With the mission of eliminating Al-Qaeda ending in failure, the United States changed its purpose in Afghanistan to that of nation building.  This has come into conflict with their second original objective: ending Taliban rule.  While on the surface the coalition’s military has fought an eight year battle against resurgent Taliban warlords in different areas of the country, including the most recent offensive on Marjah,[1] behind the scenes U.S. policy makers have actually been working closely with certain elements of the Taliban in an effort towards stabilization.[2]

It is becoming more and more obvious that the United States’ government is looking to patch up its credibility as a “nation-builder”, before public opinion absolutely forces it to withdraw personnel from Afghanistan.  Current American policy is not too different from Richard Nixon’s “peace with honor” “exit strategy” during the Vietnam War.  As such, nation-building is really a misnomer for an objective which really involves providing Afghanistan a strong government in Kabul to offer the illusion of peace and stability, no matter what the cost to the Afghan people and long-term prosperity of the country.

To be fair, not everyone who believes that central governments can provide peace is being genuinely dishonest.  There has always been a strong belief in the connection between big government, stability and the establishment of an environment conducive to economic and social growth.  There is no doubt that the people of a country with a single authority have a greater opportunity to prosper than a people shackled by conflicting governments.  Just the same, an Afghani not suffering from the uncertainty of what military force will destroy his crops next will have a much greater opportunity to accumulate capital.

This is probably the mindset in which Professor Sheri Berman operated in while writing her piece for Foreign Affairs, “From the Sun King to Karzai”.[3] In the article, she draws attention to the rise of French King Louis XIV, who managed to dislodge French noblemen from positions of power in an effort to become an absolute monarch.  She means this as an analogy, as to argue that the best course of action in Afghanistan is to create a strong national government in Kabul at the expense of local, rural leaders.  It is clear that Berman believes that a strong central government in Afghanistan is bound to lead to development, growth and long-term prosperity.  If centralization of power under Louis XIV led to the development of modern France, a similar course of action will do the same in Afghanistan.

For all its appeal, there is a lacuna in the argument for strong central government.  Historically, some central governments have not been “strong” because they have been big, but because a wealthy economic environment has allowed them to come into existence.  Stability can therefore be said to come from wealth.  People free to prosper are people with incentives to avoid creating regime uncertainty.  Central governments can therefore form without too much opposition from the people they intend to preside over.  With this in mind, it is no coincidence that most politically unstable countries are also very poor.  But, the relationship between wealth and government dictates that wealth must precede central government.   So even if successful, the establishment of an authoritarian and strong central government will therefore not necessarily lead to positive economic and social development in Afghanistan, as the necessary prerequisites have not been established.

In fact, historically speaking, strong central governments in poor nations have simply been oppressive dictatorships.  Iraq, prior to the U.S. invasion, was one such example.  Neither have these “strong central governments” provided stability for long.  Even during Louis XIV’s reign there were repeated rebellions between 1630 and 1670.[4] In fact, it was not until Louis XIV reversed his crippling tax network and replaced mercantilism in favor of laissez-faire that France began to develop.[5] Freedom, not big government, is the catalyst for prosperity.

Current U.S. policy in Afghanistan is ensuring the creation of a big bureaucracy, dedicated to the oppression of the Afghani populace.  Malalai Joya, an Afghani woman elected to—and then banned from—parliament, has been a vocal critic of U.S. politics in her war-torn country.  She has brought attention to the fact that a large portion of Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul is composed of warlords and religious extremists, many of which committed crimes against humanity during the civil war of the 1990s.[6] In effect, the United States is returning Afghanistan to the way it was before the 2001 invasion.  But, instead of the Taliban, the new despots will be “warlords and drug traffickers”.[7]

Professor Berman’s strategy for Afghanistan only promotes disaster.  While many of Louis XIV’s mercantilist policies were eventually rescinded, this occurred only because the France of the 17^th Century enjoyed a fairly large body of wealthy merchantmen with interest in struggle for freedom.  The poor of Afghanistan, which make up the supermajority of the population, do not enjoy the advantage of having a similar social middle class willing to pressure the Afghani government into being more business-friendly.  As a result, Berman’s strategy is bound to lead to dictatorship, not long-term peace and development.

