Rand Paul On Bernie Sanders: Nothing “Sexy Or Cool” About Socialism

Oh and I almost forgot to mention this same drug costs practically nothing in other countries like Canada and the UK.

A drug costs 'practically nothing' in Canada but costs five thousand dollars in Minnesota?

Impossible without government intervention. There is no way in hell that works without government intervention at all. None.

In fact, no one charges five grand without not only government intervention, but socialized medicine. Nobody. The reason why is simple--you make more money making it affordable, because you get lots more customers. If the government is robbing everyone to pay your price, you can sell quite a bit at five K. But if it isn't, you have one percent as many customers at five grand as you have at five hundred, and there's no way you make less money selling one hundred times as much of your product.

See, your problem is that you're buying the media bull that capitalism in some way resembles the system we're running under right now. But what we have today is out of control corporatism. Capitalism is what we had ninety years ago, during the Roaring Twenties and the administration of the greatest president of the Twentieth Century, Calvin Coolidge. This corporate protectionism and corporate welfare we have now, this federal legal code that fills large rooms, this atmosphere of entrepreneurial fear that comes when any tiny business needs the same three lawyers and seven CPAs the big players have, this isn't capitalism. This isn't free enterprise. It isn't freedom at all.

Your problem is that you assume we don't have socialized medicine now, but that these current asinine prices are set by free enterprise. This is a position born of ignorance. Two things happened about fifty years ago that turned the whole industry into socialized medicine, whether everyone was benefitting or not. One was the federal law that required hospital emergency rooms to treat all comers, regardless of whether they had an emergency or not. Suddenly the most expensive-to-maintain doctors offices in all the land had to grow enough to handle whole flocks of people with head colds. And every hospital patient that could pay at all had to pay more or the hospital would go broke.

The other was medicare. The bureaucrats demanded reams of paperwork, and doctors have to pay office staff to handle that. For a time, that didn't have an effect on the prices other people paid. But then the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, decided doctors were screwing the public, and passed a law requiring that doctors charge medicare, with its reams of largely redundant or downright useless paperwork, the same rates they charge cash patients who require none of that extra labor and other expense. Presto! Now the doctors really were screwing the public, and being forced to by the federal government. This was the day that socialized medicine first began to look like something even slightly resembling a necessity for someone other than the old and the incurable. Suddenly the free market was out, and the possibility that medical care could be affordable was nearly done.

Oh, there are such things as clinics who refuse all medicare patients so they aren't forced by law to overcharge (criminally overcharge, by any standard of usury known to civilized mankind) cash patients. We have one here in town; my own mother lost her doctor to one of them. And the medical industrial complex is trying to figure out how to do away with those now; Obamacare alone is knocking them down like flies.

Now. Tell me how an industry which is forced by the government to overcharge cash customers for processing overwhelming amounts of paperwork they don't even require is capitalism at work. Please explain that to us. Tell us how it's freedom. Or better still, tell us how charging all of us for medical procedures down to and including sex change operations on children without the consent of their parents is a sustainable model for a health care system that doesn't drown the whole nation in debt. I dare you.
 
Last edited:
A drug costs 'practically nothing' in Canada but costs five thousand dollars in Minnesota?

Impossible without government intervention. There is no way in hell that works without government intervention at all. None.

In fact, no one charges five grand without not only government intervention, but socialized medicine. Nobody. The reason why is simple--you make more money making it affordable, because you get lots more customers. If the government is robbing everyone to pay your price, you can sell quite a bit at five K. But if it isn't, you have one percent as many customers at five grand as you have at five hundred, and there's no way you make less money selling one hundred times as much of your product.

See, your problem is that you're buying the media bull that capitalism in some way resembles the system we're running under right now. But what we have today is out of control corporatism. Capitalism is what we had ninety years ago, during the Roaring Twenties and the administration of the greatest president of the Twentieth Century, Calvin Coolidge. This corporate protectionism and corporate welfare we have now, this federal legal code that fills large rooms, this atmosphere of entrepreneurial fear that comes when any tiny business needs the same three lawyers and seven CPAs the big players have, this isn't capitalism. This isn't free enterprise. It isn't freedom at all.

