Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance in that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association of medieval commune [4]: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterward, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general — the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

Maybe Karl Marx was one of the earliest public choice economists? Is this not an excellent description of the rise of the modern corporate state? Funny, because Marx’s solution to this “government capture” is pretty similar to what the modern Progressive ones espouse – eliminate “C”apitalism.  Even if his characterization of Capitalism were right (and it is not entirely), do we not find ourselves in an awkward position? Let me restate the problem:

1. Thing A has some good aspects and some bad ones
2. Thing B has some good aspects and some bad ones
3. When Thing A and Thing B get together, some seriously bad stuff happens (assume that for now)
4. Therefore, eliminate Thing A entirely.

I can get most of the way through point 3. But does 4 follow? Is there any reason to wish to destroy A instead of B? Not if your only care is that the bad things in 4 do not happen. Destroying either A or B would do the trick. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but all I see here is yet again another “start with the ending” defense of government. You see, government, capitalism and human nature do not mix well, so lets kill capitalism, because you just cannot kill the other two. It should be funny then to see how hard the actual Marxists tried to kill human nature when they realized that killing capitalism was not enough. My point of course is that this was always about power, political power, and it continues to be about power, political power. Give it up. It really is not becoming of you.

So, we should spend less on medicine and more on….what? Big-screen TV’s? smart phones? professional sports? My guess is that if Callahan got his wish and medical spending were reduced, he would not be happy with where money is spent, and his desire for socialist control would only increase.

And that my friends is at the root of this whole health care thing. You see it popping up in Environmentalism too. When inexpensive solutions to environmental problems reveal themselves, the green movement quickly turns against them. for example, if climate change was such a massive disaster, why isn’t nuclear much more popular? (I understand it can only power something like 40% to 50% of our needs – but that is still a massive improvement from where we are now). And now you see the greens coming out against solar (it makes the desert landscape ugly, and it uses lots of water to keep the panels clean), against wind (they ruin the view of the Kennedy family in Massachusetts, plus they kill some birds), against clean hydro (it kills fish), and so on. The point is that much of the modern environmental movement is a dressed up version of socialist control and massive market and capitalist hatred that is framed in a more “pragmatic” debate. The true greens will only be happy when our ability to produce and consume and trade are severely inhibited. If we were 100% carbon free right now, I guarantee the greens would still say what we are doing is unsustainable.

The same is true with health care. If politicians were serious about reform, it could be done with the stroke of a pen. But they are not. They are serious about further choking out market forces and they are really serious about imposing their version of top-down control on the rest of us.

Indeed, if health expenditures were halved, what would the elites have us turn our attention to?

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the “elite opinion” of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal…”I’m not going to put my lot in with economists,” Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.

“We’ve got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans,” said Clinton, a former first lady who would be the first woman president.

To which Arnold Kling redounds:

Soon I expect to hear the Senator from New York promise to jump out of a tenth-story window and fly, to demonstrate defiance of “elite” physicists who doubt the feasibility of the project.

I am not offended, most probably because I understand that the good Senator is so thristy for power, so blinded by her desire to be President, so desperate to win votes, that she will say anything that might help get her elected. Does she really believe a lot of what she says? And if we are to take her comment literally and analyze it …

For starters, I think the nuttiness of the idea that societies can and should be run by elites has been well hashed out, but it is in fact folks like Senator Clinton that campaign on precisely this notion. Health care for everyone? Public schooling? Income assistance programs? Public housing? Job training programs? Farm subsidies? Managed trade? Tax policy? Talk about programs designed and run by elites! Talk about policies that disadvantage the vast majority of Americans!

So no, I do not think she means what she says. Does that make economists any better or worse? No. It just means that by even spending the time posting this, I have given too much attention to the issue.