92 thoughts on “Miscellany: IRS to Peter Dunn, “Never mind.””

1. Well said, Petros.  At some point all those who have been made dependent on the government will be left holding the bag.  Just look at some of the headlines coming out of the east coast of the US.  These people had a week to get ready and yet most didn’t do a thing and are now blaming government:

   Drivers Waiting 6 Hours For Gas in NYC…
   Tempers Rise in Wake of Storm…
   ‘Finding bodies left and right’…
   DEATH TOLL REACHES 109…
   Restaurant, hotel prices skyrocket…
   CHUCK SCHUMER CONFRONTED: ‘We Are Gonna Die!’
   CRAIGSLIST: $15 a gallon…
   Utility workers pelted with eggs…
   Misery…
   ‘We have nothing’…
   Residents Furious RED CROSS Offering Cookies & Hot Chocolate, Not Blankets Or Clothes…
   Jet Fuel Supply Fast Becoming Concern At Airports…
   Staten Islanders Plead for Help: ‘We Need Food’…
   ‘Please don’t leave us’…
   VIDEO: Stranded New Yorkers Defecating in Apartment Buildings…
   NJ counties enact 70s style gas rationing… Developing…

2. @recalcitrant, “Death panels” means that bureaucrats determine what disease is and what they will treat. My friend could have died of Lyme Disease, but in her case OHIP did not recognize her illness nor would they pay for her treatment. They would have let her die (hence, death panel), and this is on the basis of the decision to take the opinion of certain in the medical community who are incompetent in their diagnosis of Lyme disease who then disagreed with the doctors who cured her; these doctors have convinced the OHIP not to pay for this therapy. Consequently, and conveniently, she had to pay out of pocket with private funds for her treatment.

   Charities do not function well, because they are deprived of funds that they would otherwise get if taxation levels weren’t at 50% in Canada. Of course they aren’t. But remember, charitable hospitals are among the finest in the United States (and hence the world). My father often worked at Providence Hospital, for example.

   Finally, I said you can sue an insurance company because I was pointing out that government can act as an arbiter in a dispute between two parties. But it cannot act as a fair arbiter when it is one of the parties. If you believe in an independent judiciary, I’d take the rose-colored glasses off. Not only are judges predominantly left-wing but they also get their pay cheque from the government.

   If contracts are crap in society it is because men are thieves and cheats. So how does it make it better if men are thieves and cheats if government takes over an enterprise? It doesn’t. It just means that the thief has the biggest gun in the room.

3. @Petros- if that is the definition of death panels then the private insurers are also operators of death panels. Private insurance companies also refuse to pay for treatments that they deem to be “exprimental”. In the U.S. there are also Americans who have had to go abroad for medical procedures that were not available in the States.

   If I have to deal with an organisation that is going to decide my health care I would prefer that it be one that has a public responsibility as opposed to one that is accountable to its shareholders. I would also prefer it be one that doesn’t have a vested interest in denial of service.

   It is by no means self evident that charitable organisations, including hospitals, would get more money in donations if taxes were lowered. I think that people are quick to forget that charities didn’t really function all that well during the Great Depression and that is part of what necessitated the New Deal. There is also very little vested self interest that can be derieved from making a charitable donation. I also do not believe that is is humane to put the health care of people at the foot of individual whim.

   As for the ability of the government to work as a fairer arbeiter of disputes between the patient and the provider or insurere of medical care. I believe that as a voter that I can have more influence on a politician than I can have on the CEO of Aetna.

   I do realize that there are some charitable hospitals in the States that have done some good work. But they are far and few. And personally I wouldn’t want to have to meet the requirement for service, which is that of being poor. The truth is that there are many middle class people in Canada who would actually be poor people if the lived in the States, just because of medical expenses.

   Truth be told there are many U.S. corporations that would love a single payer system for health provision because their health insurance costs are way too high. Many corporations are dropping medical coverage for their employees. And buying medical coverage as an individual is just prohibitively expensive. The single payer system is the best and most rational way to allocate medical resources.

   I’ve lived in the States and done that. I agree completely with Calgary411 when she talks about how horrible life would be for her and her son if they were in America. I know that my disabled son would NOT receive the same level of medical access that he gets in Canada if he were in the States.

   You may be healthy now but you may not be healthy a moment from now.

   @ConfederateH- if taxation is theft then taxation even for purposes of defense is also theft. The arugment actually becomes none sensical.

4. recalcitrant – The fundamental principle of social physics is bigger is badder. Right on! I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be willing to become a murderous instrument of a currently constituted state having that “power” and that presumed right to coerce me. That is a corollary.

