I. Love. This. Article. We all know our own Che s, and if only I could use these same devastating arguments with such focus and alacrity to debunk my two…. I’ll be studying it well. At least I’ve gleaned something from Mises in the last few months: the terms “rulers” and “overlords”, lol!

I would suggest that the major error made by all statists is their unshakeable belief that not only is “the market” an entity, but that the government is also an entity, not simply a bunch of plain ol’ human beings operating according to a unique (and fiendish) set of rules. They view government as either a neutral or benevolent MECHANICAL force for good, like a giant magical Mary Poppins (“Oh dear, if only those evil right wingers would allow Mary Poppins to clean up health care!” On dear, if only those evil left wingers would allow Mary Poppins to clean up Iraq!”). Mary Poppins is not unleashed only because of the evil and stupidity of one’s opponents.

These people also seem to view the government (and big corporations) as having a giant, bottomless magic egg full of goodies and money. These goodies aren’t passed out only because the magic egg is controlled by Big Meanies (“Free health care for all!” “Heck, free EVERYTHING for EVERYBODY”).

They will not understand that the government is merely other human beings always acting as a SWAT TEAM with no money or assets of its own.

Further, I suspect that most supporters of the Fed have truly come to view it as both Mary Poppins and Magic Egg which, unfortunately, is the basis for their apparently unshakeable misguided view of reality. Conservative Fed supporters may generally appear to understand Austrian concerns with government action. Despite this, the Fed somehow becomes the unquestionable agent of magic and the supernatural in their minds, replacing “the government”.

People who think like this appear to me to be hopeless. But this is who are opponent is.

“If one rejects laissez faire on account of man’s fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.”

- Ludwig von Mises

Tom, I am not sure what you hope to gain from this article. Pat Robertson once said that while working in the Nixon Administration, they were taught never to attack insignificant people. You can’t win. You look like a bully picking on the crippled kid on the playground.

I am not saying that your arguments were incorrect. I am merely saying that you should consider how such things effect your public image.

Dear all,

I am not satisfied with the answers that have been given in response to my question, however easy or challenging you may think it is. So, to be clearer, it boils down to the following:

Within a free market model, the cost of medical care – even assuming it would decrease following massive privatisation – will always be such that some people will not be in a position to get the care they need. To those people, would you then have to say: ‘Sorry for you, but you will need to borrow money from your siblings or friends or die’ ?
Thank you!

Martin: “some people will not be in a position to get the care they need.”

The costs of medical care in a free market would be so low that only the very poorest could not afford it. But at the same time, others would be considerably richer, which would make them more inclined to give to charity. Have a little faith in your fellow man. Most are quick to help out those who can’t. For example, one of my brothers-in-law is a Shriner and he has worked many weekends for decades to raise money for the Shriners’ childrens hospital which take care of kids for nothing. They even provide transportation and lodging for the parents while the kid is in the hospital.

Dear ‘mpolzkill’,

You just convinced me. Many thanks

Anyone else notice that in the picture “Che” uses, he’s wearing an Apple iPod made by one of those evil capitalist corporations he keeps talking about? The picture is actually called “iChe.”

Apparently Che’s hatred of evil corporations doesn’t extend to Apple, which is apparently set apart from all other corporations in his mind. Since we already know what sort of rock solid reasoning we can expect from him based on his other arguments, we can probably assume Apple isn’t like other corporations because “Apple’s cool.”