You have no right to what you didn't earn, or, Matt finally snaps. [Archive]

Liberal

05-27-2000, 06:01 AM

matt

Take heart, matt! I'm with you!

There's no reason for you and I personally to help Andrew, Kayla, James, Lakshmi, Dustin, or Davey. Let me show you how, with enough guns, clout, and disinformation we can make, you know, "those-other-people" help them. That way, we won't have to feel responsible or guilty, and ... (here's the best part!) ... those who fall through the cracks of our system, hell, we won't even know about!

That's right, matt! Outta sight, outta mind, eh? [wink wink...]

To start with, let's set up a pyramidal multi-level manifold bureaucracy. We'll centralize it, of course, because everybody's needs are the same, whether they live in rural Iowa or South Central LA. Now, we probably won't be able to get away with using slave labor or anything to build all the massive ediplexes required, and we don't really make anything that we could sell, so we'll just build an army and take what we need from the people least able to resist us. [evil smile...] Get it?

Okay, let's keep it reasonable though. Let's start with oh, say, a couple of trillion dollars.

I know, I know. I can hear you protesting, "But, Lib, how will we get away with this?" Well, it'll take a little time (couple hundred years, or so), but the key is to convince them that everybody who opposes us is a dangerous lunatic, and that they couldn't get along without us.

How? Simple. Spin, matt, spin. We educate them ourselves. We hire, train, and pay the educators. We change the definitions of words, and create malassociations. Here's one example. Find a band of kooks who call themselves "The Davidians", release rumors that they eat their children, have too many guns, and oppose government interference in their affairs. (Incidentally, we'll avoid arresting their leader on one of his many trips into town.) Then suddenly send in tanks without informing local law enforcement. The tanks can announce over loudspeakers, "This is not an attack!", even as we're smashing in their walls. Finally, we launch highly flammable tear gas into their chur.. er, compound, and start spraying it with a massive barrage of fire. All the women and children inside will all burn up! When it's finished, we can tell everybody how dangerous they were, how we tried to reason with them, and how they had no right to congregate that way anyhow.

Oh, stop rolling your eyes, matt. Believe me, it'll work.

So by this point, you're probably wondering, how will we insulate ourselves from people whom we delude into believing that we have their interests at heart. Again, simple. At the top of the whole faceless, gargantuan bureaucracy, we install a congress of wealthy lawyers from factious parties who finance their elections with money from enemy states and special interests! See how easy it is?

Okay, here's how it works, case by case.

Andrew worked for thirty-five years at the plant. Suddenly, head office decides to close the plant. Andrew is out of a job, with no pension and no benefits! He looks and looks for another job, but it’s difficult to find work when you’re a sixty-year-old who’s spent your life in the machine shop. His savings only last so long, and then they run out, and he has no money to support himself in his old age, but that’s OK, because you have no right to what you didn’t earn!

Of course, you and I know [gentle elbow to the ribs...] that the plant would never have closed had it been profitable. I mean, after all, you'd have to count on there being a real sociopath nutcase at the head of the company for it just to fold for no reason.

So here's what we do. We make treaties and agreements with foreign slave-holding nations that we will require the plant to honor. We'll interfere in every way we can with the plant's production. Let there be OSHA! Let there be DOT! Let there be USDA!

Whoa, Nellie! [giggles...] Just look at that poor plant owner trying to assemble the panel of hired consultants he'll need to interpret our tens of thousands of contradictory, arbitrary regulations! He'll have to raise his prices (consultants charge a lot!) and maybe resort to some unethical practices to survive. But hey, our laws aren't based on ethics, so no problem there.

In no time at all, he'll have to close his doors. Then we can give Andrew the pittance that remains after we've taken our, um, share. (We'll need a lot to maintain our life-styles and pay our staffs.)

Okay, and here's the good part. Andrew will think we're heroes! [laughter...] He'll think we actually helped him! [guffaw....]

Isn't this fun?

Kayla's stepfather abused her, so she ran away from home, fearing for her life. Now she's on the street, and you can’t find a job when you can’t dress nice to find one, but that’s OK, because you have no right to what you didn’t earn!

This one is really easy! The best thing to do is refuse to hold Kayla's father accountable for his actions. Instead, we tell everybody that society is responsible, so society has to pay. That's the kind of easy logic that people will swallow. Hell, we can even link them to an abridged page of logical fallacies!

But wait, there's more. The fun doesn't stop there!

We'll hound Kayla mercilessly. We'll arrest both her and her Johns while she's trying to make some money. We need to make it so that she has only two choices: go back home to papa (whom we are also subsidizing, by the way) or else live on the dole we offer her.

Neat, eh?

James’ homophobic parents beat him up, disowned him, and threw him out of his house when they found out that he was gay. He hasn’t finished high school, and like Kayla found out you can’t find a job when you’re filthy and starving, so he throws himself in front of a subway train. But that’s OK, because you have no right to what you didn’t earn!

Here's where our system really shines!

Remember, we don't punish James' parents for child abuse. (Gays aren't popular enough yet for us to champion their causes.) But, hey, no problem! James is dead! Hurrah! The pittance we would have given him, we can now use to maintain a dam in a dry lake bed in Utah. (After we seize the land, of course.) And that'll give John Stossel something to report!

Look at all the birds we kill with that one stone!

Lakshmi was the first one to be evicted when her racist landlord decided to cut costs. She’s too poor to afford a lawyer to sue him. Now she has no money and no home, and winter’s coming, but that’s OK, because you have no right to what you didn’t earn!

Hmmm... That's a tough one.

We'll have to somehow mask the fact that a big portion of the landlord's cost is adhering to our regulations and laws. So, lessee... Oh, I know! Let's get him to raise the rent! Then we can raise his taxes, and give some of that money back to Lakshmi! Lord knows she can't make money herself, right?

Dustin worked in the coal mines. Now he has lung disease, and the treatments will bankrupt his family. But that’s OK, because you have no right to what you didn’t earn!

Ooo, that's a bit iffy there, matt.

Okay, here's what we do. We'll convince people that Dustin had no other choices but to work in coal mines. He couldn't move anywhere else because, well, moving is such a hassle. Oh, and he didn't have insurance because... because... Oh! Here we go! Let's regulate the hell out of the insurance companies so Dustin can't afford insurance! Yeah, that's it!

Finally, Davey is the child of two lower-class working parents. He goes to bed hungry sometimes. His parents are too exhausted to interact with him when they come home. Davey can’t do his work in school when he’s had no breakfast, and he can’t pay attention to the teacher if he’s constantly worried about his mom and dad. (For that matter, who's paying for the school?) Maybe, since his education is so marginal and his home life pathetic, when he gets a little older he turns to crime. Or maybe gets addicted to drugs. Or maybe drops out of school to try and find a job, and of course he can’t, because nobody in their right mind would hire a thirteen-year-old dropout. Who knows? All we know is that this child does not have much of a future before him, because his parents didn’t earn enough money, and even if you’re a thirteen-year-old child, you have no right to what you didn’t earn!

Dang, matt. Another tough one.

We'll have to explain somehow how I myself was the child of two lower-class parents who went to bed a bit hungry sometimes, but grew up to be a self-educated, productive member of society. But, dammit, my parents were both poor and high principled.

Hmmm... How 'bout a diversion tactic? You know, the ol' reliable, "It's society's fault." Let's tell people his parents weren't just poor — they were also pathetically ignorant and gave no thought whatsoever to how they would provide for a child. (Why should they, right?)

We'll explain how "it takes a village", and how Ms. Smith at the Child Services office, with her degree in social work, can make better decisions for Davey than his idiot parents can. Then, we'll take Davey from his home, and place him in foster care, where he can be a play-toy for his new over-sexed adolescent foster-brother. That way, Davey can grow up to be a male prostitute, and make lots of money.

I know it all sounds crazy, but for some reason, the crazier something sounds, the more "practical" people think it will be! The only hard part will be convincing people that they owe something to people they don't even know. That's why we'll need the big guns. Guns are very convincing. Sure, we'll lower the overall statistical mean standard of living, and people who had planned their lives based on what they earned will have to change all their plans.

But that's okay, people have no right to what they earn.

Right?

Smartass

05-27-2000, 09:19 AM

xenopon41:

Are you claiming a causative relationship between aid programs and economic status?

Yep.

are you under the impression that programs such as WIC or school lunches or social security are designed and intended to reduce poverty?

I don't think they are designed to reduce poverty, but that is how they are marketed.

By all means, contribute to a 401k, put your money in IRA's, invest wisely, use your company's profit sharing if available. Anybody who depends on Social Security for the bulk of their retirement will be in bad shape.

So, the government is collecting 15% of my salary and cannot provide retirment money I can depend on? You recommend that I can invest anoter 2-5% and do much better. So, obviously, you realize how completely wasteful Social Security is. Which leaves me with, how much money do you think I make? There isn't another 2-5%.

If this had been a Libertarian country we wouldn't even have the remnants of the program.

This was a libertarian country. Read the Constitution, of which we seem to have only remnants.

Actually I believe that most people would contribute some (markedly less than they pay in taxes) of their income to the causes they believe in.

And, without having to pay for the inefficiency of government, the results would likely be better than what we are getting for our money now.

Which means only the more popular causes would get funding...

Why would you want to fund causes that people don't care about?

I'm not sure I follow the logical path that got you to "divide the money equally" between public television and feeding the poor.

You said that no more people would contribute to feeding the poor than contribute to PBS.

In any democracy, even our representative democracy, "the government" equals "the people", and in your specific example means you and me and all of the more or less charitable citizens of the country.

-The U.S. is not a democracy; it is a constitutional federal republic.
-"'the government' equals 'the people'" is a nonsense statement. You are not the government and neither am I. The government has been so heavily centralized (in contradiction to the Constitution) that no individual's voice has any particular effect.

Making national concerns the responsibility of concerned individuals instead of the government takes away any chance for meaningful solutions on a large scale.

If education in my town is bad, is it a national concern or a local concern? If our school sucks, is it a national concern or a local concern? If there's a poor guy living under the bridge, is that a national concern or a local concern?

There's no need to be so apocalyptic. I'm not actually recommending a revolution. At this point, I would prefer to reduce the federal government down to its constitutional limits. Let these problems be handled at the state or local level, by people who are actually affected by the "solutions".

And by the way, I would be interested in an example of a "meaningful solution on a large scale". I assume you're not talking about Hitler's ideas.

Medea's Child:

The mandated saftey net is an indication that society wants to take care of its less fortunates.

And its success is an indication that government can't provide this service.

That is how democracy works, supposedly. It echoes the ideals of the people.

Actually, a democracy echoes the ideals of the majority.

Evidently, we want to know that our populace is being educated, fed, clothed, and sheltered to the best of our aility to support.

And, evidently, we are willing to pay massive amounts of money to fail to achieve this.

Even if it means that we don't get our full check every month. I like that, it makes me think that people have a chance of being called humanity.

I'm glad to see that all this waste makes you feel good. What would make me feel good would be to actually succeed at making our populace educated, fed, clothed, and sheltered.

DoctorJ:

Therefore, I think that the 90% owes it to the 10% to see to it that they have enough to get by.

And, because I don't trust people to do what they should, I prefer for the government to forcibly take almost half the money of the 90% and waste it.

I don't think most people think the same way I do...

And it's okay to force them to act as if they do.

the government should ideally be in a better position to identify that 10% and their needs.

So, if I see a starving person in my hometown, I should ignore him until the government, from Washington, has "identified" him?

Personal charity would probably work in a balanced community.

Libertarianism does not require personal charity. You can have community charity. But national charity is ridiculous.

As such, for charity to work, we have to step back from those we think of as our community and look at a bigger picture, and I think that the best way to do that is through the government. (Rather, I can't think of a better way.)

And as long as we think it is the federal government's job, what do you suppose are the chances that someone will spend any time on thinking of a better way?

yes, I think that the people on the poorest end of the spectrum have a right to some of what I earn. Yes, I would give that portion of my earnings voluntarily. No, I don't think most people would, so I like the idea of "forced charity".

So, you are confident that you are right, and really don't care if someone else's opinion is different. If they don't agree, we will force them to agree.

Sad, much, about the breakup of the U.S.S.R.?

Libertarian:

Hilarious, but I somehow don't think he will get it.

-VM

matt_mcl

05-27-2000, 11:44 AM

Libertarian: Well, you certainly have me convinced. Social democracy has not worked very well in the limited, inefficient, and market-linked extent to which it has been used on the existing endemic poverty, racism, and violence in the States at the same time as other branches of government are working to perpetuate the problems that it solves. And the States are a perfect mirror of everyone else in the World. Therefore, social democracy cannot work anywhere under any circumstances. Brilliant.