No Easy Solution

Make no mistake, finding a solution to the “Afghan problem” is no simple task.  No matter the route taken, the immediate future holds much pain, suffering and uncertainty.  It is clear that overbearing government, whether coming from Kabul or originating from any of the various regional warlords, will not be defeated bloodlessly.  But, foreign intervention has obviously done nothing to better the situation.  Instead, it made the poor worse off by damaging their businesses and livelihoods, while reinforcing the power of the local governments by providing them military support.  Instead, Afghanistan must improve from within.

Admittedly, “improvement from within” is easier said than done.  It took most modern, first-world nation-states centuries of instability, war and evolution to reach their current degree of political stability.  In Afghanistan, the United States is looking to force this transition within the time span of a few years.  Tragically, this objective may simply not be realistic.  Any central government built through force, in Afghanistan, comes with a high degree of compromise.  Compromise in Afghanistan is leading to the construction of an oppressive regime.  A government designed without considering the interests of the people is a government that is bound to act against these same interests.

Historically, countries escaping tyranny and entering periods of healthy accumulation of wealth do so while there is a simultaneous decrease in the size of government.  The example of 17^th Century France has already been shared: it was only after Louis XIV’s government began to end interventions in the market that the people of France began to prosper.  The case is the same in Afghanistan.  A real rise in wealth will only occur when governments, whether central or local, stop interfering with the individual’s right to his property.

Providing a plan to guide Afghanistan step-by-step through the process of “nation building” may as well be impossible.  Truthfully, no matter how well one knows the politics and history of Afghanistan, no single plan will be very helpful.  Emulating the experience of modern first-world nations, Afghanistan will have to undergo a period of painful political development in which the Afghani people, as individuals, demarcate the boundaries of government—invariably, this means a reduction of government.  But, this series of events must occur from within and must be conducted voluntarily by the Afghan people, and as a result is largely unpredictable.

Professor Kimberly Marten, writing for International Security, provides an interesting case study of the method by which “warlordism” was overcome in Medieval Europe:

The economic surge across Europe at the turn of the first millennium created new opportunities for long distance trade. Merchants thus had an incentive to take political action to lower the transaction costs associated with doing business. The overlapping taxes and incompatible monetary systems of the feudal system gave them reason to escape to territory where they could conduct their business without interference from feudal lords. Merchants who were able to form or settle in self-regulating towns, where impersonal legal codes protected their property rights and set predictable tax rates, prospered. In turn, this prosperity gave them the power and means either to form their own armies for self-defense against warlord predation, or to bargain with kings who promised them protection and universal fair trade rules that extended over larger territories.[8]

This historical example is very revealing.  In Europe, prosperity did not come about until merchants, incentivized by their quest for profit, circumvented the restrictions placed on them by local governments.  Unsurprisingly, faster development took place after the merchant class broke the state’s monopoly on force.  It was the creation of a code of law by the merchants themselves, through voluntary contracts, which provided the stability necessary to foster an environment conducive to investment and economic growth.  The European experience, in fact, suggests that governments play absolutely no role in stabilization.

What is clear is that the current situation in Afghanistan makes it very difficult for such an environment to be created.  The Afghan merchant class is almost non-existent,[9] and the opportunity for the development of such an interest-group has been severely severed by the presence of American and NATO personnel.  In effect, foreign powers have been strengthening regional governments by incorporating them into the new government in Kabul and by providing them military assistance.  This is the exact opposite of what should happen in Afghanistan.  To some degree or another, what is occurring in Afghanistan is similar to what would occur if the United States was to provide military assistance to the likes of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or the Castro family in Cuba.[10]

Direct foreign assistance by means of military force has turned out to be disastrous.  Direct foreign aid in the form of government-provided capital may not be what the doctor prescribed either.  Given the likely recipients of such foreign aid, the capital is unlikely to be allotted towards productive means.[11] The only worthwhile foreign aid is that provided by foreign entrepreneurs looking to invest in Afghanistan, and for that to occur peace must be established through internal reform.  Despite over-simplicity, the only way this will occur is if foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan and the Afghan people struggle to reduce the size of their government.