Exactly. Capitalism: Social system based in individual rights. Politically, laissez-faire. Economically: Free market.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.
 
I grow more disappointed in Rand by the day. "Sexy or cool?" Really? How about being logical and consise about why it is a failed system? How about asking how socialism is incompatible with the Constitution?
 
I grow more disappointed in Rand by the day. "Sexy or cool?" Really? How about being logical and consise about why it is a failed system? How about asking how socialism is incompatible with the Constitution?

Because he's talking to the immature sections of the youth, mature rational people like you generally are not full blown socialists. How many college kids who don't already support Rand care about the Constitution?
 
X8imkIM.png
 
Because he's talking to the immature sections of the youth, mature rational people like you generally are not full blown socialists. How many college kids who don't already support Rand care about the Constitution?

Then Rand should be fully prepared to ask these young people where their post-college jobs are going to come from. The ones majoring in Art History or Women's Studies are not going to have jobs to go to. They will be forced in to the ever-growing service economy, and he should tell them if they plan to vote for Bernie Sanders, they should also plan to keep their restaurant server jobs and never own anything.

And they should give up personal hygene, if they haven't already, because Sanders thinks there are too many deodorants in the stores.
 
I grow more disappointed in Rand by the day. "Sexy or cool?" Really? How about being logical and consise about why it is a failed system? How about asking how socialism is incompatible with the Constitution?

I thought Rand's response was fine, if all he had said was what was in the headline than yea sure, but for a side question to an interview I thought he gave an okay response. Though, like you, I would like him to go more in-depth about it. In his first statement it sounded like he was going to really get into it, then backed off a bit

“Bernie’s a socialist and ultimately socialism relies on force or implied force and it’s, you know, [it] wasn’t an accident that Stalin killed millions of people or Mao Zedong killed millions of people because you want to control the economy and you want to control ownership of things by the state. You have to forbid other people from owning parts of the economy or controlling parts of the economy.”

“So I think it’s really important that people understand that there is no free lunch when Bernie offers you something for free. He’s going to take it from somebody else first and then all they’re doing is obscuring who pays for it, but ultimately somebody has to pay for things. And so if you want free college for those that go to college, those that don’t go to college and work will be paying for your college. So nothing’s really on the surface. What appears to be free isn’t free,”
 
I grow more disappointed in Rand by the day. "Sexy or cool?" Really? How about being logical and consise about why it is a failed system? How about asking how socialism is incompatible with the Constitution?

The electorate is not capable of reasoning on this level. Sexy and cool is what resonates.
 
Probably not a shock to learn, but the comments are depressing

Dumb asses don't like getting hit with a zinger. The headline is good fodder for the GOP primary electorate, which is Rand's primary focus right now. The Sanders cultists are probably going to fall in line and support the democrat regardless of who it is, so I wouldn't get too depressed.
 
With this logic lets apply it to a hypothetical situation. You're hundreds of miles from the nearest town and you've got a flat tire. You don't have enough water to make it back walking and you are relying on someone to give you a hand. A person comes up to you and sees you are desperate in this situation and decides to take advantage of you and is willing to sell the tire for $5000. You refuse and say its outrageous to think anyone would pay $5000 for a tire. So he leaves, and you say well someone else will be along to sell me a tire for cheaper. Here's the problem, what if nobody else comes around OR if they come but it was to late.

In capitalism, if someone was offering a tire for $5000, someone else would definitely offer another for $4500. ANd then someone else would offer one for even less. Competition brings prices down, while demand brings prices up. Equilibrium occurs only when the buyers and sellers agree on value.

Is the tire worth $5000? That's his decision. If he was leading the pack in a cross country race and the Grand Prize was $1,000,000, he might eagerly pay that $5000. If he was on his way to a job interview, then the tire probably would probably not be a good investment. In any event, the value of the tire is determined entirely by two voluntary participants in the transaction.