Sterra

05-27-2000, 12:11 PM

matt... do you use anything other than straw arguements?

xenophon41

05-27-2000, 12:23 PM

How? Simple. Spin, matt, spin. We educate them ourselves. We hire, train, and pay the educators. We change the definitions of words, and create malassociations. Here's one example. Find a band of kooks who call themselves "The Davidians", release rumors that they eat their children, have too many guns, and oppose government interference in their affairs. (Incidentally, we'll avoid arresting their leader on one of his many trips into town.) Then suddenly send in tanks without informing local law enforcement. The tanks can announce over loudspeakers, "This is not an attack!", even as we're smashing in their walls. Finally, we launch highly flammable tear gas into their chur.. er, compound, and start spraying it with a massive barrage of fire. All the women and children inside will all burn up! When it's finished, we can tell everybody how dangerous they were, how we tried to reason with them, and how they had no right to congregate that way anyhow.

Oh, stop rolling your eyes, matt. Believe me, it'll work.

<low whistle> Wow. I don't know if matt was rolling his eyes, but I sure was. I'm always amazed at the kinds of things people can bring themselves to believe about their government so that they can justify their political stances to themselves.

I know it all sounds crazy, but for some reason, the crazier something sounds, the more "practical" people think it will be! The only hard part will be convincing people that they owe something to people they don't even know. That's why we'll need the big guns. Guns are very convincing. Sure, we'll lower the overall statistical mean standard of living, and people who had planned their lives based on what they earned will have to change all their plans.

But that's okay, people have no right to what they earn.

Right?

Libertarian, maybe the reason it "sounds crazy" is because it's a completely paranoid misrepresentation of the way a federal government works. Damn, dude; you need to release that rant as a recording, with maybe some 'Twilight Zone' music in the background...

Smartass, you said:

This was a libertarian country. Read the Constitution, of which we seem to have only remnants.
and
The U.S. is not a democracy; it is a constitutional federal republic.
-"'the government' equals 'the people'" is a nonsense statement. You are not the government and neither am I. The government has been so heavily centralized (in contradiction to the Constitution) that no individual's voice has any particular effect.

I do read the Constitution. Frequently. Not all of it at one reading, of course, but I always go back to these words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

and

”Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...”

This country was definitely not intended by the Framers to be as centralized at it is today, no doubt about it. But the Constitution is not a Libertarian document, and never was.

You also said:

Why would you want to fund causes that people don't care about?

Smartass, I thought I established my opinion that people as a rule are shortsighted. (That's one of the fundamental reasons we have governments of any sort; the need for direction and the need for rule of law.) Most people don't have the opportunity to research, nor in many cases the ability to understand some of the more far reaching consequences of social programs. And before you point out that this attitude makes me elitist and distrustful of the common wisdom, let me say Damn Right I am. This doesn't mean I want the government intruding in people's private lives or ways of belief, or that I have disdain for my fellows; I merely recognize the reality that many necessary and vital "causes" would not receive funding from disinterested or poorly informed people.

If education in my town is bad, is it a national concern or a local concern? If our school sucks, is it a national concern or a local concern? If there's a poor guy living under the bridge, is that a national concern or a local concern?

There's no need to be so apocalyptic. I'm not actually recommending a revolution. At this point, I would prefer to reduce the federal government down to its constitutional limits. Let these problems be handled at the state or local level, by people who are actually affected by the "solutions".

And by the way, I would be interested in an example of a "meaningful solution on a large scale". I assume you're not talking about Hitler's ideas.

Are the causes of poor education and poverty in your town localized phenomena or national? Does your town somehow insulate its economy from the rest of the state? From the rest of the country? I’m glad you’re not recommending revolution Smartass. And while I agree that the federal government should be reduced, I find the notion that purley local efforts can adequately deal with local manifestations of larger problems to be quite naïve.

Here’s some past and present attempts at meaningful solutions on a large scale: The NRA (National Recovery Act) (I know you guys just love to hate FDR) WIC Social Security the public Primary and Secondary Schools system HOPE grants student loans school polio immunizations the interstate highway system
I could go on and on, but I’m sure you’d have arguments showing how local efforts could’ve done just as well, if the evil central government hadn’t prevented such efforts. And BTW, just because Hitler used the words “solution” “meaningful” “grand scale” etc. in his ravings doesn’t make them frightening or any less appropriate when you and I use them.

2sense

05-27-2000, 01:01 PM

Did I see Libertarian mock OSHA?
What is the problem with OSHA?

DoctorJ

05-27-2000, 01:58 PM

Did I see Libertarian mock OSHA? What is the problem with OSHA?
OSHA is the evilist arm of the evil Amerikan government. Between it and those nasty minimum wage and child labor laws, factories across America are losing money hand over fist. They have to pick up and move the whole operation to Lower Pigshitstan just to stay afloat.

[sarcasm=off]

I do think OSHA frequently goes too far, but I'd prefer that to not going far enough. Besides, between the tax breaks and handouts given to these same companies, I'm not going to cry any tears about their prohibitive governmental regulations.

Dr. J

Odesio

05-27-2000, 03:15 PM

Did I see Libertarian mock OSHA?
What is the problem with OSHA?

OSHA has so many rules that no company can be in compliance with all of them. And since breaking any of their regulations, which are not made by any electoral process, can result in a fine I'd say there's a problem.

Marc

Kricket

05-27-2000, 03:36 PM

Yes, Mistress Kricket is dipping her toes back in GD!
Let me tell you a little story here and see how this one makes you feel! Not telling this story to take one side or the other, because I have been on both sides of the coin here, I am basically using you all as a sounding board and letting debate about this.

As most of you know my son was hit by a car three weeks ago. He is now laying in his bed in a body cast. He is ADHA and now unmedicated because that could complicate things and to top it all off I have to take him to the doctor because I think he is now having siezures.
We went to see a lawyer to see what we could do about getting his bills covered by this woman and maybe something a little extra to help with other expenses like the things that he needs that arent covered by the insurance.
He will have to have another surgery in a year or so, and we also have physical therapy to deal with not to mention my daughter now needs counsuling because she was holding his hand when he was hit.

The lawyer won't take the case and he tells me that there is nothing we can do.
You see we are one of those families that both parents HAD good jobs. Lost mine because of all this. We were happy the way we things were going before all this even though we were living from paycheck to paycheck like many other people.

Why is this woman getting off scott-free? Because she is a well-fare mother. Like I said I have been there before, but the difference is that I only used it as a leg up during hard times, not as a way of life like she is. And yes I do know that is her situation. One of the comments she made at the accident scene was doesn't he know it's the third of the month and I am here to cash my check?

Basically my family is screwed. Can't get any kind of help from anybody because we just aren't poor enuff. Well, gosh, I am sorry we were trying to be responsible parents by working.
I want this woman to pay for what she did in one way or another. Right now Matt, an' it harm none is becomming very hard on me. This is testing me to the fullest. The law of three and karma are a kick in the ass!

So, what we have here is one person living in the system and not having to face up to her crimes because of it, and two people who have been in the system and have bettered themselves and are having to pay for her crime.

Just waiting to see what responces I get out of this. The lawyer we went to see was the type that if we don't get paid he don't get paid, and we can't afford anybody else. I am getting paper work for victim restitution and we'll see what that does for us.

Now, you have a real life situation happening in the U.S. Does that change anything. Maybe out of your debates I can get some answers for myself.
Like I said, not taking one side or the other, just giving you something to talk about.

Blessed Be

sailor

05-27-2000, 07:30 PM

I remember a segment some years ago on TV. It presented two imaginary families equal in everything. Same number of kids, same incomes for parents etc. except one family saved all they could to send their kids to college and the other spent it all on vacations etc. When the time came to send the kids to college, the family that had saved was not elligible for help while the other one was. Does that sound fair to you?

xenophon41

05-27-2000, 07:47 PM

Kricket, you have my sympathies and my best wishes. I hope your son and daughter heal well and quickly. Please don't despair!

The lawyer you saw may have given you bad advice. Was the woman insured? You may not be able to get any financial help through a lawsuit against the woman herself, but there may be other options here. I suggest consulting with other lawyers.

You say she is getting off "scot free"; were there no criminal charges brought against her? (There are absolutely no special rules allowing welfare recipients dispensation from any of the laws which apply to the rest of us.)

I hope you are successful with victim restitution (I don't know exactly what that is, but it sounds like the sort of thing Libertarians would be against).

Please hang in there.

Sweet_Lotus

05-27-2000, 08:29 PM

As I read this thread, I am keeping in mind that it is very seldom that disadvataged people (and there are disadvantaged people, don't let the rhetoric fool you) have access to a computer. You will hear none of their voices here, in this thread. And I see there will be no compassion, either.

As much as the upper/middle-class likes to define and re-define what they consider to be "poverty", there are people living in it who did nothing to "deserve" having to choose between feeding their children or paying the rent. Social programs are overtaxed and stretched paper-thin. It is so easy for all of you to sit in your cushy chairs, tapping away at your keyboards.
I'd like to see a few of you live on the street, and see how "easy" it is to "succeed if you just try hard enough".
I have seen the system fail the poor over and over. Especially women and children. And this kind of denial is treacherous for them.

avalongod

05-27-2000, 09:06 PM

OSHA has too MANY regulations. You have GOT to be kidding. IF that is true it is only because big businesses have come up with too many ways to put their workers and the public at risk.

Did anyone see the article in Business Week about the "sick buildings."

Damn OSHA, it's government like that which keeps kids in school and out of the workplace where they belong!

:)

Smartass

05-28-2000, 07:12 AM

xenophon41:

Didn't mean to be too absolute, there. Let me correct and say the government was a lot more libertarian. You did read the part where all powers not specifically granted are reserved to the states, or the people, right? Given that this document is supposed to contain the rules for our government, how do you explain

-FDA
-OSHA
-ATF
-DEA

And before you point out that this attitude makes me elitist and distrustful of the common wisdom, let me say Damn Right I am....I merely recognize the reality that many necessary and vital "causes" would not receive funding from disinterested or poorly informed people.

Those of us that do have the education to look at these issues and the result of your social programs are able to see that they do more harm than good. However, I doubt there's much point in further discussion. Your attitude toward your fellow humans is totally at odds with the spirit under which this country was founded. Until you give equal respect to the opinions of others, regardless of education, you will have no conception of the value of freedom, and will remain undeserving of it.

Are the causes of poor education and poverty in your town localized phenomena or national?

The causes of poor education and poverty are personal and individual. For each person who is poor, there is a unique set of circumstances. You like to lump them into groups so that you can recommend large, grand fixes. Except your fixes don't work.

I’m sure you’d have arguments showing how local efforts could’ve done just as well, if the evil central government hadn’t prevented such efforts.

I would never argue that market solutions work just as well as governmental ones. I would say they work better. And you insist on continuing to miss my point. It is possible to work nationally towards a solution without having government be the primary tool. It is your lack of respect for others that leads you to believe that they will only do what they should (defined by you) if they are forced to.

And BTW, just because Hitler used the words “solution” “meaningful” “grand scale” etc. in his ravings doesn’t make them frightening or any less appropriate when you and I use them.

I apologize. Your statements that people aren't smart are moral enough to do the right thing help clear it up. Your position that government should decide what is moral and coerce everyone into cooperation doesn't remind me of Hitler at all.

I hope you are successful with victim restitution (I don't know exactly what that is, but it sounds like the sort of thing Libertarians would be against).

Yes, we often object to things based on what they are called. I'll say again, libertarians believe in personal responsibility. We believe that people should be allowed and required to reap the consequences of their actions. If you have violated someone else's rights, you should pay restitution. Theoretically, you should have to restore the person to the state they were in before you violated their rights.

Kricket

As far as libertarians are concerned, this person has violated your son's rights, and is responsible for any harm done to him or to your family.

The primary reason that free market systems work and socialist ones don't is incentive. When people can make as much, or more, money on welfare as they could make getting a job, there is no incentive to work. This reversal of incentive wastes national resources and victimizes the recipients by rewarding them for remaining helpless.

Liberals tend to rely on a work ethic on the part of people that would make them not want to be beholden to others. They ignore the fact that, for people to have this ethic, they have to be raised with it. Welfare mothers aren't likely to instill this type of thinking in their children.

In your particular case, the problem is that all this woman has comes from the government. Any reward you achieved in court would necessarily come from the government--if you were to win a settlement, it would lower her resources, which would mean that we would have to give her more, because we can't let people starve. This is why the lawyer thinks it's a waste of time. Unfortunately, he's probably right.

This removal of the link between actions and consequences is one of the side effects of social welfare. If your property hasn't cost you anything, what do you care if you put it at risk?

In my opinion, if we weren't so insistent on a government solution, then we could come up with one that would help in the right cases (which yours apparently was) but not allow others to become wards of the state for no good reason.

sailor:

Nope.

Sweet_Lotus:

I'd like to see a few of you live on the street, and see how "easy" it is to "succeed if you just try hard enough".

I'm not sure what you're getting at--I don't think this has been a part of anyone's argument. I wonder, though, what you think of a system where you can succeed without trying at all (at the expense of others' work).

I have seen the system fail the poor over and over.