Luckily, the existence of globalization has made it far easier for merchants to trade for capital-goods, replacing decades of capital accumulation.[12] This fact should shorten the process of the creation of a relatively wealthy merchant class in Afghanistan, which will also shorten the time necessary for the necessary political changes to be made.  Nevertheless, the presence of armed military personnel exercising a monopoly on force against the merchant class, or those hoping to become the merchant class, provides a strong barrier against progress.  For this reason, these troops must withdraw.

Entrepreneurship versus Government

Afghanistan will not be improved by the forceful construction of a bulky central bureaucracy.  There has been an incorrect assumption of causality between strong government, stability and entrepreneurship.  The relationship is the exact opposite.  Entrepreneurs, working around restrictions placed by the state, accumulated the wealth necessary for stable central governments to come into existence.  These “strong” central governments have either always been small, or have necessarily decreased in size, in order to allow for economic growth.  Their strength and stability, furthermore, does not stem from their size or power, but the fact that the smaller their role in regulating the actions of an individual the less an individual is likely to question the legitimacy of the state.

Such political development does not happen overnight, and cannot be forced on a people.  By perpetuating the impoverishment of the Afghans, coalition forces have set themselves up for failure.  What is necessary is the creation of a relatively wealthy pool of individuals, which give them an incentive to struggle against the state and provide the Afghan people in general with a stable environment promoting growth.  That being said, the best course of action for foreign countries directly intervening in Afghanistan today is to withdraw.

All the while, intellectuals looking to guide foreign policy by drawing analogies between historical examples and modern-day Afghanistan must come to the realization that social and economic development can only come voluntarily and can only stem from the passion for entrepreneurship existent within the Afghan people.[13] Big government and social engineering are burdens which act against entrepreneurship; prosperous and stable nations invariably require as small a government as possible or ideally no government at all.

[2] Gall, Carlotta, “As U.S. Weighs Taliban Negotiations, Afghans Are Already Talking”.  New York Times, 11 March 2009.

[3] Berman, Sheri, “From the Sun King to Karzai”.  Foreign Affairs, Volume 89, Number 2, 1 March 2010; pp. 2–9.

[4] Rothbard, Murray N., An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought: Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises Institute: 2006; p. 225.

[5] Ibid., pp. 257–274.

[6] Joya, Malalai, “The big lie of Afghanistan”.  Guardian.co.uk, 25 July 2009.

[7] Joya, Malalai, “A troop surge can only magnify the crime against Afghanistan”.  Guardian.co.uk, 30 November 2009.

[8] Marten, Kiberly, “Warlordism in Comparative Perspective”.  International Security, Vol. 31, No. 3: Winter 2006/2007; p. 60.

[9] Ibid. p. 69.

[10] That being said, make no mistake that the United States does actively support tyrannical and murderous regimes throughout the world.  This fact alone makes the United States’ intention of real nation-building in Afghanistan dubious at best.

[11] For a general argument against foreign aid, see: Moyo, Dambisa, Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa, Farrar, Straus and Geroux: 2009.

[12] Reisman, George, Globalization: The Long-Run Big Picture: 17 November 2006.

[13] Finegold Catalán, Jonathan, “Passion Comes From Liberty”.  Mises Daily:  9 February 2010.

George W. Bush’s second presidency and the coming of the “Great Recession” bore witness to a great rise in libertarianism.  Barack Obama’s election turned out to be yet another positive catalyst for the libertarian movement. Those disillusioned with the eight-year Republican reign and then deceived by Obama’s cries for “change” turned toward more virtuous alternatives—personal liberty and limited government.  Thanks largely to the efforts of Congressman Ron Paul, one of the few true limited government conservatives, the libertarian movement turned mainstream.

