Privatization and Voluntarism Are the Only Solutions to Government Ineptitude and Tyranny

I used to completely agree with socialist solutions to issues in a democratic system and market economy.
I was a supporter of Bernie in the 2016 election, but had a wake up call when I started to study government and economics more and discovered Agorism, Larken Rose, Murray Bookchin, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Kurt Russel When You First Discover Libertarianism

Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin

We can elect one good, and honest politician for sure, but what about the next one and the next one? And what about all of the others in power from the rest of congress to state and local?

Government is made up of people and they are always fallible and corruptible and no amount of laws can stop someone in power from being corrupted.
 
The only answer is to take the power away from government and take back our money.
 
There needs to be oversight of goods and services, but that oversight doesn’t have to be through government and funded by taxation.
 
Government is one of the most inept structures to provide goods and services. Look at the Flint, Mi water crisis.
It was all done by government and no one went to jail.
 
Why? Because both the services and the oversight was provided by the same system of government. Making it overpriced, and of dangerous quality and unaccountable.
 
If the people of Flint were free to contract with a private company for water services they would be provided a better price and better accountability and they would have CHOICE where to spend their money voluntarily.
 
If the private water company poisoned people it would go out of business, be stripped of assets and some people would be jailed, but not so in a government controlled system.
 
The same goes for primary education. If parents paid the schools directly instead of being forced to pay taxes, they could use their choice and that would drive higher quality than we have with federal schooling. Take a look at the success rates of “no child left behind” and “common core” and see how central governments fail at providing services.
 

Privatize the Police

07/11/2016

“….Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients’ friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent — and paying — customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively. In fact, as government police have become increasingly inefficient, consumers have been turning more and more to private forms of protection. We have already mentioned block or neighborhood protection.

There are also private guards, insurance companies, private detectives, and such increasingly sophisticated equipment as safes, locks, and closed-circuit TV and burglar alarms. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice estimated in 1969 that government police cost the American public $2.8 billion a year, while it spends $1.35 billion on private protection service and another $200 million on equipment, so that private protection expenses amounted to over half the outlay on government police. These figures should give pause to those credulous folk who believe that police protection is somehow, by some mystic right or power, necessarily and forevermore an attribute of State sovereignty.”

 

How Government Ruined Healthcare

Zoidberg Says To Trust Him

100 Years of Government’s “Managed” Health Care

Michael Accad 

The term “managed care” entered the common lexicon in the 1990s, when contracted arrangements between physicians and hospitals on the one hand, and insurance entities on the other, became standard means to try to control healthcare expenditures. The origin of the concept is frequently credited to Dr. Paul Ellwood and his influential Jackson Hole Group, who introduced the idea in the early 1970s.

But in my 2-part series on the economic history of American medicine, I examined how healthcare has been “managed” from its inception in the late 1910s, when the Flexnerian reforms and the ensuing medical licensing laws began to influence (and limit) the type of medical care Americans could choose to receive.

Since that time, an ever-growing managerial class of academics, industry leaders, technocrats, and private foundation believers in “systems” and in a “scientific” approach to organizing society has been guiding the various government interventions which have shaped American healthcare as we know it today.

And if we take the Flexnerian reforms of the mid-1910s to be the very first set of interventions giving birth to the system, then the history of American healthcare as it subsequently unfolded is a stark illustration of what economist Ludwig von Mises described in his 1950 essay “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism.”

In that essay, Mises argued that when the government hopes to avoid the extremes of pure capitalism and pure socialism, and chooses instead to selectively intervene in a sector of the economy to address a “market failure,” it will either fall short of its intended goal or generate new, unanticipated difficulties that are invariably greater than the ones initially confronted. The reason for the failure has to do with an intrinsic deficiency in knowledge, as proposed by Hayek and Mises, to the inability of government to assume entrepreneurial risk, and to other relevant factors as well (political incentives and bureaucratic inertia, for example).

By the time the failures and unintended consequences of the government intervention are recognized, many interests have become vested in keeping the status quo. As a result, the intervention is almost never reversed, but additional government measures are proposed instead. As these generate their own unexpected problems, repeated cycles of intervention in due time bring the sector more and more under the control of government.

That scenario seems to have played out in healthcare over the last 100 years, and the history of our medical system could reasonably be described as a “Misesian” tragedy in five acts as follows:

Read More: http://galen.org/2016/100-years-of-governments-managed-health-care/