Which is one more argument in favor of libertarians. When it comes to solving problems, government doesn't work. It is the wrong tool for this task. Let's get government out of it so we can find better solutions.

avalongod:

OSHA has too MANY regulations. You have GOT to be kidding. IF that is true it is only because big businesses have come up with too many ways to put their workers and the public at risk.

Your understanding of OSHA is obviously only theoretical at best. If you knew more of the actual effects of OSHA, rather than just its goals, you would feel pretty ridiculous making these statements.

-VM

avalongod

05-28-2000, 08:25 AM

Smartass:

Are you saying that big business DOESN'T willingly put their employees and the general public at risk in the interest of $$$, or are you saying that there is a better way to keep big business in line than OSHA? One of these statements would be laughably ridiculous, the other I would be willing to listen.

C K Dexter Haven

05-28-2000, 08:32 AM

I fail to understand the all-or-nothing positions taken by the extremists in both camps.

On the one hand, it is fairly clear that there are some areas that are legitimate and worthwhile for society (read: government) to control. Police departments, for example, and highway systems. Would the advocates of "no-government-intervention" actually prefer a system where every individual puts up a part of the street in front of his/her property if he feels like it? So, those of you at the extremist postion: get off it! You don't want NO government, the debate is not about that, the debate is about where the lines are drawn.

On the other hand, it is fairly clear that there ar some areas that are NOT up to society (read: government) to control. What I have for breakfast, for instance, and whether my living room couch is red or yellow.

So, the debate is not over A vs B, over Government-run-everything vs Government-run-nothing. The debate is over where the line is drawn.

Does society have an obligation to provide for those who can't care for themselves? Or should society let them starve or freeze? If they do die on the streets, does society have an obligation to clean up the corpses? (This is not entirely facetious, I have been in a Third World Country where I saw corpses by the side of road left to rot.)

Presumably, if enough of them die on the streets, the rotting corpses will pose a public health hazard. Does society have an obligation to protect the public against health hazards, like infectious diseases? or should that be up to each individual to worry about their own health?

Does society have an obligation to protect to protect consumers against unfair practices (such as monopolies, false advertisting, etc)? Or should society let the market handle it? ("Oh, golly, we didn't realize that the food was poisoned, but it's OK, because the relatives of the people who died will sue and get monetary compensation eventually, if they can afford the lawyers.")

So, my point: I think most of us would agree at the extremes. The debate is in the middle.

hawthorne

05-28-2000, 09:44 AM

CKDextHavn:
I fail to understand the all-or-nothing positions taken by the extremists in both camps.
Cognitive dissonance reduction.

picmr

matt_mcl

05-28-2000, 12:52 PM

CKDext, that's very lucid. I've given up my previous Crazy Pinko Idea on the grounds of sheer unpopularity (as opposed to ethical reasons), and am concentrating now on fighting the neoliberalism adhered to by the local libertarian contingent.

xenophon41

05-28-2000, 01:21 PM

Until you give equal respect to the opinions of others, regardless of education, you will have no conception of the value of freedom, and will remain undeserving of it.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence, Smartass. First, only a fool would disallow the opinions of others, and you know damn well that's not what I said. Secondly, only a fool would give equal weight to an uninformed opinion as to an informed one, which is what I was saying. You took my statement of distrust of the common wisdom and somehow understood from that that I have no conception of the value of freedom?? -I'm beginning to understand matt_mcl's frustration with the Libertarians on this board! Let's break your sentence down a bit more: Are you saying that if, in your judgement, I don't understand "the value of freedom" then I don't deserve it for myself? Or are you saying that those who (in your judgement) don't think everyone should be free shouldn't be free?

I believe in freedom and I understand it, contrary to your inflammatory statement. I also understand responsibility for my fellow man. I respect the opinions of others. I would not live in a country where everyone did not have the freedom to become informed. I notice you snipped out the part of my sentence where I said "This doesn't mean I want the government intruding in people's private lives or ways of belief, or that I have disdain for my fellows..." so that you could more conveniently accuse me of the following:

It is your lack of respect for others that leads you to believe that they will only do what they should (defined by you) if they are forced to.
Ignoring for the moment the obvious misrepresentation of my beliefs, let's compare your take on this:

Those of us that do have the education to look at these issues and the result of your social programs are able to see that they do more harm than good.
I see. So well educated Libertarians such as yourself have determined "more harm than good", whereas well educated legislators have apparently been fooled. Sounds like a bunch of complicated issues. But hey, what the hell, let's just let the people of the country, salt of the earth as they are, choose which programs should work by popular vote, or just by general inclination. I'm sure they have plenty of time to break away from their jobs to adequately research these controversial topics. After all, being smart and moral they would never make decisions based purely on knee-jerk reactions, now would they?

And speaking of “smart and moral” here’s the absolute jewel of your remarks to me:

And BTW, just because Hitler used the words “solution” “meaningful” “grand scale” etc. in his ravings doesn’t make them frightening or any less appropriate when you and I use them.
I apologize. Your statements that people aren't smart are moral enough to do the right thing help clear it up. Your position that government should decide what is moral and coerce everyone into cooperation doesn't remind me of Hitler at all.
So is this the type of thing I should expect from you now, Smartass? For you to use the standard Libertarian tactic of comparing those in favor of effective central government to Hitler? While you’re comparing me to monsters, why not Pol Pot? How about characterizing all of my ideas as “Stalinesque”? If this were the ‘Pit, I’d respond in the appropriate manner. Since we are in Great Debates, I’ll merely give you a tip. All you will do is show off the weakness of your position if, every time you must depart from standard rhetoric you resort to ad hominem attacks or unsupported statements of “fact” (such as “all your social programs … do more harm than good”).
For the record, I never stated that the people of this country aren’t smart or moral. Nor did I ever say that government’s role is to decide what is moral, or to coerce the citizenry. If you were more interested in dialogue than in taking cheap shots, you’d answer my argument that government should, ideally, work to prevent or ameliorate large social problems through concerted cooperative efforts, and that these efforts, no matter how invaluable, would not be supported in many cases by a largely ill-informed populace that chooses to remain ill-informed.

Apology:

I hope you are successful with victim restitution (I don't know exactly what that is, but it sounds like the sort of thing Libertarians would be against).
Yes, we often object to things based on what they are called.
That was an ill-advised jab I took, and you responded appropriately. If I’m ignorant of a particular topic, I should not presume to guess anyone’s stance on the topic. I apologize (mainly to Kricket) for that. Perhaps you should apologize to Kricket for this:

In your particular case, the problem is that all this woman has comes from the government. Any reward you achieved in court would necessarily come from the government--if you were to win a settlement, it would lower her resources, which would mean that we would have to give her more, because we can't let people starve. This is why the lawyer thinks it's a waste of time. Unfortunately, he's probably right.
What an amazingly self-serving chain of logic you assign to the lawyer! You and I both know from Kricket's post that the primary concern of this lawyer was his own payoff on the case, and that he saw no benefit to pursuing a settlement because he didn’t think any moneys could be got from the driver!

You say:

I doubt there's much point in further discussion.
There’s not much point in an exchange of rhetoric, that’s for sure. However, I don’t think dialogue is what you’re looking for here, so I tend to agree that further discussion between us is pointless. Particularly when you make these kinds of statements:

The causes of poor education and poverty are personal and individual. For each person who is poor, there is a unique set of circumstances.
and

It is possible to work nationally towards a solution without having government be the primary tool.
May I borrow your rose colored glasses sometime?

Finally, you say:

Liberals tend to rely on a work ethic on the part of people that would make them not want to be beholden to others. They ignore the fact that, for people to have this ethic, they have to be raised with it. Welfare mothers aren't likely to instill this type of thinking in their children.
Now who’s being elitist?

Odesio

05-28-2000, 02:30 PM

I'm sure our friends Andrew, Kayla, James, Lakshmi, Dustin, and little Davey appreciate how lucky they are to live in their country because if they were rich, they would not have to pay taxes!

Paradise on earth!

I'm still a bit confused over why you hate the wealthy. In the United State the wealthy pay far more in terms of federal income tax then the poor or middle class. And while the stories of our friends Andrew, Kayla, James, Lakshmi, Dustin, and little Davey might be tragic and sad it still doesn't mean they are entitled to something simply because of need.

Marc

Kricket

05-28-2000, 03:18 PM

The woman had no insurance, or drivers license. Then the lawyer wanted us to sue our own insurance. Guess what? We let it go because that is just another thing we couldn't afford. The phone goes next, and then probably our vehicle.
We are broke. Didn't have much to begin with, but enuff to make our lives a little better than others.
So then the lawyers wise idea was to sue my in-laws insurance since we live in there house. Totally giving up on trying to have this woman face responsibility for anything.
And yes, I realize that chances are that if she is forced to pay that in the end it will not be her anyway it will be the rest of society.
The weight does weigh heavy on my conscience.
That voice of poverty someone was talking about is going to be mine soon. Yeah, I know big sob story! But I have also learned that you can depend on nobody but yourself when you really want some action.
I am truely at a loss.
This woman was cited for non-insurance, but about the drivers license it makes no difference because it was in a parking lot which is private property. According to the police you can do whatever you feel on private property.
Does that make any sense? If I wanted to grow pot which is illegal I should be able to under the fact that it is on private property, but wait a minute you can't do that it's against the law. I don't understand the double standard. Maybe I missed something in traslation.
My sons police report was incomplete because as my son was being run over president clinton was comming into town. Two blocks away! Maybe I should write the white house. The officers on the scene were hurried because they had more important things to do. He doesn't bring enuff security with him that he needed the keystone cops?

It's just frustrating! I thought we were doing the right things by working hard and giving our children the best we could.
A lot of this is random and I am sorry for that, but when I get talking about this my thoughts go a mile a minute.

We are looking at other lawyers, but then you have that money issue again.

matt_mcl

05-28-2000, 08:57 PM

I'm still a bit confused over why you hate the wealthy. In the United State the wealthy pay far more in terms of federal income tax then the poor or middle class. And while the stories of our friends Andrew, Kayla, James, Lakshmi, Dustin, and little Davey might be tragic and sad it still doesn't mean they are entitled to something simply because of need.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? The OP is not a description of the United States as I currently understand it. It is a description of life in a theoretical libertarian state in which people have no right to anything they did not earn. I am perfectly aware that rich individuals of the US pay a great deal in taxes. I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of responding to me on the basis of what I wrote.

August West

05-28-2000, 10:34 PM

Lotus saidI'd like to see a few of you live on the street, and see how "easy" it is to "succeed if you just try hard enough".

Try this ,Lotus. Ten years ago, I was " on the street". I squatted in an apartment where the landlord lived in a different state. I worked a series of temp jobs ( mostly heavy lifting and moving) just to try and have some food to eat. No phone , No driver's license, no car. I finally found a job that paid $8.00/ hr as a maintenance man. I saved a little money and got an apartment of my own. I enrolled in courses at the local tech school. I got another part-time job. I bought a shitty car. I worked my ass off and studied even harder. Three and 1/2 years later, I had my associates degree in mechanical engineering. I found a new job as an engineer. Lots more money. Same shitty car. My new job offered to pay my tuition for my bachelor's degree. I accepted, of course all the classes had to be taken at night. Now, I'm a professional engineer. Even more money. A different car. Was it "easy". Fuck no! But did I hold my hand out to the government and say " Please subsidize me because I'm too lazy to improve myself."? Fuck no again. Unlike many people who say "The poor are just too lazy to work", I've been poor. And you know what?They're right.

Sorry for this rant, but I am sick of hearing poverty justified by this argument. I did it with no help from the government and I'm a better man for it.

The Ryan

05-28-2000, 10:44 PM

This woman was cited for non-insurance, but about the drivers license it makes no difference because it was in a parking lot which is private property.
That's not quite accurate: the normal traffic laws can't be enforced by the government on private property, but that doesn't mean that you can do anything you want on private property. If the owner tells you not to do something, you can't do it. It seems to me that any time you use someone's parking lot, there's an implicit requirement that you have a liscense. You could see about the owner of the parking lot to take action against her, although it wouldn't do you any good.

Milossarian

05-28-2000, 11:31 PM

Unlike many people who say "The poor are just too lazy to
work", I've been poor. And you know what?They're right.

I've thought that same thought frequently. But upon reflection, I really don't think it's the case.

As some alluded to earlier in this thread, I think it has more to do with being raised in an environment where little or no value is placed upon work ethic and personal responsibility.

I don't doubt that some of the able-minded, able-bodied poor out there who don't work see the rigors of full-time, gainful employment as very daunting. But rather than reflexively attacking them, perhaps some empathy is in order. Along with training and education. And, yes, accompanied with an unwavering message that, if you are able to work, you must work in order to receive aid.

FWIW, most of my childhood was spent in poverty that, at times, was so profound, my single mom worried about where our next meal would come from.

Through the help of some scholarships and student loan programs, I was able to get a college education and make a decent professional living.