The Republicans, ever so cunning, were quick to shift their ideology to one which came closer to libertarianism.  Given his position as leader of the ruling party, Obama became the symbol of big government.  Seeking to redefine the conservative ideology in an effort to regain popularity, the Republican Party moved to oppose Obama’s every move, campaigning mostly on the concepts of limited government, liberty and the free market.

This change in ideology has brought about a revival of the Republican Party.  Although it would be naïve to take Republican ideology at face value, whatever it may be, it is disappointing to see that recent events show that the return of the “Grand Old Party” to its “old right” roots is nothing more than an elaborate swindle.  The party’s politicians are doing what they do best: lie.

Recently, conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote a vicious attack on Ron Paul.  Although a self-styled conservative “with strong libertarian impulses”, he was gracious enough to show his true colors during his tirade directed towards Congressman Paul and his supporters.  Particularly, he set out to underscore the fact that “Republicans still believe in a robust and proactive national defense” and that most Republicans were still not keen on protecting liberty if it conflicted with their own subjective social preferences—such as gay rights.  The latter is quite amusing, as he later proceeds to blast Ron Paul for including racial slander in his newsletters of the 1980s—something Ron Paul himself never wrote.  Even if he did, it is clear that Harsanyi’s message is that the state should be allowed to intervene in social and private matters, but an individual does not have the right to state an opinion.

Harsanyi reiterates the Republican support for the warfare state by referring to Ron Paul’s isolationism as part of a “half-baked” theory.  His comments on Ron Paul’s monetary policies are not dissimilar, and his attack on End the Fed proves him unsympathetic for the Austrian campaign to end central banking.  Ultimately, the only thing “libertarian” about David Harsanyi seems to be his opposition to the Barack Obama presidency.  Unsurprisingly, David Harsanyi is not the only neo-conservative trying to pass off as a liberty-oriented republican.

Republican support of the warfare state should stand as a warning of their true intentions.  A political party, which believes it right to maintain the most highly funded military in the world and to use it to intervene in foreign countries, cannot be taken seriously when arguing for “limited-government”.  Do not let the “national defense” tag fool you.  Were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq not fought in the name of “national defense”?  The elusive terrorist-group known as Al-Qaeda by the U.S. Government has yet to be defeated, and “weapons of mass destruction” have yet to be found in Iraq.

Why should a government ready to intervene in foreign states be trusted to keep out of politics in their own country?  Let us not forget the use of the “national defense” card to justify George W. Bush’s implementation of the Patriot Act, or to validate the government’s “right” to detain “terrorists” without charges and for an undefined period of time.  A Republican might claim that the Bush years are long-past, and Republican ideology has changed.  Yet, according to David Harsanyi most Republicans are not yet willing to allow government to end intervention in social policy, such as civil rights.

How convenient to criticize Ron Paul for his “audit the Fed” movement.  But, libertarians should not be surprised to see the Republicans avoid the topic of central banking.  How else would they fund their wars?

The Republican farce should not be tolerated.  As soon as they lost the 2008 elections, the GOP quickly moved to oppose President Obama’s extraordinarily large bailouts.  They were quick to forget George W. Bush’s own $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailouts.  Neither was then Republican presidential candidate John McCain completely opposed to subsequent bailouts.  The GOP would never allow their creditors to go bankrupt, because that would only make it more difficult to carry out their own big-government agenda.

Maybe the only truly liberal (in the correct sense, as opposed to the progressive usage of the word) Republican policy is their opposition to universal health care.  Nope.  The Republican “solutions” to high health care costs are far from laissez-faire.  Although supposedly interested in abolishing the state-line restrictions to healthcare acquisition, the GOP supports deferring the right to regulate the healthcare industry to individual states.  What difference does it make if the market is being planned from Washington D.C. or from the respective state capitals?  Healthcare does not need intervention at all.

