By now I guess most people have figured out that I have NO tolerance for socialists, or communists, or anyone with a philosophy consistent with anything like that. I had been checking out the blogs during a short break I had from the recent touring schedule, and I found a link to this site and couldn't help but laugh my freaking ass off. I couldn't believe that someone could be so ignorant of the actual truths that govern humanity and nature and really believe what he was saying. Then again, my own cousin would be right up there with him ... time for a little "Fisk" and a little argument ...

First of all, before I go on, I must say that I love the way this fellow calls Libertarian positions on things "lies", despite the proof to the contrary on the issues that he cites ... here we go!

Now total libertarian free market capitalism has become some sort of miracle nostrom that will cure all ills.

Hey asswipe, no one is saying free market capitalism will cure all ills. All we are saying is that there will be ills no matter what you do, and they are minimized in a free market system. Furthermore, in a free market system, each person is responsible for his own success and failure. There is no attempt to equalize outcomes, as in a socialist or communist system, as you advocate. Equalizing outcomes merely ensures that no one ever achieves actual prosperity. The equalized outcomes, in practice, doom virtually every citizen of one of these systems to poverty. This is all well and good for people who don't mind poverty, but forcing people to live in it, as you would obviously advocate, is the antithesis of self-determination.

Most of the problems that occur with capitalism are actually the result of limitations placed on capitalism itself. You yourself cited problems associated with the sorry excuse for deregulation of utilities in California:

The debacle of electricity deregulation in California is simply the typical result of privatization and deregulation of electricity the world over, for decades now, since the 1930's.

Electricity in California has NEVER been deregulated. Most of California's electricity is IMPORTED from other states because the state's ridiculous REGULATIONS will not let anyone build a power plant there. What asshelmet in his right mind would call that de-regulation? California has regulated the industry right out of the state. If electricity could be produced there, prices would be competitive. Try actual deregulation and you will see the light ... literally! Case study after case study?? Try citing a few. I doubt any of them involve real deregulation.

Deregulation of the financial industry and stock market is likely to cause financial panics, stock crashes and economic recessions and depressions. It has in the past, it will in the future.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, sir. The financial markets have never suffered major long-term panics, crashes, recessions, or depressions. Look at the statistics from any 20-year period in the markets, INCLUDING THE "GREAT DEPRESSION". The markets have always shown profits for the majority of investors. In a deregulated financial industry/stock market, you have the option, if you are uncomfortable with your prospects, to not participate. That's called freedom. It's largely what America is about, and it's the concept upon which capitalism is built.

Deregulation of telecommunications in the US put the public system into the hands of a fewer and fewer people and sent cable prices through the roof.

You are missing the point here Bobby. It's not your business who runs which company. That is up to the shareholders and the companies themselves. Oh, and thanks to deregulation, you have the opportunity to choose which telecommunications company to work with, regardless of the area of the industry you mean (as opposed to only one, which is what we had before). Cable prices through the roof? That would be TAXES causing that, my good fellow, and too much regulation keeping competition out of the industry. That is NOT deregulation. If you were to strip away the redundant taxation and regulation on telecom products, you would probably find that cable prices have most likely changed at the same rate as inflation. Luckily you are not restricted to your local cable company even so, since satellite television is available as competition. REAL deregulation of the cable TV industry would cause more upstart companies providing cable, causing competition and lowering prices. Over-regulation and over-taxation (both still the case) are disincentives to participation in these industries. It would not be perfect, but it would certainly be an improvement.

Privatization of water in Bolivia was a catastrophe - prices shot up, service was terrible, and many lost access to water.

Bolivia?? Please. You cite a failure of a third-world country as evidence that the United States shouldn't do something. I can do that, too ... Communism has failed dismally EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED. Name me one communist country that is more prosperous than the United States. Just one. Enough said. As far as water in Bolivia is concerned, I highly doubt that you are talking about real unshackled capitalism here, since Bolivia is hardly a capitalist country.

You cite airline and trucking deregulation, but these remain some of the most regulated industries in the United States.

The much maligned OSHA regulations save 10,000's of lives every year and we can prove it.

OK, smartass ... You're on. Let's see your proof.

Pollution regs do the same and clean up the planet besides, and we have the darn statistics to prove it. Reducing environmental regulations dealing with water, air and toxics means lots of injuries and deaths, time after time, in place after place, in society after society. We are talking about effects so predicatable here that if we were scientists, we could almost describe them as natural laws.