I think it's important that we have welfare programs. But for every success story out there about how the safety net got someone back on their feet, too many of us know of situations where someone who could work instead sits on her ass collecting Welfare and/or AFDC watching Springer all day.

DoctorJ

05-29-2000, 01:22 AM

I'm curious of what people think of the main point of my argument back on Page 1--in a capitalistic system, there will always be a certain percentage of the population that cannot afford to get by.

In other words, if everyone living in poverty suddenly "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and started making what we now consider to be a living wage, it would just re-define poverty. That is, inflation would increase to the point that the "living wage" would no longer be such.

Does anyone with a better understanding of economics have anything to say about this? Or could every single person make enough to get by if they wanted to? (I'm interested both in a theoretical sense and in terms of the USA.)

Dr. J

Smartass

05-29-2000, 05:32 AM

avalongod:

Are you saying that big business DOESN'T willingly put their employees and the general public at risk in the interest of $$$, or are you saying that there is a better way to keep big business in line than OSHA? One of these statements would be laughably ridiculous, the other I would be willing to listen.

I'm saying that
-big or small is irrelevant; you just like the term.
-some businesses may put employees at risk; successful businesses generally do not
-OSHA does not keep big business in line; it just drains resources
-Of course there are better ways to keep businesses in line. A reporter with a camera is worth more than a book of regulations.

CKDextHavn:

As far as I know, there are no libertarians here voicing a desire for the removal of government. However, it becomes difficult to discuss because many liberals do the same thing you just did: Begin a discussion of government, switch to a discussion of "society" halfway through, and act as if the words are interchangeable.

Libertarians are placed in the position of answering what government should do, while libertarians act as if they have said what "society" should do. Libertarians don't say what society should do. They say, get the government's hands out of everything and society will do what it thinks is best.

xenophon41:

First, only a fool would disallow the opinions of others, and you know damn well that's not what I said. Secondly, only a fool would give equal weight to an uninformed opinion as to an informed one, which is what I was saying.

Let's say that my opinion is that providing food to the hungry is counterproductive and will ultimately lead to more hungry people, and therefore I think it is wrong. In spite of this, the wise government thinks it is better for a collection to be taken up so that distributions can be made. If I don't make my contribution, the government will come take it from me. Am I being disallowed from living according to my beliefs or not? Is my opinion not being discounted? There exist PhD. level economists who think this way, yet you would place your informed opinion over theirs. Who is the fool? At least I don't presume to know what the "common good" is.

You took my statement of distrust of the common wisdom and somehow understood from that that I have no conception of the value of freedom?

You said that you don't trust people to be wise enough to contribute for the "common good", so it is okay to force them to contribute. So, no, you don't understand the value of freedom.

Are you saying that if, in your judgement, I don't understand "the value of freedom" then I don't deserve it for myself? Or are you saying that those who (in your judgement) don't think everyone should be free shouldn't be free?

I am saying that freedom can only exist when the people understand its value and actively defend it. For freedom to continue to exist, I must defend not only my own, but yours as well. You think that my freedom is dangerous to society if I do not agree about what is the "common good". You are willing to blithely give my freedom a way without protest. You are unaware that when you sacrifice my freedom, you also sacrifice your own. This is also true many other people in our country. As a group, we are becoming increasingly undeserving of freedom, and, as a result, we are losing it.

I would not take your freedom away because you don't deserve it. You will give it away because you don't deserve it.

So well educated Libertarians such as yourself have determined "more harm than good", whereas well educated legislators have apparently been fooled.

Well educated legislators are not fooled. Their constituents are. Remember, to be successful in politics, you do not have to solve problems, you just have to make a visible attempt.

Sounds like a bunch of complicated issues.

And the answers are probably not simple. Which is why I think it is outrageous to think that the central government can hope to address them.

But hey, what the hell, let's just let the people of the country, salt of the earth as they are, choose which programs should work by popular vote, or just by general inclination.

Let's let people do what they think is right. True freedom includes the option of making mistakes.

I'm sure they have plenty of time to break away from their jobs to adequately research these controversial topics.

Do you have to break away from your job to research how to construct a computer in order to purchase one? Do you have to an expert in physics to select a TV? What makes you think people need to be experts in social policy in order to know how to spend their own money? We don't mandate that an electrical engineer make all our computer-purchasing decisions. Why do you suppose that is?

So is this the type of thing I should expect from you now, Smartass? For you to use the standard Libertarian tactic of comparing those in favor of effective central government to Hitler?

If the government dictates what is moral and what is not. If the government decides what is best for society. If people are not given a choice about how to contribute to the betterment of society. Then yes, it is comparable, if not so extreme, to Hitler. The fact that you aren't setting out to destroy a race doesn't make the rest of it okay.

Actually, the purpose wasn't to insult. There are reasons why we respond negatively to totalitarian governments. There are things we value more than expert opinions. And markets work better than centrally planned economies. If you are insulted by my reference to Hitler, then you probably see that I have not imagined the link.

The crux of the debate is whether people should control their lives or whether government should control their lives. Surely you know which side you are supporting? Do you think having government set aside certain personal parts of my life for me to control is less offensive? We won't come into your bedroom (unless someone phones in and says you're selling drugs in there). You are free to spend half your paycheck--we will use the rest for the benefit of society.

This is not an ad hominem attack. I'm actually calling it as I see it. I don't have anything against you personally--I don't even know anything about you.

Nor did I ever say that government’s role is to decide what is moral, or to coerce the citizenry.

If the government decides that people cannot be allowed to starve, that is a moral decision. If I cannot opt not to contribute to the welfare system, then it is coercion.

you’d answer my argument that government should, ideally, work to prevent or ameliorate large social problems through concerted cooperative efforts, and that these efforts, no matter how invaluable, would not be supported in many cases by a largely ill-informed populace that chooses to remain ill-informed.

You cannot use government to solve problems without compromising freedom. The primary tool of government is force. Taxes are not voluntary. Regulation is based on force. Any actions performed by government will be performed using money taken from me and using force that, for citizens, would be illegal. For this reason, government functions should be kept to a minimum: Protecting the rights of citizens. You should not be subjected to government force if you have not done anything wrong.

Other than that, I agree that large social problems should be ameliorated through cooperative efforts. Just not using government as the tool.

btw, thank you for the apology. Why should I apologize to Kricket for acknowledging that she won't get anything out of the government? I know the government doesn't give--it takes. I wasn't impugning her, I was impugning the system, which I think is wrong.

May I borrow your rose colored glasses sometime?

You mean the ones you wear when evaluating government programs?

Now who’s being elitist?

That wasn't elitist. That was behavior mod from intro Psychology. If you teach the parents that working isn't necessary, then what reason is there to expect them to teach their kids any different?

Kricket:

It's just frustrating! I thought we were doing the right things by working hard and giving our children the best we could.
A lot of this is random and I am sorry for that, but when I get talking about this my thoughts go a mile a minute.

You have every right to be frustrated. I, for one, am appalled. A system that takes better care of nonproductive members than the ones who do produce is an abomination.

DoctorJ:

I tend to agree with you. To me, if we get to a point where, without a massive social welfare system, the poorest are those with only 2 TV's, we're not doing too bad.

For the record, I don't think that it's fair to say that the poor are lazy. I also don't think it's fair to say that welfare is just lending a helping hand when the chips are down. One of the problems with welfare is that it takes otherwise productive people and teaches them not to produce. This is not because the people are bad, but because the system is bad: Teaching dependence and helplessness is offensive.

-VM

matt_mcl

05-29-2000, 10:31 AM

"pulled themselves up by their bootstraps"

I love this phrase because it is so frequently misused by conservatives.... It was coined by Marx, who used it to mean something impossible.

Think about it. How the hell are you supposed to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? You'd fall over! It's like trying to bite your teeth.

Sorry. Please go on.

xenophon41

05-29-2000, 11:27 AM

? There exist PhD. level economists who think this way, yet you would place your informed opinion over theirs. Who is the fool? At least I don't presume to know what the "common good" is.

Smartass, where exactly did you see me place my informed opinion over anybody else's? I never said I wanted to arbitrate the common good! I'm pretty sure from your intelligent responses that you don't have a reading comprehension problem, so why are you putting words in my mouth?
The point is that the "common good" must be determined by some set of processes (notice I didn't say "some group"). If we are to change our admittedly imperfect processes, it should be a change for the better. In your world, if I understand you correctly, the "common good" would be determined by popular wishes and market forces. Kindly explain to me just exactly how this would work in terms of global economics, foreign policy, science and medical research and industry standards; and explain why this would produce better results and more accurately reflect the "common good" than do existing government processes.

You said that you don't trust people to be wise enough to contribute for the "common good", so it is okay to force them to contribute. So, no, you don't understand the value of freedom...
...I am saying that freedom can only exist when the people understand its value and actively defend it. For freedom to continue to exist, I must defend not only my own, but yours as well. You think that my freedom is dangerous to society if I do not agree about what is the "common good". You are willing to blithely give my freedom a way without protest. You are unaware that when you sacrifice my freedom, you also sacrifice your own. This is also true many other people in our country. As a group, we are becoming increasingly undeserving of freedom, and, as a result, we are losing it.
I would not take your freedom away because you don't deserve it. You will give it away because you don't deserve it.

I've reread your rhetoric several times trying to understand what it is that makes you think I'm sacrificing your freedom, or anyone else's. Nowhere in your screed did you explain that, but I'm reasonably sure you're trying to say that taxation is the tool I'm helping the government use to take away your freedom. If that is your point, then please explain to me what the benefits of freedom from taxation would be, and how my quality of life would be improved. Bear in mind that you must have adequate replacement processes for all areas of federal government so that we can expect the rule of law to continue uninterrupted, the roads to be maintained, infrastructures expanded where necessary, interstate commerce effectively maintained, and an effective national defense.

Well educated legislators are not fooled. Their constituents are. Remember, to be successful in politics, you do not have to solve problems, you just have to make a visible attempt.
And the answers are probably not simple. Which is why I think it is outrageous to think that the central government can hope to address them.

I totally agree that politicians are more concerned with the appearance of working to solve problems than with the effectiveness of their actions. This seems to me to be because the majority of voters like easy answers that fit in attractively with their preconceived notions of cause and effect. If it's outrageous to think that central government can ever hope to address common problems, then I submit that it's even more preposterous to think the answers will spring up through popular thinking.

Yes, there are enormous problems with the political process in this country. But, again, I'm not here to defend as perfect the way our government is structured or the way politicians stay in office. You are proposing major changes to our system, so the burden is on you to show how your changes would improve things. So far you've offered idealistic rhetoric, when you haven't been misinterpreting my comments.

Do you have to break away from your job to research how to construct a computer in order to purchase one? Do you have to an expert in physics to select a TV? What makes you think people need to be experts in social policy in order to know how to spend their own money? We don't mandate that an electrical engineer make all our computer-purchasing decisions. Why do you suppose that is?

Are you seriously comparing pre-engineered consumer products to broad-based sociological phenomena? Your analogy is specious and simple minded. Here's why: Products such as computers and televisions are functional devices with a clearly determined set of consumer expectations to satisfy. They can be demonstrated in the store and their performance can be judged quickly and simply based on a short list of criteria. They are easy to operate and require no specialized knowledge, education or training.
Social policy must be based on a determination of many causative factors of the conditions for which amelioration is being sought, or prevention pursued. These factors are frequently tied to economics (local, national and global), ethnic diversity, population stability, mean education level, general levels of health and a host of seemingly unrelated conditions, attitudes and processes. Policy determinations, to be effective, must result from an iterative process of investigation, induction, experimentation and improvement, and must adapt to changes in the conditions over which they apply.

Please don't waste our time with false analogies.

Actually, the purpose wasn't to insult. There are reasons why we respond negatively to totalitarian governments. There are things we value more than expert opinions. And markets work better than centrally planned economies. If you are insulted by my reference to Hitler, then you probably see that I have not imagined the link.

You'll have to share your definition of "totalitarian" with us. My dictionary defines totalitarianism as:[list=1] centralized control by an autocratic authority the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority[/list=1]

Now, unless you can identify who is the autocrat, or in what way you think the federal government has absolute authority, I don't see how you can say our present system is totalitarian in nature.

BTW, I'm not insulted by your reference to Hitler so much as I'm resentful of your attempt to sidetrack the discussion by using standard Libertarian scare tactics. Either show how our present system resembles Hitler's Germany in any fundamentally oppressive way, or shut up about it.

The crux of the debate is whether people should control their lives or whether government should control their lives.

No, despite your attempt to hijack matt_mcl's OP, this is a debate about whether a free people should expect better government through central representation or through "market forces" and popular charity.

Odesio

05-29-2000, 03:09 PM

The Ryan

05-29-2000, 09:05 PM

BTW, just how does "the poor are not entitled to anything they don't earn" translate into "we should not help the poor"? No one's entitled to have a road to drive on, but that doesn't ean that the government doesn't pay for roads.