The icing to the cake comes in the form of their fourth major proposal to lower healthcare costs:

…end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Since when does enforcing more tests and procedures lower costs?  The real issue is the lack of respect for the contract between doctor and patient.  If the contract is not respected no amount of procedures or tests will disallow the consumer from suing the doctor for an event which the consumer had already factored in the risk for.  It is clear that the Republicans have no interest in pursuing a liberal or laissez-faire doctrine when it comes to healthcare, and so what could have been their only link to the libertarian movement turns out to be another fib.

Worst of all is the open mingling between “libertarians” and Republicans.  “Libertarian” organizations and publications have devoted themselves to cooperating with Republicans.  Reason Magazine, for example, even went as far as to publish David Harsanyi’s blatantly anti-libertarian piece.  Even if their intentions are to expose conservatism to libertarianism—and, one should not be fooled into believing that this is always the case—, over the long-run this strategy is only bound to damage the libertarian movement.

Libertarianism should not associate with a political party which supports waging war, while hiding their true machinations behind the curtain of “national defense”, and central economic planning.  The Republicans already have a dedicated and copious support base, composed of individuals oblivious to the party’s lies.  Libertarianism cannot afford to lose its credibility by appearing to support a party which is interested in nothing but expanding government.  In fact, libertarians who actively support the Republican Party, even if only because of their opposition to Barack Obama, are at best misguided.

Such is the nature of politics.  One cannot hope for the leviathan to kill itself.  One should not be fooled by the farce of partisanship or the concept of “balance of power”.  While one party looks to addict us all to the welfare state, the other intends on making us all murderers and thieves.  Both parties embrace big-government.  They are but two faces to the same coin.  A true libertarian should choose neither.  A true libertarian should choose liberty.

Some 90% of farms redistributed to South Africa’s black population from white farmers are not productive, the government has said.

Surprise, surprise.  If the government were to redistribute a steel mill from one person to another based only on the color of one’s skin, raise your hand if you think there is a good chance that the new owner will have no idea how to run a steel mill.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Postal Service is increasing the pressure for dropping Saturday home delivery as it seeks to fend off massive financial losses.

This is what Paul Krugman wrote last year:

Maybe I’m living a sheltered life here in central New Jersey, but I don’t find the Post Office a terrible experience — no worse than Fedex or UPS. (Full disclosure: I worked as a temp mailman when in college.) And nobody likes going to the DMV, but the one on Rt. 1 I go to always seems fairly well managed.

And in general: is dealing with these government agencies any worse than, say, dealing with the cable company?

The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience.

The local news is blaming the deficit on a decrease in the volume of mail being moved by the U.S. Postal Service, thanks to an increase in the volume of emails.  However, the USPS has been suffering budget deficits for at least the past decade, and so acting as if it was fiscally inefficient as of only recently is at best disingenuous.   But, alas, nobody is likely to admit that the real problem is the fact that socialized industries just do not work.

Interestingly, the final comment on the local news network was that privatizing the postal system was not on the table.

When we contemplate the magnitude of Spain’s hegemony, and compare it with the poverty from which it arose, we should not let ourselves give way to pride.—Ramón Carande[1]

The history of Spain is one beset by human tragedy.  At first glance, the economic heritage of Spain seems cyclical, with periods of wealth and power followed by long epochs of poverty.  Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that even the years of wealth were at best illusionary.  Until only recently, the Spanish people have known only poverty.  The end of the Francisco Franco regime brought hope, as totalitarianism gave way to democracy.  But, democracy has simply become a means of returning to totalitarianism.