OK, I'm supposed to believe that a bunch of government asswipes in a room in Washington are cleaning up ANYTHING? I also don't acknowledge that there is a major problem on a large scale in this area. Most of the problems occurring with nature are CAUSED BY NATURE and not by human beings. Volcanic eruptions, for example, are environmental disasters the likes of which we humans could NEVER recreate, and they've been happening all over the world for billions of years. Fluorocarbons galore every time, and lo and behold, there's still a healthy ozone layer.

Even if there really were a problem in this area, how can you seriously demonstrate that government regulation would be a solution? The real solution would be capitalists taking over and competing for the opportunity to solve a problem that arose. Check out the (American) companies that worked so well in Iraq after the Iraq war in 1991. No large-scale environmental catastrophe - largely due to the capitalists getting together to solve a problem - and a great many lives were saved. Not too much in the way of injuries and deaths by my count. This is the way an environmental problem that may arise should be solved.

Seems like you have an affinity for socialist healthcare. Europe, India, Nicaragua, and especially Cuba are places that cook the numbers in their favor. All of these systems feature long wait times for urgent surgery. I suppose the people who die from not having their necessary surgical needs met every year don't count as "unhealthy"?

I love the way you tout Cuba as having this wonderful healthcare system. Tell that to all the people who wait in lines for days to see American dentists brought in by missionaries that have to kiss up to Castro just to get into the country. And all these dentists can do, due to a lack of equipment, is pull teeth. The ones that don't get to see the dentists often die of abscessed teeth! Yeah right. Nice healthcare system.

The real problem in American healthcare would be solved by real tort reform. Healthcare prices are not driven up by greed or envy, but by the rising cost of malpractice insurance. There was a time when people could afford to pay their medical bills without health insurance. Now we hear talk of the nanny state providing the insurance for you. What a fucking joke! If people would simply solve their problems without litigation, this problem could go away quite easily. Of course, John Edwards might wind up in the poorhouse ... We can't have THAT now, can we?

Oh and Bobby, please spare me the bleeding heart stories. You act as if these people's families wouldn't have a sense of responsibility or that there would never be a worthy charity to help these people. These solutions ALWAYS work better than stealing people's money under the guise of helping people in seemingly helpless situations.

We have had socialized education for quite a long time now. Where are the success stories about today's kids outperforming their predecessors? You didn't cite any, and I see schools failing every day, not because there is a problem with the teachers, but because of the entitlement mentality in students, parents, and teachers alike caused by the socialist education system. Come to work with me for a day and I'll show you. Teachers cry because their "State Health Benefits" might be turned over to a private company (who could very well provide better service at a lower cost). Parents refuse to insist that their children treat themselves and others with respect, and students who believe everything in life comes to them courtesy of the government, so why should they do any work? I see this every day in my job as a teacher. And, by the way, let me go on record as a teacher who has taught in a private school whose programs kicked every public school in its area's ass. Its shortcomings were a result of the unfortunate mismanagement of its funds, something even more common in public schools.

Public roads vs. private roads ... The Constitution (Article I section 8) does provide for public roads (called "post roads" in that document), so I doubt the Libertarians would change much there.

The devastation in the third world is a result of the LACK of capitalism there. Institute REAL capitalism in those countries and you can be guaranteed a quick reversal of the plight of these people. The former Soviet Union is a prime example. They're not at the very top of the ladder, but they are climbing it, which is more than they could say under communist rule. And as they get better at it, they will get closer to the top.

I am not myself a Libertarian, and I do disagree with them on some matters, but I am a Constitutionalist. Bob, none of what you advocate is constitutional. Go read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and see for yourself. There's nothing there giving the federal government any authority whatsoever to engage in any kind of socialism at all, particularly not with regard to the areas you cite.

Socialism had been tried in the colonies prior to the writing of the constitution (e.g. Plymouth Colony) and had failed dismally. Do you not think that the Founding Fathers would have included provisions for socialism if they felt it had any place in this great nation?

Be serious, man. I am not rich. My annual household income does not exceed $75,000.

The things you advocate would definitely bring people together at the same economic level, but that level would unfortunately place virtually everyone below the poverty line with no hope for escape. I, for one, am glad we have capitalism so that someday I may build for myself serious economic prosperity and pass it on to my children.


Get a life!



RWR