Cuba is experiencing economic challenges, so what does it do? It reduces the size of the State and deregulates a series of professions.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
The goal "is to further develop... a climate of trust and legality," as Cuba makes the transition to an economy where private enterprise is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged, Granma wrote.I wish the Capitalists would follow suit, and allow our economy to recover. No, instead we are nationalizing yet another segment, "health care." Why is it only communist countries are following good economic policy? Is it because marxists are better economists?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
6 comments:
Are you saying that Cuba's healthcare system should be emulated by the U.S.?
America's healthcare system isn't perfect, but it's definitely not the worst.
The federal government, a currency monetary sovereign, can fund healthcare programs without any problem, the management of the healthcare should be done by free, competitive markets.
I am saying USA should deregulate, like Cuba. Healthcare is diet and exercise. Economics trumps currency sovereignty, and free markets in medicine trumps all. Why bring govt into it at all....?
If there were no government, wouldn't factions and power seekers (and their followers) naturally arise to gain influence to assert their influence? (People have egos and crave security.) How would this be kept from happening? I believe that anarchism is a utopian exercise. Has it ever been achieved in a modern society (Hong Kong?)?
I agree that good health is indeed a large part diet. Consider the ketogenic diet. Physical degeneration as we age is not actually "normal." The development of agriculture by humankind is not an "advancement," it is a tradeoff that has wrought serious health consequences for our species (just consider the bad health effects of eating wheat for example).
The U.S. fed. government is a monetary sovereign regime. There is profound and widespread ignorance of the nature and how our money system functions. The public and leaders do not understand our monetary system to our detriment unfortunately.
There is always government, such as in the game of chess. Rules people follow to make things work. I deny we need a state as govt.
What has the state done to curb abuse of power? It only enhances it. The Tuskegee Experiments are not unique. What we have with state power is chaos. Anarchy brings order.
Hong Kong has every wide a range of knave and the wicked as anywhere else on earth. With less government, they have less chance to leverage power. So that just points the way. It is an error to look to the State for an example of anarchy. Look to voluntary organizations. For example, the oldest and largest single organization on earth, the CAtholic church, has no power whatsoever. It is purely voluntary. Most of its members refuse to follow instructions. But they do not bring violence down on their members (in the past, kings did for the church, but not in the last 200 years, or the first 500).
The powers that be understand the monetary system perfectly well. The results you see are exactly as intended. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You are following someone who says "if we can just get the right person in power, we can make things better." Thos Jefferson was a tyrant the few years he was president, and then went back to being Mr. Freedom. There is no "right person" ever.
There is only withdrawing consent to be governed by the state. The see the world as if there is no state, and things get nicer.
I agree that Anarchism (meaning "no king" or centralized ultimate governing power) would be an improvement, but most people associate the term "anarchism" with lawlessness, everybody for themselves (and taking advantage of others) and no security.
I think the closest we got to this form of government was right after the American revolution, with the original 13 states/colonies. I believe that the states (and the citizenry) had way much more freedom and control over their affairs than the federal government at the time.
Now, I would just be happy to make people understand the monetary system that we have in place now.
That most people submit themselves to social conditioning and state regulated definitions is nothing new. The State infiltrated early anarchist orgs with agente provocateur and the violence was state-instigated.
Why would you bother having people understand the monetary system we have, why not teach the one that works?
Post a Comment