SingleDad

05-29-2000, 10:39 PM

I have now become a Libertarian. For the intellectually challenged among us, I will simplify the Libertarian philosophy.

We're right. Anyone who disagrees with us is a commie pinko cretin who wants Mommy & Daddy government to decide the color of his underwear.

The only position in opposition to Libertarianism is the enslavement of the rich and able by the poor and numerous. Libertiarianism is the only morally correct political system. Anything else is theft and stealing and oppression; we are slaves to the evil socialistic regime of Amerika.

If no one is coerced, then the invisible hand of the market will suddenly make greed, oppression, exploitation, racism and similar ills instantly disappear. There is plenty for everyone, and the invisible hand of the marketplace will make sure it's fairly evenly distributed. The only people who will starve or die from lack of medical treatment, etc. are those who are too lazy or stupid to live. We're better off without 'em. Of course if any nice people have a difficult moment, private charity will always be sufficient to carry them through.

Guns. Got to have plenty of them and make sure everyone has a few. Criminals and the mentally shouldn't have them; of course the invisible hand of the free marketplace will ensure that only peaceful and honest citizens will have them (can't have Mommy & Daddy government deciding who has guns!). Sure a few children will get massacred once in while, but they're glorious martyrs to freedom. Besides, if all the teachers and students had guns they'd just bring down the killers before they potted more than a couple kids. And, of course, the invisible hand of the government will make sure that in a nation of 280,000,000, we won't have more than 2 or 3 gun accidents per year.

Did I mention we're right? By definition? Since we're right, any form of argument, fallacious or blatantly propagandistic, is justified in furthing our holy cause. The smallest inconsistency in our opponents' views will be jumped on with savage ferocity, any of our own inconsistencies will be rationalized away as a response to our own oppression (see #2 above).

SingleDad

05-29-2000, 10:56 PM

We shouldn't try to face those pinko Liberal nutjobs on their own terms of fuzzy compassion; they'll beat us every time. Life is tough. It's a jungle out there, and the best way to survive and prosper is to be so hard-assed you can crack walnuts with your butt-cheeks.

The weak and stupid should die. They're nothing but a drag those of us who can make it in this tough world. We can keep a few of the marginal ones on as domestic servants, prostitutes and toilet cleaners. No medical insurance for them, though; it's just not economically justifiable to bother when they are so cheaply replaced.

If we make it an equal choice to be smart and hard working or stupid and lazy, guess what? We'll be overrun with stupid and lazy people. That's just evolution! Is that the kind of society we want? Of course not!

"Compassion" is just another weakness. We are just helping stupid and lazy people without sufficient forethought to provide for adverse circumstances. Why should I give one penny to support and encourage such cretinism? And I laugh at those so-called Libertarians who encourage private charity. I sure as hell know that I won't be artificially inflating the prices of my widgets by paying more than sweatshop wages (oh thank all the Gods for the glorious Global marketplace!) and spending a dime on charity. I'll kill my soft-hearted competition!

We should resist the commie pinko bastards not by claiming we're just as compassionate as them (ha!) but by pointing out that the strong surivive and the weak perish. Thus is has always been, thus it will always be so. To believe otherwise is just try to win by demagoguery and propaganda what has been lost by stupidity and laziness.

Mr.Zambezi

05-29-2000, 11:30 PM

In other words, if everyone living in poverty suddenly "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and started making what we now consider to be a living wage, it would just re-define poverty. That is, inflation would increase to the point that the "living wage" would no longer be such.

I love this idea. What you are saying is that wealth is a zero sum game. If I make $100,000 that means that you make less. If everyone makes more money, then there is no gain in wealth.

Without getting into all of the various financial nuances, let me just make it simple for all of you liberal wealth re-distributors:

If wealth were indeed a zero sum game then:

1) Every cave dweller who learned how to build a factory would have driven other spear chuckers further into poverty

2) the total sum of the world's wealth never would have exceeded that of the cro-magnon

3) there would be no industrial revolution, nor any increase in living standard.

4) we would all live in caves

Yeah, Jackass, if everybody invented new technology, started working to produce new goods, built homes, then the whole fucking world would fall into the abyss of extended life-spans, comfort and good dentistry that we enjoy now. Or would we just be the same...no better, no worse...if we never got off of our fat asses and created new companies?

I appologize to the moderator for my offensive tone, in advance.

SingleDad

05-29-2000, 11:44 PM

Mr. Zambezi: Excellent post! Maximally offensive while making a obvious point! We've got 'em on the run!

Stress the creation of wealth (it's obviously not a zero-sum game) but don't talk about differential distribution. Whatever you do, don't point out that economics is about winners and losers. To have any meaning at all, losing must hurt. Wealth should accumulate to the winners, and we should always make sure we have plenty of losers around; who else would accept subsistence wages for cleaning our toilets? I'm a winner, cleaning toilets is not in my future!

Mr.Zambezi

05-30-2000, 12:17 AM

Single dad said
Stress the creation of wealth (it's obviously not a zero-sum game) but don't talk about differential distribution. Whatever you do, don't point out that economics is about winners and losers. To have any meaning at all, losing must hurt.

I am not sure how to take that, SD. I earn a little over $100k per year, plus my wife's salary. I employ house cleaners, I spend money at restaurants, I disperse my wealth. If I made $20k, I would pay less taxess, less retaurant fees, less money in general,

Bill Gates creates jobs he creates wealth. he does not take money away, he gives it.

were it the case that wealth were a zero sum game, as you propose, then anyone making money would drive others into poverty. that is not the case. Look at the welth, ,the medecine, the standard of living that we have in the US, and tell me, are we better off than we were 300 years ago?

Shayna

05-30-2000, 12:29 AM

Here's the fundamental problem I have with the libertarian idea that "decent, honest people will take care of each other through private charity." I've read a lot of the posts on this subject in the many months I've been a member of Straight Dope. In every single one, although everyone professes that they'd gladly, voluntarily contribute to their church and/or various other charities (which is, of course, commendable), I have never, ever, ever read one single libertarian that didn't show utter scorn and contempt towards anyone who has ever taken advantage of government assistance when they've needed it. Never.

I was even told once that, rather than use the free clinic when I was uninsured while trying to start my own business (having been laid off from my former job due to budget cuts at my company), after having paid into the system for 20 years, that I should have just died because I had no business "taking" something that wasn't mine. Yes, they really said it was preferable to them that I be dead rather than collect back something I'd contributed to for over half my life.

So, in a libertarian society, if I contribute to my church for 20 years and then find myself in need of medical assistance because I can't afford to pay for expensive, private insurance, and the church does offer free medical care to those in need, am I not entitled to take advantage of it in return for my 20 years of contributions?

And if those people who are struggling to hold down 3 jobs while they're feeding their family and going to school at night to improve themselves are < gasp! > getting a scholarship or government grant for their education and perhaps taking advantage of a school breakfast program for their children, are so disdainful to you, why on earth would I believe that you would voluntarily help them if those government programs didn't exist?

And what if you had been contributing to your church because you liked how they were distributing your money only to causes you believed in (like cancer research or animal rights), but somewhere down the line somebody said, "let's start a soup kitchen here and feed the poor?" But you don't like the poor. They're nothing but lazy slobs who aren't deserving of a hand out. I mean, like matt said in the OP, they're not entitled to it if they didn't work for it, right? So now what do you do? Quit your church because they're not spending your money the way you see fit? Should churches not be in the charity business at all, then, so that you only have to contribute directly to people you find worthy?

If I had ever read a compassionate word from a libertarian on this board I might feel differently about your idea of a utopian society where "decent, honest people take care of each other." Unfortunately, what I read in all of this blather is so selfish and mean-spirited that it not only frightens me, it disgusts me. I thank GOD I don't live in your world.

Odesio

05-30-2000, 12:34 AM

If I had ever read a compassionate word from a libertarian on this board I might feel differently about your idea of a utopian society where "decent, honest people take care of each other." Unfortunately, what I read in all of this blather is so selfish and mean-spirited that it not only frightens me, it disgusts me. I thank GOD I don't live in your world.

I could understand how freeloaders think it is mean spirited when someone doesn't want to give their money away. After all they are entitled to something that doesn't belong to them by virtue of their existence alone. If you try to keep what you earn then they'll get irate and take it with a knife. Thank GOD we live in that kind of world.

Marc

Shayna

05-30-2000, 12:41 AM

matt_mcl

05-30-2000, 12:48 AM

Look, Gibson, have you ever bothered to read a post you've responded to?

I will now summarize what Shayna said: inasmuch as no post by any libertarian on this board has shown anything other than scorn for the poor and disadvantaged, she seriously doubts the blithe assertion that in a libertarian society, private charity would be sufficient to ward off starvation.

You've pulled this trick on me already; I'd appreciate your not pulling it on others as well. Either refute Shayna's position or accept it, but do not simply build a straw man in order to ignore what she said while pretending to respond.

Shayna

05-30-2000, 01:00 AM

Thank you, matt. You may notice that I don't often make my way into the GD forum. I came here, and to this particular thread, because Kricket directed me to what I thought was a discussion about the accident her son suffered. As I read through this thread, and eventually got to the couple of posts she made about her family's plight, my blood began to boil over.

My heart is absolutely breaking for Kricket and what her family is suffering right now. I would do anything if I had it in my power to take their pain away. If things continue to go the way they are for her family, eventually they will find themselves in need of government assistance again. Yet in spite of the fact that everyone here can clearly see that this has been by no fault of their own, the libertarians of this world would deny her and her children fulfillment of their basic needs, like food and money to pay the rent or mortgage. But we're expected to believe that these same people would gladly fork it over if they weren't being "coerced" into it by an oppressive government. To that I say, hogwarsh!

May God bless Kricket and her family. They are going to need everything they can get as they go through the trials that the next year (and more) will bring them.

DoctorJ

05-30-2000, 01:02 AM

Mr. Z: OK, so maybe my reasoning wasn't exactly rock-solid. That's why I threw the argument up for debate. (Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not an economist.) I don't think it invalidates my point, though--in our current system, I think it would be impossible (or at least damn near difficult) for everyone to rise out of poverty. The newly-created wealth just doesn't spread that far.

Matt: I didn't know that about the Marx quote, but it never made a lot of sense to me. That's why I put it in quotes.

Shayna: The argument that I've heard over and over from the Libertarian side is that if the government didn't take 1/3 of everyone's income, they'd be more inclined to give to private charities. I think this is a crock, because even with that 1/3 taken out, most people have more than they really "need", yet injustices remain. If you believe the stories about the booming economy, we should all be millionaires by now, yet there are still 45 million people who don't have health insurance. Are people more concerned about helping that 15% of the country that can't afford medical care, or adding a few options to the SUV?

At the same time, it's a double-edged sword--most people aren't concerned about that fact, because they think that the government provides adequate medical care for the poor. It's a good example of the people expecting the government to solve a problem, when they haven't.

(Note that I'm not particularly slamming Libertarianism; as you'll see in the thread I started earlier, I think it's about as good as anything else, in the long haul.)

Dr. J

Shayna

05-30-2000, 01:12 AM

DoctorJ: "The argument that I've heard over and over from the Libertarian side is that if the government didn't take 1/3 of everyone's income, they'd be more inclined to give to private charities."

I don't dispute that that's entirely likely or that libertarians really do mean it when they say that. My point isn't that they would be so greedy as to keep every penny they make in their own pockets, but that they would never contribute to the truly poor, sick and destitute. I come by this conclusion based on everything I've ever read by them here, that no one who isn't working and paying their own way is entitled to one penny from anyone else. Ever. So in spite of how generous the libertarians might be with their money for causes such as medical research (because cancer or heart disease just might affect them) or environmental concerns or animal rights, I don't believe they'll ever give to the poor. I find that disturbing. That was my point.

SingleDad

05-30-2000, 01:30 AM

Of course you're right, Shayna. Libertarianism is about the strong and smart accumulating as much as they can, and allowing the weak, stupid and improvident to die. Plus we'll execute some criminals to speed things up. Best to get 'em while they're young; If we fry 'em at 11, they won't grow up to be efficient criminals.

Private charity is a red herring. Those who give a third of their income to charity will be economically disadvantaged by those who do not; the practice will be uncompetitive and the invisible hand will correct it quickly.

You should have died. You were too improvident to plan for adverse circumstances. Tough shit, bite harder.

Human decency and compassion are weaknesses. Social obligation is slavery. Economic exploitation is the natural condition of humankind. The strong will survive, the weak will perish.

xenophon41

05-30-2000, 07:43 AM

Gee, a guy turns his back on the board to sleep for awhile and you Mountain Time people have a fistfight... And the bad part is, both the arguments and the ridicule are much more entertaining than mine have been. Dammit.

