The GOP hates Obamacare, that is certain. However, repeated attempts to repeal have failed to make even the slightest dent, in particular because people do not want to suddenly lose their healthcare or be denied for pre-existing conditions. In response, one GOP pundit has decided on taking a radically different tactic to get rid of Obamacare.
Robert W. Patterson, editor of The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy, released a new article last week, titled “Grand Strategy on Health Care” in which he proposes a new policy by which the Republicans can manage to get Obamacare repealed. This is his proposal … a single payer healthcare system …
… Creating transformational change is not only about protesting what we do not like and resisting and refusing to cooperate with the power structure; it also requires us to simultaneously build the world we want. If big-finance capitalism does not serve the people, what will? The mass of people who struggle through their daily lives need to know there is an alternative available that will meet their needs and improve their lives. People who urgently require employment, housing, food and other immediate needs can work together now to solve their problems in ways that also undermine big-finance capitalism and build democratic and sustainable systems. …
For every copy of Roderick T. Long’s “Ten Common Objections to Market Anarchy, with 10 Responses“ that you purchase through the Distro, C4SS will receive a percentage.
… That Iran will use its nuclear weapons against the US and Israel is rather obviously the centerpiece of the fear-mongering campaign against Tehran, to build popular support for threats to launch an aggressive attack in order to prevent them from acquiring that weapon. So what, then, is the real reason that so many people in both the US and Israeli governments are so desperate to stop Iranian proliferation?
Every now and then, they reveal the real reason: Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable. …
… All the envisioned monopoly strategies rely on the assumption that challengers would not adapt and develop workarounds (“the enemy usually has a plan, too — the dirty SOB!”). A primary effect of regulations is to criminalize those workarounds. …
All the envisioned monopoly strategies rely on the assumption that challengers would not adapt and develop workarounds (“the enemy usually has a plan, too — the dirty SOB!”). A primary effect of regulations is to criminalize those workarounds.
Monopoly is great, if you can just find a way to prevent competitors from entering the market and selling stuff cheaper than you. And when you penetrate behind the “progressive” aura of the regulatory state, you generally find it doing just that.
The Role of State Monopoly Capitalism in the American Empire
“With interventionism and restrictionism, the best businessman is he who best knows how to influence in his interest the decisions of the organs of the state (in regard to tariffs, government subsidies or orders, advantageous import quotas, etc.) … . What formerly was regarded as a special trait of the munitions industry becomes in interventionist capitalism the general rule. Some have argued that, under such centralized corporate statism, innovation and founding of new enterprises can be so discouraged that, as Jacobs puts it, “there is nowhere to export the embarrassing superfluity of capital except abroad.” The structure of the economy limits domestic investment, thereby promoting aggressive capital export. Simultaneously, monopoly prices foster artificial “surpluses” of specific goods. As the American economy became systematically corporatist, a sense of crisis and stagnation, as well as a desire to further rationalize and perfect the system, strengthened the hand of those who wished to universalize the new political economy through world empire.”