Spain was the first great modern empire.  Under the auspices of its Catholic regents it spanned across five continents, and for almost two hundred years commanded the European mainland.  Military historians have attributed Spain’s rise to its martial capabilities, but her power ultimately came from the illusion of wealth—the inflow of gold from the Americas.[2] While an inflow of gold gave the Spanish government the advantage of being able to buy material for pre-inflationary prices, the common Spaniard became subjected to a dramatic increase in the general price level.  Most tragic of all, wages tended not to rise proportionally with the price level, causing even more widespread pain and suffering than had existed prior to the discovery of the New World.[3] It should come as no surprise that the empire fell almost as soon as the “golden faucet” shut off.  Any real wealth created was quickly stifled by Spanish mercantilism and regulation.[4]

The current debt crisis is one which fits Spanish history like a piece of a puzzle.  Once again, government disillusioned the people and led the country to ruin.  But, the degree of tragedy is far greater than any past episode, excepting the Spanish Civil War.  For the first time since the birth of the Spanish State, the Spanish people as a whole were given an opportunity to attain prosperity.  Although imperfect, Spanish democracy ushered in a period of undisputed general wealth—in 1976 Spain’s gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly $3,200, compared to today’s $33,700.  But, like Spain’s “Golden Age”, today’s “wealth” seems a result of the rise in the volume of money as opposed to a rise in the volume of capital.

Inflation brought ruin.  The foundations of the wealth of the late 1990s and the new decade of the 21^st Century collapsed like a house of cards.  The current government has responded in a manner not too dissimilar to that of the Spanish monarchy of the late 17^th Century.  The current depression has been met with promises of greater regulation and taxation.  President Zapatero’s advisors have even suggested a transition to a “planned economy” as a solution to the current economic quagmire.[5]

Hayek wrote:

The passion for “collective satisfaction of our needs”, with which our socialists have so well prepared the way for  totalitarianism, and which wants us to take our pleasures as well as our necessities at the appointed time and in the prescribed form, is, of course, partly intended as a means of political education.[6]

One would be hard pressed to find a better contemporary example of this threat than Spain.  Indeed, it is enticing to consider Spain to be on a road to serfdom, but in truth Spain is already there.  The past three and a half decades represent an era in which the Spanish people have passionately tried to break free from the chains of government while marching into an era of liberalism.  To one degree or another, the democratic revolution after the death of Franco was an attempt at liberalization.  Despite these efforts, the Spanish people are intellectually married to the concept of big government.  Even Spanish anarcho-syndicalists have been unable to divorce themselves from the presumed “necessity of government”.  They have known nothing else—Spain was born under the auspices of statism.  For most, if the savior of Spain is not the Socialist Party it must be the Popular Party.[7]

But, what difference is there between self-proclaimed socialism and socialism operating under the façade of so-called conservatism?  Any utilitarian and centralized policy is bound to fail.  The current crisis, unfortunately, has reaffirmed the flawed idea that poverty is a product of insufficiently large government.  It is akin to saying that the solution to tyranny is even greater tyranny.  The result has been the cornering of Spain’s political fiscal future to a handful of options, all of which promise hardship.  The Spanish government, inexplicably backed by the Spanish people, seems intent on exhausting those options which allow for its growth.  The end result will only be a return to general poverty.

The only solution to the Spanish tragedy is a turn to individualism and the abolition of the leviathan known as big government.  It must finally be realized that any option which includes the government as the means of adopting said option—whether through financial bailout or inflation—will inevitably lead to ruin and oppression.  The bureaucracy which works to subjugate entrepreneurship and accumulation of wealth must be toppled, and the doors to human spirit and passion opened.

[2] Rothbard, Murray N., An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Volume 1: Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises Institute. Auburn, Alabama: 2006; p. 106.

[3] Grice-Hutchinson, Marjorie, The School of Salamanca, Ludwig von Mises Institute. Auburn Alabama: 2009; p. 1.

[4] Rothbard (2006), pp. 214–216.

[5] Marcos, J.J., “Los asesores de Moncloa abogan por una economía planificada” (“Moncloa’s advisors advocate a planned economy”), Expansión: 8 Demcember 2009.  N.B.: Moncloa refers to the Palace of Moncloa, which is analogous to the White House.

[6] Hayek, Friedrich, Road to Serfdom,  The University of Chicago Press. London, United Kingdom: 1944; p. 132.

[7] The Partido Popular is a right-of-center political party in Spain, and one of two major parties represented in government.

