I've mentioned Hans Hermann Hoppe a few times as people might have noticed. I personally find his writing extremely relevant for the future of the radical factions of the Republican party and their extralegal and pro-business allies. Here is a rough game plan for the radical action wing of the right: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/hans-hermann-hoppe/an-action-plan-for-anarcho-capitalists/
"Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of ones activities: the restoration from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom of contract. And the answer can be broken down into two parts.
First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and Im referring now to what should be done on the local level, the first central plank of ones platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid.
Further, all public employees teachers, judges, policemen and all welfare recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say whatsoever how high these taxes are. With this platform one cannot of course win everywhere; you cannot win in Washington, D.C. with a platform like this. But I dare say that in many locations this can be easily done. The locations have to be small enough and have to have a good number of decent people."
What you are seeing in the radical militia movement is an embracing of this process, and will likely be paired with a corporate centered attitude in the cities.
Nowhere good it seems. It looks like there is a new global aristocracy on the horizon.
"In their primary statistical analysis, the collective preferences of ordinary citizens had only a negligible estimated effect on policy outcomes, while the collective preferences of economic elites (roughly proxied by citizens at the 90th percentile of the income distribution) were 15 times as important. Mass-based interest groups mattered, too, but only about half as much as business interest groups and the preferences of those public interest groups were only weakly correlated (.12) with the preferences of the public as measured in opinion surveys."
Many people have intuitively known this for years but quantification always helps.
"The Obama administration announced on Monday that it would be reversing scheduled reductions to the Medicare Advantage program, dealing a huge victory to private insurers and the bipartisan group of lawmakers who advocated for maintaining the higher reimbursement rates that President Obama claimed only padded company profits.
The Affordable Care Act is supposed to reduce excess payments to private insurers participating in Medicare Advantage, saving the government $156 billion over a decade. The effort to bring Medicare Advantage in line with traditional Medicare began in 2012, and payment reductions were scheduled to take place each year until 2017. But 2015 is the second year that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has cancelled the scheduled cuts following political pressure. Instead, insurers will see a slight increase in payments.
Throughout the health care debate, Democrats maintained that while the health care law would not reduce seniors traditional Medicare benefits, scaling back overpayments to private insurers participating in the Medicare program was necessary because the government was paying private insurers 14 percent more on average to provide the same benefits available under the traditional Medicare program. While some Medicare Advantage plans do offer seniors additional benefits efficiently, a number of government reports and independent estimates found that other insurers used the additional payments to increase profits. A recent analysis from three economists the Wharton School, for instance, concluded that only about one-fifth of the extra reimbursement gets passed through to patients in the form of lower premiums, better care or more services.
Obama repeatedly criticized the overpayments in his public comments and sought to reassure seniors that the reductions would extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.
[W]ell eliminate billions in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies in the Medicare Advantage program giveaways that boost insurance company profits but dont make you any healthier, Obama told an AARP town hall in 2009. So what weve said is lets at least have some sort of competitive bidding process where these insurance companies who are participating, theyre not being subsidized on the taxpayer dime; if they got better services they have better services that they can provide to seniors rather than through the traditional Medicare program, theyre free to participate, but we shouldnt be giving them billions of dollars worth of subsidies.
But in February, after the Department of Health and Human Services announced cuts totaling approximately 5 percent, private insurers launched their largest-ever mobilization. Though a Barclays report found that plans have ample room to adjust benefits downward while maintaining benefit levels that are better for their members than the traditional (Medicare) fee for service program, the industry ran seniors are watching ads and, joined by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, argued that that any reductions would raise costs and reduce services. Republicans in particular began to use the cuts as a way to attack Democratic candidates in the upcoming midterm elections.
In many parts of the country, including New York, Medicare Advantage works very well. Theyve shouldered their share already and this proposed cut would have been disproportionate, hurting seniors who would lose doctors or pay more, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement following the reversal. Were glad the administration heeded our call and reversed the policy. The Republican National Committee, however, promptly labeled the change political cover for vulnerable Democrats.
Lawmakers who voted against the ACA had initially predicted that lowering the subsidy to private insurers would force companies to stop offering coverage, causing 10 million seniors to lose their Medicare benefits. Republicans introduced numerous amendments instructing Congress to remove the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even urged seniors to rip up their AARP cards in protest of the organizations support for the reductions.
Those predictions did not come to pass. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage has grown every year since the ACA was enacted in 2010, premiums have decreased, and 99.1 percent of beneficiaries maintained access to their desired plans. The governments overpayments to private insurers also decreased over this period from 14 percent on average when the law passed to 6 percent on average today.
Medicare Advantage plans earned an average profit of 4.5 percent in 2011. "
What does everyone think of this?