5. @Recalcitrant, well, we are seeing now that total depravity affects governmental agencies with world-wide mismanagement and insolvency.  Soon all the governments in the world, including many in Canada (your lucky to be in Alberta, until the government of Canada starts making huge transfer payments to have-not provinces like Ontario which will sap all the resource wealth out of your province).  Here in Ontario, we are insolvent and extend and pretend is alive and well in Canada.

   A system of benevolence which creates huge moral hazard and leads everywhere in the world to the insolvency of governments is an experiment that is about to crash.  I am not happy with the system in Canada.  You are.  I pay heavily into as do all employers.  Many with no jobs in Ontario pay nothing at all.  We will soon see if this is sustainable.  But think an actuary could probably tell us that most governments are completely insolvent.  Canada is perhaps slightly better than the US, for now, but Ontario is a complete basket-case.

   You say you trust government because you can vote.  I actually think that is a farce.  I can vote, but the people who want to steal from me out number me.  Democracy is a lamb and three wolves voting on what’s for dinner.  In the end, I will trust no one with my future well-being except God.  I don’t trust insurance companies.  Don’t make me laugh.  Warren Buffet is trustworthy?  Hardly.  But I especially don’t trust government–my reading of history and my personal experience tells me that there are two big human enemies in life:  foreign invaders who wish you ill; governments who steal from you promising protection and other benefits.

6. @recalcitrantexpat

   “if taxation is theft then taxation even for purposes of defense is also theft. The arugment actually becomes none sensical.”

   It is not theft if it is given voluntary.  In a time of real threat the state can collect taxes voluntarily. 

7. Wow… Maybe this thread title should be changed to 

   Sick around the world.     Which was a good documentary that Frontline did about the various healthcare systems in 5 different countries including Switzerland.  Would be interested whether ConfH thinks it accurately represents what they have.  

   I have a few other things I would like to add to the conversation, but they are calling the flight.  Got to run.  Interesting discussion, even if it is off topic!

8. I guess on the conversation about the merits or ills of Private Health care vs Public Health care have ended, so, for a diversion on Sunday morning, here is this amusing life experience by Andy Borowitz, called An Unexpected Twist.

   Andy navigates the medical system with humor.  But doesn’t weigh in on how it was paid for, so there will be no enlightenment, except the fact, at any moment the unexpected ‘health event’ can happen. At that time, how much it costs, or who is going to pay for it, is the least of your concerns. Enjoy.

   
   
   

9. Learn to love your master, slave.  He is the only one who will take care of you when you are sick.

10. @ConfederateH,

    Even slaves have their own money, whatever the master allows them to keep after paying for one’s upkeep and for taxes.  So as I said, the health system here in Ontario seems to pay for little of the health care that I need.  Dental, eye exams, medicines, travel clinics have no coverage. Then, also Lyme Disease, if they can’t detect it with their pathetic tests.  So no, the master isn’t going to cover things.  But you can pay for a your own coverage or find friends to help you pay.  Also, employers have group plans that cover more of the things that OHIP doesn’t and that becomes increasingly expensive for employers as OHIP cuts services.  So you can still pay for it yourself and take care of your self if you have any money left over after paying your taxes.  Bridgewaters Associates via Zero Hedge has a great article on prosperity and self-sufficiency:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-03/why-self-sufficiency-matters-or-why-europes-growth-outlook-not-good

    Here is a good sample (Zero Hedge’s emphasis):

    It is both logical and consistent with the evidence to believe that self-sufficiency is an important ingredient for individuals and societies to be successful. Self-sufficiency encourages productivity by tying the ability to spend to the need to produce, it allows people to be free rather than dependent on others and it gives people self-respect. It is not controversial to say that people spend the money that they earn differently than the money that others give them – i.e., that the connection between earning and spending is a healthy one. If people have to earn money to spend it, they have to be more productive. Over the long run increases in living standards rise as a function of increases in productivity. So, it is not a big leap to presume that countries with greater amounts of self-sufficiency do better than those with less. Since self-sufficiency creates capability and independence it produces self-esteem. Studies on happiness have shown that once income levels surpass those required for subsistence, that these factors are more highly correlated with happiness levels than the amount of money one has. For these reasons, it is logical to conclude that self-reliance is both productive and satisfying

11. @ConfederateH

    Curious,  Is the ‘slave” nomenclature the only one in your repertoire? 

    Tell me about this perfect idealistic self reliance island you live on, where you are not a slave to anyone or anything and make no accommodations to your idealism?  

