He is driving up his negatives--within the GOP, never mind the outside. All of this is tailor-made for attack ads this fall if he ever wins the nomination. I don't think this plays well in SC; I'm not a long-time resident, and I'm not well-connected to local politicos. But Trump has been helped lately by the fragmentation of conservatives.

If you buy the polls over the weekend, Trump is beating the opposition by double-digits, some showing him lapping the field. There are some variances but a couple of recent polls suggest that Cruz and Rubio are in a dogfight for runner-up. Bush and Kasich sometimes finishing higher but likely in a battle for fourth.  I don't know if George W. stumping for Jeb Bush helps him, but if Jeb can't place with a good debate and a POTUS endorsement, he's in deep trouble. I think he needs to place to get any traction in Florida. Kasich has gotten a bounce out of NH, but probably not enough to place here.

I think the race will be tighter than most polls think and Cruz will do better than expected. One tweet from a Fox News personality (Howard Kurtz) reports a Bush internal poll showing Cruz only 2 points behind Trump. Internal polls should be taken with a grain of salt.

On the Dem side, Clinton has Trump-like leads over Sanders across the board.

 More on What Obama Can and Should Do in His Last Year



My Greatest Hits: February 2016
Sportsmanship



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Laura Branigan, "Solitaire". My favorite Branigan tune: her soaring wail is just brilliant, mad vocals.



The Bush Campaign/Allies Take On Trump



It's time to look past the boasting with Donald Trump...watch now!
Posted by Right to Rise USA on Friday, February 12, 2016

Choose Life, Not Planned Parenthood


Abortion. No Matter What.
Planned Parenthood is about one thing: abortion.
Posted by Students for Life of America on Monday, February 15, 2016
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,