BTW, SingleDad, you're now my hero. (I read the entire "US is Already a Socialist society" thread yesterday.) (My head still hurts.) I thought I might be missing something about Libertarianism but your summary pretty much nails the philosophy as I've been interpreting it. Perhaps Smartass or Libertarian will adjust your analysis wherever it doesn't quite fit the party line. --Or maybe Lib will give us another series of fables from the Evil Liberal Nation we have become.

matt_mcl

05-30-2000, 09:36 AM

"Competition: An event in which there are more losers than winners. Otherwise it's not a competition. A society based on competition is therefore primarily a society of losers." - John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion

Odesio

05-30-2000, 09:42 AM

I'm a freeloader now? Oh. My. Gawd! I love the way you completely avoided any of my direct questions. Not that repeating it again will get through to you, but I CONTRIBUTED FOR TWENTY YEARS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I DIDN'T EARN IT? I DID. I AM MAKING A WITHDRAWAL FROM MY OWN DEPOSIT. But I'm a freeloader. Jesus H. Christ. You utterly amaze me.

Actually I didn't call you a freeloader I just said that I could see how freeloaders would call someone meanspirted for not wanting to donate to their cause. Actually I agree that since you put into the system for 20 years that you are entitled to take something out of it. I on the other hand would like the option of donating to the system or not.

Marc

Smartass

05-30-2000, 09:48 AM

xenophon41:

Smartass, where exactly did you see me place my informed opinion over anybody else's?

This doesn't mean I want the government intruding in people's private lives or ways of belief, or that I have disdain for my fellows; I merely recognize the reality that many necessary and vital "causes" would not receive funding from disinterested or poorly informed people.

You obviously have in mind that certain causes are "necessary" and "vital". This is an opinion. You position that it is okay to force others to contribute to causes that you think are necessary, whether they agree or not, is placing your opinion over theirs. Do you not see this?

The point is that the "common good" must be determined by some set of processes (notice I didn't say "some group").

Why? What is the "common good"? Do you mean the kind of "common good" where you take something away from one person to give it to another? Isn't that good for one and bad for another? What is the "common" part? Is it the fact that many people commonly agree that it is immoral not to help others?

Do you really think that "common good" is something that can be calculated or derived? It's an opinion. Every person will have a different notion of "common good". For a libertarian, you're definition of "common good" is no more, or less, valid than anyone else's. Therefore, you should be allowed to act according to your definition, and everyone else should be allowed to act according to theirs.

In your world, if I understand you correctly, the "common good" would be determined by popular wishes and market forces.

I assume by "your world", you mean "your opinion". I'll say again, "common good" is determined by each individual. Some care more about the common good than others, as is obvious just on this message board. I believe that every person should be free to contribute to the common good as much as little as they please. The market has no notion of "common good". The beauty of the market it that, when people have a want or a need, the market attempts to fill that want or need, if not impeded by governmental intrusion. Thus, if there are a lot of people (which, apparently there are) who would like to see poverty ended, the market will allow various potential solutions to come forward and compete for your dollars.

If there are enough people thinking this way, and they feel strongly enough to pay their money to see a solution, then solutions will be offered. If there are not enough people, or the concerned people don't want to part with enough money, then solutions may be partial or may not exist. It is a fair system: The more strongly you feel about, say, helping the poor, the more money you are likely to give. In this way, you are expected to pay the price of your convictions. In an unfair system, the more strongly you feel about helping the poor, the more of my money you are able to take in order to accomplish this. In this way, I am expected to pay the price for your convictions, and it does not matter whether I would rather spend my money on abandoned animals or saving for my daughter's education. After all, it is for the "common good".

Kindly explain to me just exactly how this would work in terms of global economics, foreign policy, science and medical research and industry standards; and explain why this would produce better results and more accurately reflect the "common good" than do existing government processes.

Obviously, I don't have time to write a dissertation here, and I can't predict the future. The key to libertarianism is not trying to control outcomes. However, a few notes:

global economics: In a libertarian society you are free to buy and sell from whomever you choose, if you have the means. Thus, no trade bans or punitive tariffs. No price fixing.

foreign policy: A libertarian government exists to protect the rights of its citizens. A national defense falls within this scope. A national offense does not (no playing world policemen, sending US forces all over the world, etc.).

scientific research: Medical and technological advances are profitable. If you invent a cure for AIDS, you can make a lot of money selling it. In other words, these things would work basically the way the do now, minus the government grants, which tend to be arbitrary and bizarre anyway.

industry standards: That would depend on the industry, don't you think?

The more people want something, the more "common" the desire is. The more people want something badly enough to pay for it, the more likely it is to be achieved. And I would say that, the more people want something, the more closely it matches the "common good".

I've reread your rhetoric several times trying to understand what it is that makes you think I'm sacrificing your freedom, or anyone else's.

Freedom is not self-sustaining. There was more freedom in this country 20 years ago than today. Several Congressman are trying to pass bills right now that allow for "secret" searches by police. If passed, there will be evenly less freedom in the future. By not objecting to laws and federal programs that violate my rights (or anyone else's) you are saying it is okay for those rights to be violated. By extension, you are saying that it's okay for your rights to be violated. If it's okay for my house to invaded and searched, based on an anonymous drug tip, then it's okay for your house to be invaded and searched in the same way. I don't know if you've noticed, but, in general, legislators don't give freedoms back, once they've taken them. Instead, the list of freedoms no longer available just gets longer and longer. And it will continue to do so until we, collectively, put our feet down, assuming we will still be able to do so.

Bear in mind that you must have adequate replacement processes for all areas of federal government so that we can expect the rule of law to continue uninterrupted, the roads to be maintained, infrastructures expanded where necessary, interstate commerce effectively maintained, and an effective national defense.

I'm not a politician, dude. You want policy prescriptions, go here:

http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/

Also, you can see the entire Libertarian Party platform here:

http://www.lp.org/

I doubt I could improve significantly on the information you can find at those two sites.

If it's outrageous to think that central government can ever hope to address common problems, then I submit that it's even more preposterous to think the answers will spring up through popular thinking.

I don't know what "popular thinking" is. Are you saying that if a couple hundred legislators can't come up with solutions, then a couple hundred million people have no chance?

You are proposing major changes to our system, so the burden is on you to show how your changes would improve things. So far you've offered idealistic rhetoric, when you haven't been misinterpreting my comments.

We're going to have to get straight whether we are discussing libertarian philosophy or political aims. The only change I am proposing is reigning the federal government in to its Constitutional limits. I have proposed no revolution.

Are you seriously comparing pre-engineered consumer products to broad-based sociological phenomena?

Pre-engineered? What the hell does that mean? Is that like saying government programs are pre-disastered?

What are these broad-based sociological phenomena? Hungry people? Unemployed people? I wouldn't compare them with consumer products, but I'll bet that most of their problems are related to a need for consumer products.

If you meet a hungry person, which do you think he would prefer:
-a determination of many causative factors of the conditions for which amelioration is being sought, or prevention pursued?
-food?

Policy determinations, to be effective, must result from an iterative process of investigation, induction, experimentation and improvement, and must adapt to changes in the conditions over which they apply.

Or, you could just offer some food to someone who is hungry. Send a couple hundred bucks to Kricket and her family to help out. If enough people care as much as you and other posters here claim to, then there's no need in all these wasteful policy determinations and iterative processes. How many of these policy determinations, so far, have managed to solve more problems than they cause?

Please don't waste our time with false analogies.

Please don't waste my time with polysyllabic claptrap.

Now, unless you can identify who is the autocrat, or in what way you think the federal government has absolute authority, I don't see how you can say our present system is totalitarian in nature.

You mean, "yet", right? Like, it's a lot closer to totalitarianism now than it ever has been, and moving more in that direction. And you approve of government moves that take away my resources and my freedom. You know, Hitler didn't achieve totalitarianism all at once--in fact, he was popularly elected. Do I predict catastrophe any day? No. But your line of thinking is the same kind of thinking that allows such things to happen. This thinking that the government knows best, and people can't be depended on to make the right decisions--this is the kind of thinking that allows people to feel comfortable with socialist and fascist governments. Which was my point. You can read more into it if you wish.

Either show how our present system resembles Hitler's Germany in any fundamentally oppressive way, or shut up about it.

-The government forcibly extracts almost half of the earnings of the citizens, by force if necessary, and spends it whatever way it pleases.
-The armed forces invade foreign countries at the whim of one man, with no formal declaration of war.
-Elections are increasingly controlled by an elite group of politicians who every year increase the requirements for other parties to field candidates.
-Those who have displeased the state are deprived of many of their rights for life.
-Nonviolent citizens are imprisoned for years at a time for behavior that has harmed no one.
-Agents of the federal government are allowed to break into private residences, search the premises and confiscate private property, on no further evidence than an anonymous tip.

I can list more, if you like.

this is a debate about whether a free people should expect better government through central representation or through "market forces" and popular charity.

Actually, I think the OP was about whether you have a right to what you haven't earned. Libertarians do not think of "market forces" as being government. We see a purpose for central government which is outside of the effects of the market. However, for solving social problems, we see central government as ineffective at best, needlessly oppressive at worst. Saying you are represented through "market forces" is just another way of saying that you represent yourself.

Perhaps Smartass or Libertarian will adjust your analysis wherever it doesn't quite fit the party line.

Maybe I have a different reading of it than you, but last I checked, SingleDad had abandoned that debate in the middle, right after defining his terms. Did you see a page that I didn't?

SingleDad:

I guess you have abandoned the debate we were having in the Socialism thread. I also see that you are no longer referring to yourself as 90% libertarian.

Just as well. I did not realize you were itching so badly to speak for us. Just another of your forays into "reasoned debate", I suppose?

For someone who obviously thinks of himself as a mature and reasoned thinkers, I find your posts increasingly childish and petulant.

Just for kicks, though:

To have any meaning at all, losing must hurt. Wealth should accumulate to the winners, and we should always make sure we have plenty of losers around; who else would accept subsistence wages for cleaning our toilets? I'm a winner, cleaning toilets is not in my future!

Please explain to me your plan for a society in which losing doesn't hurt, you can get rich cleaning toilets, and wealth accumulates to the losers. I'm particularly interested in how many people are going to have food at all.

And for future reference:
Libertarianism is about the strong and smart accumulating as much as they can, and allowing the weak, stupid and improvident to die.

When you find my posts to be equally as vicious, unfair, and downright wrong about you or your beliefs, you won't need to ask why.

Those who give a third of their income to charity will be economically disadvantaged by those who do not; the practice will be uncompetitive and the invisible hand will correct it quickly.

I like this logic. Those who buy nice things will be economically disadvantaged by those who do not; the invisible hand will correct it. Those who gamble will be economically disadvantaged; the invisible hand will collect it. Those who sleep 8 hours a night...watch Sesame Street...exercise...buy books.

Is your understanding of economic systems involving humans really this surreal?

So, am I to take it that you have run away from the debate we had going in order to launch unsolicited attacks? I gotta tell you, I really admire that in you.

Shayna:

I have never, ever, ever read one single libertarian that didn't show utter scorn and contempt towards anyone who has ever taken advantage of government assistance when they've needed it.

Excuse me, but when did I do this? As I recall, in this thread, I commented on the fact that our current system cannot distinguish between offering temporary, necessary help (as it seems Kricket's case was) and providing long-term free rides. At what point did I address her with scorn?

So, in a libertarian society, if I contribute to my church for 20 years and then find myself in need of medical assistance because I can't afford to pay for expensive, private insurance, and the church does offer free medical care to those in need, am I not entitled to take advantage of it in return for my 20 years of contributions?

Libertarians do not have any problem with contributions or with people benefitting from their contributions. After all, contributions are voluntary. What libertarians object to are forced contributions, like taxes. If someone has been telling you otherwise, they were not representing libertarian views.

As for people who are currently on welfare, I do not view them with scorn and I do not generally resent them. I do view with scorn a system forces citizens to contribute to a program that teaches dependency.

And if those people who are struggling to hold down 3 jobs while they're feeding their family and going to school at night to improve themselves are < gasp! > getting a scholarship or government grant for their education and perhaps taking advantage of a school breakfast program for their children, are so disdainful to you, why on earth would I believe that you would voluntarily help them if those government programs didn't exist?

The whole purpose of libertarianism is that no person is "disdainful"; rather, all are equal before the law, and equally deserving of having their rights protected.

And what if you had been contributing to your church because you liked how they were distributing your money only to causes you believed in (like cancer research or animal rights), but somewhere down the line somebody said, "let's start a soup kitchen here and feed the poor?"

Then you decide whether or not to continue contributing, based on your values. The point is, you have a choice whether or not to contribute, before and after any changes.

So now what do you do? Quit your church because they're not spending your money the way you see fit? Should churches not be in the charity business at all, then, so that you only have to contribute directly to people you find worthy?

It's not about how you make contributions. Libertarians have no objection to organized charity or large-scale charitable programs. The only objection we have is when the program is such that you are not free to choose whether or not you contribute.

If I had ever read a compassionate word from a libertarian on this board I might feel differently about your idea of a utopian society where "decent, honest people take care of each other." Unfortunately, what I read in all of this blather is so selfish and mean-spirited that it not only frightens me, it disgusts me. I thank GOD I don't live in your world.