    I am not really sure what your mission is with some of your slave comments?  Maybe it is just to blow off some steam of a simmering rage, or frustration with how stupid people can seem to be at times, or just to shock them into a new perspective. I get that. Me too. But, maybe you could occasional mix up the metaphors for what you are trying to say. IMHO, I think the “Slave” vent has run it course. 

    Winning converts, or at least people to consider your world view certainly suffers when constantly call people ‘slaves’ at every opportunity.  People make choices to live civilly with one another, or engage in on-line debate without acrimony or insult. Just because someone is willing to accept some restriction or tax more than you are, does not make them a slave or an oppressor.     

    In life, people gather together in groups for reasons not totally compatible with the idealistic self reliance models. Some of those decisions or positions seem illogical to you, or hypocritical for sure, but it is part of the human condition that even you, in your Switzerland perfection, are not immune to.  

    When it comes to self reliance, and ideological certainty, I keep asking everyone I know, to site for me one example of a perfect Libertarian society that has ever existed in our history since man came out of the trees and began cooperating together in tribal societies which evolved into governments and sovereign states.

    What does that perfect self reliant ideal world look like, and why have we never seen an example of it in modern history?  Is it because there is no absolutes when it comes to humans and how they group together?  

    The point is mankind “groups”, not “repeals”!  There is attraction, not repulsion. That fundamental fact seems at odds with the libertarian ideal of separation and self reliance.  It is like trying to pull magnets apart and say they would be better off if they weren’t so close together, but then, without the magnet, we don’t have a motor.  

    Those countries that have the least government and the most self reliance, are some of the most primitive and chaotic in Africa that I don’t see you immigrating to. Some that have the least taxes, like Singapore, come with a highly regimented social order and discipline that creates “no gum chewing” slaves of a different sort!

    When you consider the earth’s population has gone from 3 billion to 7 billion in my life time, and probably heading to 10 billion before plateauing, what are the chances we will see more libertarian societies separating out from the social order as the counter balance to growth and grouping, or will something else emerge that you would equate with more slavery?

    Maybe there is a guy or two living remotely in Alaska who thinks that his is the perfectly self reliant life, and has obtained libertarian nirvana, but then he is still slave to his mail delivery by that subsidized bush plane. I would bet, come the time, he will want his Social Security and Medicare, as he gets older, ill, and more needy. Maybe he will be the stoic Eskimo that heads out onto an ice flow to meet his end destiny alone, but somehow I doubt it. 

    I understand and believe that more self reliance is better than less, but it is never totally that way, and accommodations always are made, for a “common good”.  Sometimes we accept restrictions on our individual freedoms or taxes now that would seem abhorrent to our grandparents, but I don’t see us going back to that era anytime soon.  

    There is going to be more cooperative (slave like?) behavior in the future, in my opinion, not less, as we are squeezed together in ever larger cities.  I am sure you see that as evil enslavement, but it is also accepted as social accommodation brought on by a more and more interconnected world.  

    Maybe there will be a tipping point, and we will revert to the tribal mean, and divide up into smaller self reliant sovereign nations, as we have become too large and complex to govern or manage.  Maybe your non slavery vision, whatever it is, will prevail. Time will tell.  

    Through out American history, there has been a consolidation of Federal power, and we all celebrate Lincoln who in freeing the real slaves made sure no state could voluntarily leave the union at the cost of a very expensive civil war.  Was the South then enslaved, in your view?  Are there more civil wars to come, to make smaller, what that which has become so large?  Check back with me in a few hundred years, and I will let you know the outcome.

    So, ConferderateH, I am not sure why I am writing this. It probably is counter productive. Maybe the last slave comment was my tipping point. I do appreciate what you say at times, as I like hearing different perspectives, even ones that are grating on my ears, but the manner you go about it, I don’t think is especially effective.  Doesn’t appeal to me, but then, I guess, there is no accounting for tastes. I can just ignore you, and you me, and we both lose.  

    I have to wonder what you are like in person, without the ‘slave” punctuation at the end of so many sentences. Probably a teddy bear, and real nice guy. 🙂

    Cheers Mate.

12. @Just Me- well said.

13. @Just Me,

    Good comments. I love your irenic spirit. I always admire your patience and willingness to assume the role of a patient instructor, and for that I am seriously grateful, especially as you go around the internet and try to gently convince so many boneheads in the legacy media who write about FATCA and FBAR.

    I’ve been paying a lot of attention to Mises Institute podcasts on gold money, and one of the things that Ron Paul maintains is that the US Congress and president would lose a great deal of power if money became free. The Austrian school believes that there is no fiat money (i.e., unbacked currency) made into a legal tender which has not been imposed by force upon a population. They maintain that there is no free market in fiat currency system. That is a profound insight. If the government can tax via devaluing the currency just by printing more dollars, then the people are not free. So that the first thing that is needed for true freedom is sound money, which has not exist for almost a hundred years in the United States (since 1913). Thus, we are indeed less free than we think.