The notion that the driver would be stranded by the side of the road forever if he did not pay $5000 for a tire made me smile. That level of desperation is never reached in capitalism. In our reality, despite all the attempts by government to limit our choices, the stranded driver of that car would still have lots of options. He could call a cab, he could rent a car, he could Uber, he could hitchhike, he could walk, he could call a tow truck, he could trade the car for another that ran.

In socialism, all the tires would be the same price. Because price caps create shortages, he would be lucky to get one at all. If you doubt this, go look at what's going on in Venezuela right now with food.
 
Last edited:
I grow more disappointed in Rand by the day. "Sexy or cool?" Really? How about being logical and consise about why it is a failed system? How about asking how socialism is incompatible with the Constitution?

Maybe if you listen to his speech beyond the article's headline...
 
With this logic lets apply it to a hypothetical situation. You're hundreds of miles from the nearest town and you've got a flat tire. You don't have enough water to make it back walking and you are relying on someone to give you a hand. A person comes up to you and sees you are desperate in this situation and decides to take advantage of you and is willing to sell the tire for $5000. You refuse and say its outrageous to think anyone would pay $5000 for a tire. So he leaves, and you say well someone else will be along to sell me a tire for cheaper. Here's the problem, what if nobody else comes around OR if they come but it was to late.

That's a poor analogy.. If they bought the tire for $80 and they offer to sell it to you $5000 and you refuse, they will offer a lower price. It's called negotiating. In fact, you could probably negotiate it down to $150 or even less, because they can easily go back to town and take the $150 you gave them a buy a new tire for $80. That's a $70 profit for almost no work, why would they turn it down?

A better analogy for price gouging is when there is an emergency and people need generators. If you legalize freedom, generators will be expensive, but, more people will come in with generators to sell and more people will have generators. If you make it illegal to "price gouge" then you won't get as many people to come in and sell generators in this possibly dangerous environment and the people who need generators will be worse off with less generators.
 
Last edited:
I thought Rand's response was fine, if all he had said was what was in the headline than yea sure, but for a side question to an interview I thought he gave an okay response. Though, like you, I would like him to go more in-depth about it. In his first statement it sounded like he was going to really get into it, then backed off a bit

“Bernie’s a socialist and ultimately socialism relies on force or implied force and it’s, you know, [it] wasn’t an accident that Stalin killed millions of people or Mao Zedong killed millions of people because you want to control the economy and you want to control ownership of things by the state. You have to forbid other people from owning parts of the economy or controlling parts of the economy.”

“So I think it’s really important that people understand that there is no free lunch when Bernie offers you something for free. He’s going to take it from somebody else first and then all they’re doing is obscuring who pays for it, but ultimately somebody has to pay for things. And so if you want free college for those that go to college, those that don’t go to college and work will be paying for your college. So nothing’s really on the surface. What appears to be free isn’t free,”

+Rep
 
In capitalism, if someone was offering a tire for $5000, someone else would definitely offer another for $4500. ANd then someone else would offer one for even less. Competition brings prices down, while demand brings prices up. Equilibrium occurs only when the buyers and sellers agree on value.

Is the tire worth $5000? That's his decision. If he was leading the pack in a cross country race and the Grand Prize was $1,000,000, he might eagerly pay that $5000. If he was on his way to a job interview, then the tire probably would probably not be a good investment. In any event, the value of the tire is determined entirely by two voluntary participants in the transaction.

The notion that the driver would be stranded by the side of the road forever if he did not pay $5000 for a tire made me smile. That level of desperation is never reached in capitalism. In our reality, despite all the attempts by government to limit our choices, the stranded driver of that car would still have lots of options. He could call a cab, he could rent a car, he could Uber, he could hitchhike, he could walk, he could call a tow truck, he could trade the car for another that ran.

In socialism, all the tires would be the same price. Because price caps create shortages, he would be lucky to get one at all. If you doubt this, go look at what's going on in Venezuela right now with food.

If I have zero dollars because rich people stole my savings, how would I get a tire then?

I bet Bernie would give me a tire.
 
In any event, the value of the tire is determined entirely by two voluntary participants in the transaction.

That's a very simplistic view. In reality the participants in the transaction are subject to various external pressures - regulations, marketing, sales quotas, etc ...
 
Back
Top