One of us is really confused. Have my posts in these various threads been so cold and heartless? Please give me examples of what you mean, as relates to me, one married libertarian. Also, are you sure you know who the libertarians are here?

the libertarians of this world would deny her and her children fulfillment of their basic needs, like food and money to pay the rent or mortgage.

As a start, the libertarians would hold the person who hit her son responsible for the damage.

I come by this conclusion based on everything I've ever read by them here, that no one who isn't working and paying their own way is entitled to one penny from anyone else.

This is true. It's that word, "entitlement". However, to say someone isn't "entitled" to something does not mean that they are undeserving. I think every human is deserving of a happy comfortable life, but they are not entitled to it--that is, they are not owed it by someone else. I think that people who are doing okay should feel morally compelled to help those less fortunate. However, I do not think they should be legally compelled.

-VM

Odesio

05-30-2000, 09:54 AM

Yet in spite of the fact that everyone here can clearly see that this has been by no fault of their own, the libertarians of this world would deny her and her children fulfillment of their basic needs, like food and money to pay the rent or mortgage. But we're expected to believe that these same people would gladly fork it over if they weren't being "coerced" into it by an oppressive government. To that I say, hogwarsh!

I have a pretty simple question. In what way, shape, or form would I deny them their basic needs? I have no control over her and I certainly can't deny her or her family anything.

I'll be honest with you about your second point. I don't make enough money to do a lot of the things I want to do let alone donate it to the needy. As such I only donate to one charity and I pretty much ignore the rest.

Marc

Gaudere

05-30-2000, 10:09 AM

Mr.Zambezi said:
Yeah, Jackass [...] I appologize to the moderator for my offensive tone, in advance.
[Moderator Hat ON]

If you know something is inappropriate for this forum, don't apologize in advance, just don't do it, please. It's only a short hop to The Pit if you feel you must directly insult a poster; try to keep such things out of Great Debates.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

hawthorne

05-30-2000, 10:12 AM

Sheesh matt_mcl, a definition from a book which is clearly Biercian in intent is hardly helpful. I understand that you don't have a lot of time for libertarians (I really hope you don't think I'm one), but accusing them of advocating a society where most are losers is a bit tough (unless they are of the Ayn Rand variety).

Competition reduces costs, which means more stuff that people like for the same resources. This means the "pie" is bigger. Libertarians are of the view that any evening of the slices is (i) unjustified and (ii) will cause the "pie" to shrink rapidly.

You seem to suppose that the rich do not contribute at all to the pie. Surely this is a bit steep. It is nonetheless possible to argue that some equalisation of the "slices" is possible and desireable without reducing the size of the pie much (or at all).

It ill behoves you to suggest that there could never be a trade off between equality and general standards of living because it undermines your perfectly defensible position that some protection can be given to all at a pretty low cost (or no cost) to overall wealth.

picmr

Smartass

05-30-2000, 11:11 AM

picmr:

Interestingly, when you describe things in that way, I find nothing that I disagree with. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with "some protection can be given to all at a pretty low cost (or no cost) to overall wealth". I just don't think you can accomplish this with government, and certainly not at low cost.

-VM

SingleDad

05-30-2000, 11:41 AM

I cannot logically overcome the Libertarian assumption of the intrinsic truth of the non-coercion principle. Every "logical" argument I've seen from a Libertarian starts with the assumption of this principle. All the arguments boil down to "Since the Libertarian principle is intrinsically true and forms the definition of "good", any consequence of that principle must be good. Any consequence that is generally seen as "bad" will magically be excluded by the invisible hand."

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the conflict between Liberalism and Libertarianism is a conflict of values and not of ideas. Values cannot be debated as such; there is no objective basis on which to differentiate them. Value conflicts have to be fought, either with guns or on the battleground of emotional appeal.

Dry refutations of the assumptions of the Libertarian premise are not particularly entertaining. Heavy-handed satire is much more humorous. It strikes directly at the heart of the matter and bypasses the rationalizations that are an unfortunate consequence of human evolution. The other nice thing about satire is that it's self-regulating. If its on target, it's well received; if not, it just makes the author look ridiculous. Of course I'm not trying to appeal to Libertarians; you're already completely convinced of your own moral superiority. Rather, I'm trying to appeal to moderates to liberalize their views rather than appear heartless, and to motivate liberals to strengthen their propagation of their values.

I'll debate Libertarians on logical principles when they stop self-righteously asserting their moral superiority, stop whining about how they're being oppressed and stolen from, and start assuming responsibility for the obligations incurred in a hyper-complex interdependent technologically advanced society of very fallible human beings.

Odesio

05-30-2000, 11:50 AM

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the conflict between Liberalism and Libertarianism is a conflict of values and not of ideas. Values cannot be debated as such; there is no objective basis on which to differentiate them. Value conflicts have to be fought, either with guns or on the battleground of emotional appeal.

This seems to be a problem since most ideas are formed from the values we hold.

Marc

hawthorne

05-30-2000, 12:09 PM

(Smartass to) SingleDad:

I guess you have abandoned the debate we were having in the Socialism thread. I also see that you are no longer referring to yourself as 90% libertarian.
Yes, head on over, Smartass has pretty much conceded defeat. (unoffically of course) ;)
bwoahoaha (by request)

picmr

matt_mcl

05-30-2000, 01:45 PM

I like this logic. Those who buy nice things will be economically disadvantaged by those who do not; the invisible hand will correct it. Those who gamble will be economically disadvantaged; the invisible hand will collect it. Those who sleep 8 hours a night...watch Sesame Street...exercise...buy books.

Is your understanding of economic systems involving humans really this surreal?

Surreal, nothing. The workers of the first world are already being told that their benefits are being taken away, their wages reduced, and their companies downsized because they can't compete with slave labour in Nigeria.

Sheesh matt_mcl, a definition from a book which is clearly Biercian in intent is hardly helpful.

The Doubter's Companion is not Biercian in intent, although it can often seem that way to people who read it skimmingly or not at all; but even if it was, how wouldn't it be helpful if it pertains to the debate?

You seem to suppose that the rich do not contribute at all to the pie. Surely this is a bit steep.

For the Nth time, I do not believe that the rich do not contribute to the pie, nor did I ever express such a point of view.

It ill behoves you to suggest that there could never be a trade off between equality and general standards of living because it undermines your perfectly defensible position that some protection can be given to all at a pretty low cost (or no cost) to overall wealth.

Correct, which is why I have never adopted such a position. Certain people on this board have a genius for interpreting my position on the basis of some medium of communication other than the English language, to put it delicately. I commend my actual postings to your readership.

On the other hand, perhaps it will help to continue:

"Competition is, of course, a very good thing. We cannot live in a complex society without it. On the other hand, if the principal relationship between citizens is based on competition, what has society and, for that matter, civilization been reduced to?" - Saul, ibid.

xenophon41

05-30-2000, 05:54 PM

Smartass wrote:
You obviously have in mind that certain causes are "necessary" and "vital". This is an opinion. You position that it is okay to force others to contribute to causes that you think are necessary, whether they agree or not, is placing your opinion over theirs. Do you not see this?
Baloney! The idea that some unstated causes can be necessary and vital is no more an opinion than is the idea that some unstated causes can be unnecessary and frivolous. And once again you've deliberately misstated my position, so I'll restate it more clearly for you:

My Position
by xenophon41
It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital.

The point is that the "common good" must be determined by some set of processes (notice I didn't say "some group").
What is the "common good"? Do you mean the kind of "common good" where you take something away from one person to give it to another? ...What is the "common" part?
Smartass, please note that where I've enclosed a word in quotation marks in any of my replies to you, it's because I'm quoting your terms. If the term "common good" confuses you, feel free to stop using it.

I'll say again, "common good" is determined by each individual....I believe that every person should be free to contribute to the common good as much as little as they please. The market has no notion of "common good". The beauty of the market it that, when people have a want or a need, the market attempts to fill that want or need, if not impeded by governmental intrusion. Thus, if there are a lot of people (which, apparently there are) who would like to see poverty ended, the market will allow various potential solutions to come forward and compete for your dollars.
Explain to me the magical mechanism by which an end to poverty (!) is somehow provided for by market forces.

global economics: In a libertarian society you are free to buy and sell from whomever you choose, if you have the means. Thus, no trade bans or punitive tariffs. No price fixing.
My request was that you explain how this would be more effective than our current system. Discuss how this would work between a hypothetical Libertarian USA and the rest of the world.

scientific research: Medical and technological advances are profitable. If you invent a cure for AIDS, you can make a lot of money selling it. In other words, these things would work basically the way the do now, minus the government grants...
So if there's a lot more money to be made in treating AIDS victims than in finding a cure...

[/i]foreign policy: A libertarian government exists to protect the rights of its citizens. A national defense falls within this scope. A national offense does not (no playing world policemen, sending US forces all over the world, etc.)[/i]
How exactly does an isolationist policy provide for a better national defense? What would a Libertarian defense department consist of, and how is this more beneficial to our security?

industry standards: That would depend on the industry, don't you think?
Okay, just so I stand a chance of getting a real answer from you, here's a more specific question: Under a Libertarian system, through what processes would industry standards for safety be determined, and how would these processes prove more beneficial to workers' safety and health than OSHA/MSHA methods of determining safety standards?

The key to libertarianism is not trying to control outcomes.
Friggin' obviously.

You want policy prescriptions, go here: http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
Also, you can see the entire Libertarian Party platform here: http://www.lp.org/ I doubt I could improve significantly on the information you can find at those two sites.
I looked through the LP site. Their answer to their self-posed question 'Why not stick with the establishment?' was, in it's entirety: "The politicians in Washington and our state capitals have led us away from the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility which are the only sound foundation for a just, humane, and abundant society.
Government at all levels is too large, too expensive, woefully inefficient, arrogant, intrusive, and downright dangerous. Democratic and Republican politicians have created the status quo and do not intend to change it."

No help there. The policy statements are lengthier, but quite similar in character. If I want unsupported statements of dogma I'll stick to reading your posts, Smartass.

I don't know what "popular thinking" is. Are you saying that if a couple hundred legislators can't come up with solutions, then a couple hundred million people have no chance?
Since you've provided no mechanism through which solutions are collectively evaluated and discussed by the 200 million people (unlike the several hundred legislators), I'm saying they've got a smaller chance than do the legislators.

The only change I am proposing is reigning the federal government in to its Constitutional limits. I have proposed no revolution.
I went back and reread all of your posts to try and make sense of your statement above. I cannot do so in light of the many times you've advocated zero government control of industry and trade, zero government involvement in social programs and zero government oversight of safety and health issues.

Pre-engineered? What the hell does that mean? Is that like saying government programs are pre-disastered?
You're serious? Or were you so eager to use that as a straight line you glossed over the import of the statement? "Pre-engineered" means "engineered before the fact"; in the case of consumer goods "the fact" would be "sale to a consumer" or "evaluation by the consumer."

If you meet a hungry person, which do you think he would prefer:
-a determination of many causative factors of the conditions for which amelioration is being sought, or prevention pursued?
-food?
<big sigh> You're forcing me to throw greeting card wisdom at you: "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish..." etc.
How foolishly easy it is to assume the answer is always charity! How many fishes are you Libertarians going to provide before you get tired of it? Your totally false assumption that social programs are merely governmentally subsidized handouts is getting tired.

Policy determinations, to be effective, must result from an iterative process of investigation, induction, experimentation and improvement, and must adapt to changes in the conditions over which they apply.
Or, you could just offer some food to someone who is hungry. Send a couple hundred bucks to Kricket and her family to help out. If enough people care as much as you and other posters here claim to, then there's no need in all these wasteful policy determinations and iterative processes. How many of these policy determinations, so far, have managed to solve more problems than they cause?
Please don't waste our time with false analogies.
Please don't waste my time with polysyllabic claptrap.
Alright, Smartass. I'll give you the statement again, with all the big words taken out of it. (Read a little slower if you get confused.) But first a question --- are you actually going to stick with your analogy of computers and tv's when discussing societal problems? (Talk about "claptrap"!) I'm not going to get tired of shredding the same argument over and over, you know. I'm not proud at all.

Here's the paraphrase (oops! Big word! I mean, here's where I say the same thing in a different way).
When any group of people want to try and make conditions better for themselves or another group of people, the best way to go about it is to start a cycle where they:[list=1] define the condition they want to affect find out all they can about the place where the condition is found discuss what they find out, and try to agree about the things that contribute (add to) the condition discuss and agree on certain things that could be done to change the condition start doing those things check the results start the cycle over again to make their efforts better[/list=1]
(I wish I could stick with the polysyllabic statements; they sure are quicker to write.)