    However, this may change. Several central banks (Germany, Ecuador, Venezuelan, Switzerland, Netherlands) are moving in the direction of repatriating their gold. As this trend continues, the gold that has been leased by the Central Banks of UK and US and perhaps other Western countries to the bullion banks will have to be recalled. But it has been sold to those with strong hands in the East–China, India, Russia, etc. When the central banks are no longer able to deliver the physical gold to countries demanding it, this will be the equivalent of a bank run on the gold, and if they don’t have the gold, the US dollar will soon collapse. The end may come sooner than people imagine.

    Ron Paul says that the economic collapse of the US is the best thing that can happen because the US federal government will lose its power to tyrannize its own people and to conduct wars offshore. I am now a bigger Ron Paul supporter than ever. I am hoping that the US will turn to the libertarian system, rather than to the totalitarian type government that took over Weimar Germany after the Deutsch Mark collapsed. Then there may be something like the libertarian country that you say exists nowhere. But the problem with your point is that, even if such a system exists essentially nowhere, it does not mean that it is not achievable. Perhaps, naysayers told Marxists of the late 19th century, forget about dreaming of your Marxist revolution. It will never happen. It is ultimately unworkable. Yet they were able to accomplish many glorious Marxist regimes around the world: China, USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and Viet Nam, and they were able to overtake the idealogies of the intellectuals in most Western Universities to the point that creeping socialism has destroyed most of the West as well. They were probably told to give up their dreams of the Marxist revolution.

    Well, I hope that the Austrian revolution has similar success. But the libertarian vision is not one of killing whoever gets in the way: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh were all serial sociopathic murderers, and Marxism sacrifices individual freedom for the glorious collective. The libertarian world view is far less dangerous in this regard, since people like Ron Paul eschew the use of force and even want to get rid of the most violent aspect of American life, income taxes and the IRS. Let’s hope it will be the Austrian school that wins the ideological war this time around.

14. Thanks for taking the time for your queries to ConfH in our trying to understand, Just Me.

15. @Just Me:  I find your ongoing tirade about “guy or two living remotely in Alaska” sexist.  Besides, Petros has twice thoroughly debunked your repeated sodomy of this straw man in this thread already, why don’t you address your sexist outbursts to him?  I am not Alaskan and I have never lived there.

    Why don’t you justify your “perfectly PC life, and has obtained liberal nirvana” by explaining how power mad feminist lesbian bull-dike department heads like Janet Napolitano are going to bring it about?  How many  “perfect Liberal bull-dike society that has ever existed in our history since man came out of the trees”?  I’ll bet you don’t appreciate insults and straw men arguments anymore than I do.

    Earlier you asked me not to read your comments, then you make about 4 insulting and condescending comments to me.   

    Take this:

    “I am not really sure what your mission is with some of your slave
    comments?  Maybe it is just to blow off some steam of a simmering rage,
    or frustration with how stupid people can seem to be at times” 

    or this:

    “I do appreciate what you say at times, as I like hearing different
    perspectives, even ones that are grating on my ears, but the manner you
    go about it, I don’t think is especially effective.  Doesn’t appeal to
    me, but then, I guess, there is no accounting for tastes. I can just
    ignore you, and you me, and we both lose.”  

    I understand why you are frustrated about FATCA, but you really need to realize that you only have yourself to blame.  Those who live by progressive taxation shall suffer from it.

    Master likes female slaves because they are weak and he can always play on their emotions to make them compliant.  Female slaves like Master because he gives them free contraceptives and free health care.

16. @Confederate H- I really can’t say that this site really deserves the type of language that you choose to use when talking with others. Everyone else on this site, except for you, seems to be able to display an adult level of respect and civility. Why can’t you?

    The Libertarian individual is just as much of a fiction as is the Capitialist or the Socialist individual. Neither of these views taken on its own is capable of accounting fully for the economic behaviour of humanity. A Libertarian world would be a sad world to live in. So would a Capitalist or Socialist world. There are elements of each that I can agree with but there is no way that I can buy the whole platform that is being sold by any of them.

    In the end though people should be able to hold to their views without insulting and denigrating the views and humanity of others. It seems that you don’t feel likewise. What a shame.

     

17. @All, 

    ConfederateH’s comments are full of malice and his behavior is that of an Agent Provocateur. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

    Engage with him at your own risk.