I apologize for not formulating a response earlier.  I was not in town for the weekend.  Thank you for taking the time to respond to my piece.  I will not be replying to the first paragraph, since I am not sure what point you are trying to make.  I have a feeling that you are more interested in insulting me than addressing my actual position, and I also have a feeling that you completely misinterpreted my use of the word “Progressive”; that the Progressives pushed for a larger, more modern welfare state, I thought was undeniable.  They were, indeed, self-named progressives.

So, getting to the bare bones of your reply:

Now… Your ideas about some agenda launched in the distant past to turn the US into a “welfare state” are ludicrous. The Industrial Revolution saw the creation of fabulous wealth that went into the pockets of a very few monopolies. Children were worked nearly to death for wages that kept them barely alive, 15 hrs a day, 7 days a week. Adults were often treated even more poorly.

I am not sure that I ever referred to anything as an agenda.  I never suggested that the Progressive movement envisioned the extent of the welfare state that we have today, but the idea that they did push for an enlargement of the welfare state is historically true.  I do not think that purposefully exaggerating what I said is useful when interpreting my position on the history of the progressive movement in the United States, or when interpreting a relatively minor point in the article.

In any case, the conditions you describe were superior to conditions which existed beforehand, and are also exaggerated.  Even if true, what allowed these conditions to improve were not laws, but capital accumulation.  It was the ability for an individual to have greater purchasing power with a similar wage, due to capital accumulation, investment and increased production.  In this fashion, the Industrial Revolution directly bettered the lives of the average worker (I think that oftentimes people do not consider how bad conditions were prior to the Industrial Revolution).  The causation for improvement of work conditions must be highlighted as to clear up any misconceptions about the role of the state.

Technology has allowed us to produce far more than we all really need, so there is no reason whatsoever to continue behaving as if our entire winter supply of apples depended on beating the hill tribe competitors to death.

I am not really sure what you are trying to say here; technology has allowed us to purchase more at equal wages.  What is necessary is completely subjective, and a decision made by an individual.  Entrepreneurs respond to demand, and so to claim that technology has produced more than what is needed is completely fallacious.  The concept of general overproduction is flawed.  In any case, we are really leaving the topic of the article, which was universal insurance programs, or social insurance programs.

What you keep refferring to taxes as wealth redistribution fails to take in to account the fact that taxes are taken into account when wages are negotiated with employers. Because you are taxed, your employer pays you more.

I don’t know who told you this, but this is completely wrong.  As an earner of minimum wage, I can attest to this.  My wages did not increase with an increase in the tax rate, and this was definitely not true during the Great Depression.  Finally, you write, “And why are you so averse to people helping other people?”.    This is why I feel you do not really understand my position.  I am not against altruism, I am against forced altruism.  There is a very clear difference.  Social insurance programs are not paid voluntarily; if they were, there would absolutely be no problem.

Now, wading past all the personal insults, misinterpretations and your attempts to categorize me (incorrectly), I will finally address your “argument” for social insurance (more of an appeal to authority than anything else, really).

I am a citizen of Spain, which is a country with a universal health care system.  Fifty-percent of Madrid’s population has private insurance, whilst those who rely on the universal system have to put up with very poor service and long waiting times (up to multiple days).  These are solvable issues.  The real issue with universal health care is not within the service at any given point in time, but the cost of making it efficient.  As a mix between a monopoly and a monopsony, the way it evolves in the market is different from the way an insurance system would evolve in a free-market.  Instead of lower costs and better service, what occurs is the opposite.  I expand on this point in the article you replied to; I would suggest actually reading it.  Most countries that have universal health care systems are not able to perpetually fund it, because the costs grow beyond the budget.  This includes the United States, with its limited medical insurance programs.

In any case, I invite you to read the article and actually put forward an intelligible argument on why the free-market cannot provide an efficient and affordable medical insurance program, or why my own arguments are flawed.  I, however, ask you to avoid insulting me, or making flawed assumptions on where I am from or what social strata I belong to.