Both politicians and big business desire monopoly. Obamacare over time, being one of the largest transfers of power from elected officials to a few select corporate entities, will narrow the field of competition among health care providers to a select and politically connected few.
This is desirable by politicians because as citizens become more beholden to the state for an essential service such as health care, the more people can be controlled. Big business equally desires this outcome because larger organizations tend to be slow to react to market changes, while smaller businesses are far more agile. This small-business advantage is removed when a market is driven by political influence and not the will of consumers. Such influence can only be bought and sold by those entities with vast and expendable resources. This is the real advantage of being a large corporation, therefore such companies use this to their advantage and most politicians are more than willing to oblige.
This is obviously the intent and result of Obamacare. According to Fortune.com, part of the Time Magazine network:
Based on current demographic trends alone, today’s dearth of primary care practitioners is destined to get far worse. As a result, prices are rising, and competition is falling, as big hospital groups rush to hire all the primary care doctors they can find. Once one or two big chains control most of the family doctors and general internists in their markets, rivals can’t find the troops to challenge them. That’s creating oligopolies in markets across the nation.
The goal of politicians and political parties is to prey on the apathy and ignorance of the public in order to achieve its primary mission: acquiring more power and money. In any scenario in which organizations are in competition for the attention and resources of people, it benefits those vying for such attention to ensure their audience has as few options as possible. This is true for all organizations, and political groups are no different.
If there must be competition among those who deal in power and control, limiting the field to only two groups is obviously the optimal number.
This is a benefit to political entities because the fewer the parties or teams, the more chance a particular organization has to recruit more people. For example, consider a scenario in which there were only two baseball teams in the entire country; one from the East and another from the West. What are the odds that those who live on the East will purchase the souvenirs, team shirts, playing cards, and the nearly infinite number products of the team on their Coast? Quite likely close to 100%. Maybe some people who live on the border, or those that migrate from one coast to another will not, but without question the money to be made and the fan base to amass will be much larger when the market for fans is limited to either X or Y and no other. Read more →
Large corporations do not desire free markets; in fact they desire regulated and government controlled business climates that are far easier to control solely with money. This is evident the moment a person honestly removes the rhetoric and emotion from nearly all arguments to the contrary, by simply recognizing the facts.
Free markets mean:
· More competition
· Easier advancement of smaller businesses
· Quicker declines of industry leaders
· Zero favoritism and coercion purchasable by those with the most money to spend
Those who advocate for government regulation are fighting for those corporations that desire an ever increasingly monopolistic or oligopolistic business climate so they may impose their will upon Americans and ever increasingly over our children’s lives.
Free Markets Mean More Competition
Free markets are exactly that: Markets absent any attempts to initiate coercion upon consumers or competitors. There are no dues, no forced joining of groups, and easy entry and exit to and from the marketplace.
One may ask, ‘Without government regulation, who will ensure products are safe?’Read more →
The fight against the ideology of President Obama and his flagship legislation, the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare, is waged by people with the same principles and morality as those who waged the fight against slavery in the United States decades ago. This is evident when one considers the arguments made to justify Obamacare and those to justify slavery.
Upon examination, the two arguments are morally and ethically the same:
Argument 1: Health care, as concluded by slavery advocates to justify slavery, is a “right” . . .
The supposed moral premise of the Affordable Care Act and slavery are both predicated upon a supposed “right” to the life and property of others.
The book American Slavery explains that the concept of rights was redefined after the American Revolution; whereby the concept matured. The idea of ‘rights’ started with the irrational consideration that rights only extended from specific liberties enjoyed by certain groups of people. Later, the concept of rights evolved into a more matured concept–one that necessitates an understanding of the idea in which, by definition, a right cannot be a right unless it extends to all people. The author explains, “Although the Revolution fostered an abstracted sense of Rights – specific ‘liberties,’ enjoyed by specific groups, became a generalized ‘liberty’ belonging to all – many Southerners continued to use the term in the older sense.”
This is to say, prior to the American Revolution, to outlaw slavery would be to remove the slave owners’ right to own slaves and therefore a violation of their liberty. The American experiment recognized the logical error in this reasoning over time and evolved the understanding of rights to the reality that the only way a right can truly exist, it must be applicable to all people and applied to everyone in the same way. Read more →
This article is an analysis of the concept of corporatism contrasted with the very important and keen in sights outlined in Peter Schwartz’s discussion titled Clarity in Conceptualization: The Art of Identifying “Package-Deals”. This lecture is recommended by the author and is found here.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first known use of the word ‘corporatism’ was in 1890 and defined as, “the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.” Although this concept is not new, it is ignored by both those who champion government power as well as those who despise it.
It is imperative this concept be re-injected into modern society for no other reason than to accurately describe how and why the United States’ future is nothing unless citizens stand up and fight this real and hidden evil.
When politicians state they wish to increase access to just about anything – health care, medications, education or whatever, they do not really mean “access” they mean a transfer of property from those who have earned it to those who have not. In other words, they want to take property from one person or group for the benefit of themselves and/or to buy the votes of people associated with a special interest. This is the common sleight of hand we see so often today when it comes to vernacular.
According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, the dictionary for the origin of American English and definitions of words prior to being tainted by modern distortion and political correctness, access is defined as a “[m]eans of approach; liberty to approach; implying previous obstacles.”
In order to truly understand what this meaning implies, it is appropriate to look at the words that comprise it: Read more →
Although the transition from an America built upon the principles of capitalism started decades ago, it was significantly accelerated during the Obama Administration. It is evident that President Barrack Obama is a corporatist by virtue of the fact that he, all Democrats during his tenure, and many republicans were at least complicit if not instrumental in this fundamental transformation of America.
Economics and aggression have more in common than most understand. When considering history, it is evident that those societies which endow their governments with the power to “do good” inadvertently and equally empower their governments to cause great harm. Across the spectrum of differing societies, it is clear that those which disrespect the individual rights of its citizens also have a parallel disregard for other societies.
Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which property, businesses, and industry are owned by individual people and not by the government. In other words, in a capitalist society people have the freedom to possess and own property without control or possession by any other entity. The more a society values an individuals right to the property they have earned, the more capitalist the society. Of course, those who possess the resources also possess the power. Therefore, in a capitalist society the citizenry possess most of the power, not the government.
This is a default result of capitalism because government produces nothing; it only takes from those who produce. When the right of each individual to own the fruits of their labor is prevalent, governments power is limited. Therefore, its ability to initiate force against the individual is severely limited.
Finally, while studying the definition of capitalism, it is evident that it requires government. As cited, it is an economic system in which resources are owned by individual people and not by the government. Nowhere in the definition does it imply capitalism requires the absence of government, only that property rights are respected bythe government. Read more →
Republicans must stop nominating candidates with the ethical equivalency of their opponents. The election of 2012 is over and the result is indicative of any choice one must make between two marginally different philosophies. At their core, there is no difference ethically between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama, and this lack of distinction resulted in a dismal future for generations to come.
Any common sense analysis of the two candidates in their actions and advocacy makes this apparent:
Equal support of ahealth insurance mandate
Astoundingly, Republican voters nominated the one person who has no ethical standing to criticize President Obama on the one issue that is his biggest vulnerability, Obamacare. Although Romney tried to separate his advocacy for the Massachusetts law and the federal law, his refusal to admit at a minimum the Romneycare experiment in Massachusetts is a failure, he left people to assume the conclusion that Obamacare will deliver on its promises. Romneycare did not in Massachusetts and Obamacare will not nationally. Read more →