Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

[metalman]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Robberies...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-Ent...12556.html?x=0

hmm.... As stated in various threads and EJ et al, the spate of crimes are slowly nudging up that even MSM cannot not cover it.

Armed robberies at pharmacies rose 81 percent between 2006 and 2010, from 380 to 686, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says. The number of pills stolen went from 706,000 to 1.3 million. Thieves are overwhelmingly taking oxycodone painkillers like OxyContin or Roxicodone, or hydrocodone-based painkillers like Vicodin and Norco. Both narcotics are highly addictive.

In New York state, the number of armed robberies rose from 2 in 2006 to 28 in 2010. In Florida, they increased nearly six-fold, from 11 to 65.

news... belongs on front page...

[Ghent12]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

You really need to study history more.

Leviathan exists not because of some natural law per se, but because it is in the interests of those who desire power over others.

To say that government is powerful because of itself is to ignore both history and reality in most of the world.

Furthermore you miss yet again the entire point: it isn't that government is always good nor always bad - it is that we are at the point where a shift has gone to one extreme.

If you believe some mythical return to libertarian individual isolationism will somehow reverse this shift - I would point out that the most likely path for that is a complete collapse of society - not some orderly progression of 'smaller government'.

Every single example in the past in which liberties were promoted and government influence pared back was due to someone in government: Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt being prime examples.



I see your billionaire's right to property, and raise you 300 million Americans right to a more equitable society, and 6 billion people's rights to not have their lives f***ed over by silver spoons.

Why is the billionaire's right so much stronger?

Again you focus on the selfish right while ignoring the rest of the world and society.



Again you spout demagoguery without actually knowing facts.

Monopolies exist all the time without government intervention.

Standard Oil was created without government intervention.

The Catholic Church was created without government intervention - in fact was persecuted for centuries by the government of Rome.

The present Republikrat system was created without government intervention.

Just because many present monopolies exist due to government policies like patent/copyright law doesn't mean this is the only path.

Your "truly free" market is a fantasy - even were it to magically appear, it would soon be destroyed by the most successful elements within it.

This is what the libertarian doesn't comprehend.

c1ue, you don't seem to understand the discussion. Leviathan is powerful because it makes itself more powerful. It is a power-accumulation engine. I have no problem with individual inside the belly of the beast bringing it down a few pegs, but so long as we the people have the ability to influence our government we should demand that power be reserved as much as possible to us.

I would implore you to stop setting up straw-men, but that is your favorite technique so I am not holding my breath. I have no desire for some sort of "libertarian individual isolationism," simply for the rights of the individual to be recognized as more valuable than those of any given collection of individuals.

It is apparent that I should begin every paragraph with "you are wrong," because nothing you have said is both relevant and correct. I am not arguing that government is always good or always bad--I would not have a problem if government were only created as outlined in the Constitution. Also, you are wrong that any shift has occurred to any extreme; the government is pretty much right in the middle of the extremes its experienced in the past with regards to individual liberties, which is to say that it is faring poorly in that regard but not yet enough to tick off mass amounts of Americans just yet.


You are going to have to define "a more equitable society," and explain how "6 billion people" have their lives "f***ed over by silver spoons." You are spouting utter nonsense at this point, I suspect. If you are making a point then please define it. It's not selfish to enjoy the fruits of your labor, nor is it at all bad to pass on your wealth to your offspring. Do you even understand how wealth is created, in a general sense? The wealth was, in the vast majority of cases, freely transferred to the "trustafarian's" father in exchange for a valued product or service--only governments and bandits can take money through the threat of violence. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on the rewards for providing valuable goods and services?


The crucial argument is not whether or not monopolies exist, but what the influence is. A monopoly that does not exploit its monopoly pricing is not a bad thing at all. There were numerous benefits from the history of Standard Oil and its actions, for instance. That particular example could use its own entire thread, however.

A "truly free" market is as much of a fantasy as your "equitable society" is. There is nothing more equitable than the price system because nothing can create a better set of incentives with regards to the utilization of scarce resources. Economics, after all, is entirely about the manner in which a society distributes its scarce resources.

[c1ue]

Re: Man Robs Bank for $1 to Go to Jail for Healthcare

Leviathan is powerful because it makes itself more powerful. It is a power-accumulation engine.

Anarchy equally seeks to preserve itself by creating more anarchy. Every force that exists seeks to promote itself else it is overtaken and destroyed by some other force.

Unclear what your point is.

I have no desire for some sort of "libertarian individual isolationism," simply for the rights of the individual to be recognized as more valuable than those of any given collection of individuals.

I have no problem with individual rights; I have lots of problems with 'special' individuals having more rights than all the other individuals.

You've still failed to state what the line is when one individual's rights must end, and the rest of the individuals' rights must begin.

The entire concept of 'inalienable rights' is primarily an excuse to carve out an exclusive territory.

I would not have a problem if government were only created as outlined in the Constitution.

This is a convenient statement to make, but is totally irrelevant because the Constitution is deliberately vague.

When does one person's right to pursue happiness end and another's right to pursue happiness begin? The Constitution doesn't say - it (wisely or fortuitously) leaves it to each generation to interpret.

For that matter the Constitution has been clearly abrogated in favor of a federal system for hundreds of years now. To yearn for a return to the mythical Constitutional United States is to yearn for a return to slavery, to 97% of Americans being subsistence farmers, to disease, lack of roads, lack of law enforcement, etc etc.

Also, you are wrong that any shift has occurred to any extreme; the government is pretty much right in the middle of the extremes its experienced in the past with regards to individual liberties, which is to say that it is faring poorly in that regard but not yet enough to tick off mass amounts of Americans just yet.

Provide some evidence of this statement.

The government today knows more, can do more and has a more direct impact on the individual person's life than ever before. Your goofy Hobbesian comments should itself contradict this statement.

You are going to have to define "a more equitable society," and explain how "6 billion people" have their lives "f***ed over by silver spoons."

If you cannot understand what is going on - the impact of generational society influencing strategies such as the founding of think tanks, the funding of department chairs, the Bush I/Bush II presidencies, the 3 Kennedy siblings, ad infinitum, then I don't see the point of educating you.

There are innumerable resources by which you have been exposed even just on iTulip.

A monopoly that does not exploit its monopoly pricing is not a bad thing at all.

Wrong.

By your definition, a tyranny which doesn't act tyrannical is not a bad thing at all.

But it is.

Because even if one particular tyrant isn't tyrannical, it doesn't mean the next one won't be.

Monopolies are exactly like the Lord Acton witticism on power.

A "truly free" market is as much of a fantasy as your "equitable society" is.

Perhaps, but the difference is that an equitable society is one which can be enforced by the interests of the majority of its members as it is to their interest.

In contrast a "truly free" market cannot exist without some outside supervisory authority to prevent monopolization/oligopolization.

Do you understand the fundamental architectural differences between the two?

There is nothing more equitable than the price system because nothing can create a better set of incentives with regards to the utilization of scarce resources

This is a ridiculous von Mises assertion which continues to pop up like a bad smell.

It confuses appearance for reality.

Does having cheap gasoline incentivize the United States to prepare to Peak Cheap Oil?

Does having tax, health care, and other business infrastructural burdens incentivize job creation in the United States?

Or actual health care reform?

Or actual tax reform?

Or any actual reform whatsoever?

Does 'price' force all schoolchildren into primary school so that the population of the United States can rise above a subsistence economy?

Price is merely a marker - it can and is distorted by all sorts of means and always will be.