Assaults on capitalism are rooted in a crybaby metaphysics [:)], and they rely on obfuscations, equivocations, and an attitude of militant evasion. One trick is to make inappropriate demands of capitalism, then stomp and pout and denounce capitalism when those demands are not met. [amusement mine]

In the wake of the current gulf disaster, so many are quick to join the BP lynch mob without considering the influence of statist environmentalist policies.

Observe that the government, beholden to an insane environmentalist ideology that views nature as an intrinsic value and superior to human beings, forbade oil companies to drill nearer to the coast line where there were shallow waters. In the shallow areas, an oil leak could be directly accessed. Instead, companies were only allowed to drill in areas too deep for current technology to address.

Wonderful to see her rub the nose of Mr. Frank in his own cognitive slobber.

First, exactly what would qualify a team of bureaucratic goons to better handle the situation than those who’ve spent their engineering and scientific careers in the industry? Just like handing an iPad to a caveman, government would have neither the intellectual ability nor the proper motivation necessary for efficacy. Moreover, “receivership” would have the political baggage of constituent outrage from at least some segment (albeit minor) of our population. Even though most Americans don’t understand the proper role of government, there are now more of those with the awareness that they *should* know, and who are on the lookout for the statist machine which steamrolled the auto and healthcare industries. I don’t think this administration would dare risk the potential backlash (from even a small segment of voters) that would result if they assumed any type official dominance over BP.

Instead, consider the widespread anti-business and environmental rage that this ordeal has invoked, and how that rage could be funneled into a moral crusade with enough leverage to push through cap-n-trade and/or virtually any other suite of environmentally oriented regulations and economic controls.

Can a pragmatist think long(er)-term?

Why risk it when they can play it safe and hit the power jackpot? Why offend 30% of the population for a quickie when you can coddle 90% of them and get a lusty lifetime affair? What tyrant would trade short-term power with a political cost for long-term, farther reaching power which also bolsters their political image? Who was it that said “never let a crisis go to waste“?

This event could be the most generous gift of political capital the thug administration could wish for. Who knows, maybe they did?

“Those who go without health insurance “substantially affect interstate commerce” by shifting health care costs to others, “increasing financial risks to households and medical providers,” causing bankruptcies, increasing insurance premiums and raising administrative expenses, according to the legal filing. [emphasis mine]”

In other words, “Since we’ve decided that healthcare is a right, and care providers are morally obligated to serve the needs of others, the government has the moral authority to force everyone into the system to control costs.”

Which leads to the question which can only be met with snarling condemnation – How could those who go without insurance inflict such an impact on the market if all individuals were merely responsible for only their own care?

Answer: they couldn’t! Their decisions regarding healthcare would essentially affect only themselves. If men weren’t forced to serve others financially, no other man would have to pay for the bad decisions of another.

This notion, of course, is unimaginable to a pragmatic collectivist, who only see this as a case where “just a little more” government control is needed “just to keep things in line” – which is exactly what Medicare proponents claimed 50 years ago when the obliteration of American medicine began.
Like all cases of market intervention and regulation, we see that “just a little” has now escalated to the full socialization of an industry. Such is the recursive nature of economic meddling, which as logic, history and economics indicate, can only result in higher prices, lower quality, and more regulation to come.

The statist argument is that:

1) Because we have (unjust) laws *forcing* healthcare providers to render services to everyone (regardless of their ability to pay) and 2) because we’ve established a welfare state which enslaves productive citizens across 50 states to cover the financial burdens of others, then 3) in order to maintain interstate commerce by controlling costs, government needs to A) force healthcare providers to charge all customers the same rate (as opposed to letting them recoup some of their losses from serving Medicare and Medicaid “customers” by charging self-sufficient customers a higher rate) and B) prohibit consumers from choosing any avenues of care which might enable their escape from, or expose the folly of, the whole system – in other words, one leash requires one neck.

Thus here we see the left’s favorite and most powerful legal wild-card at play - regulation under interstate commerce is virtually unstoppable.

If men are indoctrinated from birth with the morality of altruism, chained to one another in a way that each man’s burden is the responsibility of others, and can live in one of 50 different states, then yes… every breath a man makes will affect interstate commerce.

America has signed a blank check on government tyranny that is beyond containment.

1. the fallacious suggestion of decreased costs which excludes from consideration an inevitable trend towards DMV-quality service, severely muted market competition, an army of new bureaucratic goons, the introduction of inestimable stress to everyday life, an exodus of talented professionals, skyrocketing taxes and/or skyrocketing inflation, and an inevitable *increase* in all associated costs for all involved parties: The healthcare bill will save Americans money.

For anyone brave enough to read her vicious tripe, do so with this thought in mind:

Every dollar spent by government equals more than a dollar stolen from productive citizens. Every job “created” by government spending is more than a job destroyed in the private sector. Every supposed benefit from government spending comes with an even greater offsetting detriment to taxpayers. Apart from the protection of individual rights accomplished by police, military, and courts, government spending equals destruction of wealth and productivity - every time, in every place, in any context, for any purpose.

Prosperity can only arise as the summation of voluntary individual achievement, a tenet which Pelosi and her ilk stand in diametric opposition to. Don’t trust a single word uttered by this Marxist hag.

The glances of women are like certain apparently peaceful, but really formidable, machines. You pass them every day quietly, with impunity, and without suspicion of danger. There comes a moment when you forget even that they are there. You come and go, you muse and talk and laugh. Suddenly you feel that you are seized; it is done. The wheels have caught you, the glance has captured you. It has taken you, no matter how or where, by any portion whatever of your thought which was trailing. Through any absence of mind, you are lost. You will be drawn in entirely. A chain of mysterious forces has gained possession of you. You struggle in vain; no human succor is possible. You will be drawn down, from wheel to wheel, from anguish to anguish, from torture to torture. You, your mind, your fortune, your future, your soul; and, you will not escape from the terrible machine until, according as you are in the power of a malevolent nature, or a noble heart, you will be disfigured by shame, or transfigured by love.

Les Misérables - Volume III: Book Sixth, Chapter VI (Wilbour Translation)

Unscrupularity is a fog under which ignorance and evil thrive.