You know, Hitler didn't achieve totalitarianism all at once--in fact, he was popularly elected. Do I predict catastrophe any day? No. But your line of thinking is the same kind of thinking that allows such things to happen. This thinking that the government knows best, and people can't be depended on to make the right decisions--this is the kind of thinking that allows people to feel comfortable with socialist and fascist governments. Which was my point. You can read more into it if you wish.
No, Smartass, I'm not in the habit of reading more into statements than they say; apparently, that's your favorite tactic. Please support your statement that my "line of thinking" allows totalitarianism to happen, or allows people to "feel comfortable" with socialist and fascist governments. When you provide your supporting information, please use my actual "line of thinking" by providing quotes (in context) from my posts that directly support your conclusions regarding my "line of thinking."

Smartass, I challenged you to:
Either show how our present system resembles Hitler's Germany in any fundamentally oppressive way, or shut up about it.

Here are your responses, one by one, and my rebuttals.

-The government forcibly extracts almost half of the earnings of the citizens, by force if necessary, and spends it whatever way it pleases.
"Almost half"? You mean "slighly over a third, before deductions." In any case, SingleDad already answered this charge in the thread "The US is already a socialist society." To paraphrase (say it in a different way): There is a social contract implicit between the citizenry and the government. This contract cannot in any practical way be directly affirmed or negotiated by each individual. The individual is not, however, compelled to remain a citizen, and is free upon reaching majority to either seek a more suitable government under which to exist or to work within the system to change it. By remaining as a citizen, the individual consents to the social contract.

-The armed forces invade foreign countries at the whim of one man, with no formal declaration of war.
Hardly "at the whim", Smartass. The President has constitutional limits to the length and degree of involvement he can command of the armed forces overseas. In addition, the political process of checks and balances prevents any oppressive action taken within the constitutional limitations.

-Elections are increasingly controlled by an elite group of politicians who every year increase the requirements for other parties to field candidates.
How do you go from political control of electoral standards to totalitarianism, which would at least require total control of election results? That may be one small step for you, but it's one giant leap for me.

-Those who have displeased the state are deprived of many of their rights for life.
Your taking about convicted felons. Do I have to point out that every society since Hamurabi has had criminal law? Does this mean all societies which punish criminals by depriving them of liberty or life are totalitarian?

-Nonviolent citizens are imprisoned for years at a time for behavior that has harmed no one.
Again, rule of law. The nice thing about our (non-totalitarian) system is that if you don't like certain laws, you can work within the system, as many of us do, to get them changed. "Write your congressman."

-Agents of the federal government are allowed to break into private residences, search the premises and confiscate private property, on no further evidence than an anonymous tip.
One of those crappy, kneejerk laws produced by the "war on drugs." This is the closest you've come to describing totalitarianism. It's a brilliant example, however, of market forces in action. It makes law enforcement actually profitable if done in a certain way! I'm not convinced that less government oversight of law enforcement would yield fewer abuses of power. And fortunately, RICO can be repealed (see above).

Actually, I think the OP was about whether you have a right to what you haven't earned. Libertarians do not think of "market forces" as being government. We see a purpose for central government which is outside of the effects of the market. However, for solving social problems, we see central government as ineffective at best, needlessly oppressive at worst. Saying you are represented through "market forces" is just another way of saying that you represent yourself.
I can represent my individual interests only so far as I can determine what effect my actions will have. I cannot represent the collective interests of the nation, and unlike you I firmly believe those collective interests can best be represented by central governmental efforts.

On a lighter note -

SingleDad wrote:

I'll debate Libertarians on logical principles when they stop self-righteously asserting their moral superiority, stop whining about how they're being oppressed and stolen from, and start assuming responsibility for the obligations incurred in a hyper-complex interdependent technologically advanced society of very fallible human beings.
Watch out, man. You're being polysyllabic!

...They hate that!

Shayna

05-30-2000, 09:42 PM

[serious hijack] xenophon, will you marry me? I don't even care if you're a woman. Or already married. ;) [/hijack]

xenophon41

05-31-2000, 06:59 AM

[serious hijack] xenophon, will you marry me? I don't even care if you're a woman. Or already married. [/hijack]

Gulp! <dry mouth, sweaty hands>

Thanks for the compliment. (And I've seen your picture --- wow!) I'm a heterosexual male, as a matter of fact, and I'm in a very satisfying relationship with a SO. --But I'll marry ya just the same... (she'll never find out, honest!)

(Ahh, who'm I kidding?)

Smartass

06-01-2000, 08:11 AM

SingleDad:

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the conflict between Liberalism and Libertarianism is a conflict of values and not of ideas.

Fundamentally, you are correct. Libertarianism places individual freedom above other concerns. However, this conclusion was not reached in a vacuum. History has pretty much shown that increased central control leads to more poverty and general misery; whereas, free market interactions have led to more general prosperity and happiness. You have pointed out that maximizing freedom and minimizing central control does not necessarily obviate the possibility of economic exploitation. In this sense, you are correct: Libertarianism is not perfect.

To me, there is a fundamental hypocrisy in all these threads: If we cannot show that libertarianism will always achieve perfect results, then the liberals roll their eyes and call us silly. However, this is not applied to the liberal standpoints. We continually point out the shortcomings of liberal systems, but since we cannot show that it leads to disaster, the liberals roll their eyes and call us hysterical.

In a social democracy, constitutional republic, socialist utopia, or whatever else, there will be people who struggle to survive. There will be people who suffer while others live comfortably. In fact, all conceivable social ills will exist to some extent or other.

This is also true of a libertarian society. We believe that these social ills would be lessened in a more libertarian context. And no, we cannot prove it. We can show that increased central government generally leads to increased misery and inefficiency. We can show that our logic is based on the commonly observed fact that markets make more efficient use of resources, and that most people believe that freedom is preferable to slavery. But proof? No, you cannot prove a value-based philosophical system; nor can you disprove it.

Heavy-handed satire is much more humorous.

I have no problem with you dishing it out, if you can also take it. However, if I were to respond in kind, you would pull out your master list of logical fallacies and dissect every statement. So, when you are sarcastic it is to make a point, and for entertainment value. When I am sarcastic, it is because of my inablity to reason and my desire to spread propaganda.

you're already completely convinced of your own moral superiority.

I am not even slightly convinced of my moral superiority. I am convinced that libertarianism produces more moral results than liberalism.

I'll debate Libertarians on logical principles when they stop self-righteously asserting their moral superiority...

What would be the point, if you're going to abandon the topic in the middle? As far as I can tell, we were having a fair and reasonable debate, and you were preparing to present your reasoned arguments, when you decided to abandon the thread and come over to this one and launch unsolicited attacks. Why would I try to reason with someone like that?

Besides, as MGibson pointed out, at some point we have to agree on some "values". Since you never demonstrate or admit to any, how could we possibly reach any sort of conclusion? Logic alone leads nowhere.

matt_mcl:

The workers of the first world are already being told that their benefits are being taken away, their wages reduced, and their companies downsized because they can't compete with slave labour in Nigeria.

Does this have some remote connection to the point I was making?

"...On the other hand, if the principal relationship between citizens is based on competition, what has society and, for that matter, civilization been reduced to?"

Competition is the market's way of increasing efficiency. A libertarian government does not try to dictate the interpersonal relationships between citizens. These relationships are defined by the individuals. I would say that if the principle relationship between citizens was based on any kind of economics, then we have reached a sad place, and I doubt any government would be able to help.

xenophon41:

The idea that some unstated causes can be necessary and vital is no more an opinion than is the idea that some unstated causes can be unnecessary and frivolous.

You're being deliberately obtuse. It is the selection of which causes are necessary and vital that is based on opinion.

It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital.

I know that this is your position. However, this description in and of itself does not define your political stance. How much is it okay for government to spend on these programs? What is the limit of this power?

Libertarians agree with the necessity of a central government. However, we think that its power must be extremely limited, so that it doesn't grow to the point of becoming oppressive.

If the term "common good" confuses you, feel free to stop using it.

It does not confuse me; apparently, it confuses you, though. My point is that there is no single correct answer to what is the "common good". You appear to think that there is and that the correct process of reasoning will be able to determine it.

Explain to me the magical mechanism by which an end to poverty (!) is somehow provided for by market forces.

There is no end to poverty, that I know of, in any governmental system. However, in general, totalitarian governments lead to a great deal of it, as do socialist and fascist systems. On the other hand, governments that allow more freedom tend to have less poverty. Liberal schemes tend to increase the ranks of the poor while draining the resources of everyone else. I don't claim that libertarianism solves every problem, but at least it doesn't make them worse.

My request was that you explain how this would be more effective than our current system. Discuss how this would work between a hypothetical Libertarian USA and the rest of the world.

You expect a lot from someone who is currently working 50-70 hours a week. Sorry, time does not allow. Maybe Lib, or waterj2 or Gilligan will jump in with some information.

So if there's a lot more money to be made in treating AIDS victims than in finding a cure...

Without competition, yes. However, if you're making a fortune treating it, I can get all your customers by selling a cure. Also, libertarians believe that the profit motive leads to efficient markets. We do not believe that every decision in life should be guided solely by a desire for profit.

For example, had my wife and I not given birth to our daughter, we would have a lot more money. We considered our desire to keep our money in comparison to our desire to have a child and found the desire to have a child to be more important to us.

How exactly does an isolationist policy provide for a better national defense?

Well, for one thing, if we weren't continuously meddling in the affairs of other countries, they probably wouldn't be so antagonistic towards us. Do you think that terrorists target the U.S. because they don't like the colors on our flag?

What would a Libertarian defense department consist of, and how is this more beneficial to our security?

The purpose would be to protect us from attack or invasion, with little concern for our ability to attack or invade. Thus, a legitimate defense against nuclear missiles would be preferable to an arsenal of nuclear missiles. If you want more details, you need to ask someone who makes this kind of thing their business. I'll say again: I am not a politician; I don't have a platform.

Under a Libertarian system, through what processes would industry standards for safety be determined, and how would these processes prove more beneficial to workers' safety and health than OSHA/MSHA methods of determining safety standards?

You are thinking from a central-control paradigm. If the central government determines these things, then a set of specific processes are defined. If control is de-centralized, there is not one set of "correct" processes for solving problems. It varies with industry and specific situations. At no point does a central authority "determine" what the answers should be. It is like asking me through what process American families decide what they will have for dinner.

No help there. The policy statements are lengthier, but quite similar in character.

The LP site presents the platform. The Harry Browne site presents one candidates ideas for policy. Since libertarianism does not prescribe a solution to every problem, your questions may be unanswerable. You can see examples of libertarian thinking on various problems at these sites:

free-market.net (http://www.free-market.net/)
Reason Magazine Online (http://www.reason.com/)

You might find the Reason site most helpful, as they often discuss current issues from a libertarian standpoint.

Since you've provided no mechanism through which solutions are collectively evaluated and discussed by the 200 million people (unlike the several hundred legislators), I'm saying they've got a smaller chance than do the legislators.

I have provided the mechanism, but you refuse to see it. Take the example of televisions. Every year they get better because different people are pursuing different approaches to make improvements. Market success is the evaluation. Which do you think would lead to better TV's, free competition among rivals or a committee-based determination of what it the best way to make a TV?

I went back and reread all of your posts to try and make sense of your statement above. I cannot do so in light of the many times you've advocated zero government control of industry and trade, zero government involvement in social programs and zero government oversight of safety and health issues.

Many of these discussions have begun as a discussion of libertarian philosophy and ideals and then moved into politics. I agree with libertarian ideals, but don't see any likelihood of creating a perfect libertarian society any time soon. Also, as I think I mentioned, libertarianism is not about eliminating government at all levels. As far as the U.S. is concerned, what I advocate is getting the federal government out of these things. I am not advocating anything with regard to local or state governments in general, and I doubt my opinions about what should happen in Tuscaloosa, Alabama are particularly relevant here. In general, though, I would say that decisions should be moved as far down the hierarchy as possible.

You're serious? Or were you so eager to use that as a straight line you glossed over the import of the statement? "Pre-engineered" means "engineered before the fact"; in the case of consumer goods "the fact" would be "sale to a consumer" or "evaluation by the consumer."

In that case, "pre-disastered" means "designed to be disastrous before the fact"; in the case of federal programs, "the fact" would be "implementation by the federal bureaucracy" or "evaluation by the liberal media".

How foolishly easy it is to assume the answer is always charity! How many fishes are you Libertarians going to provide before you get tired of it?

Yes, you are allowed to speak in grand, sweeping generalizations; whereas, I must maintain pure literal simple-mindedness. Libertarians do not say the answer is charity. We do not say the answer is not charity. We say that the answers are more likely to be found by means of non-government decision-making processes. My point was that you threw out a high-minded solution process as if it were obviously the only correct approach to problem-solving.

Your totally false assumption that social programs are merely governmentally subsidized handouts is getting tired.

"Oversimplification" I will accept. "totally false assumption"? You're going to have to back that up.

...are you actually going to stick with your analogy of computers and tv's when discussing societal problems?

Yes. Both are extremely complex solutions to difficult-to-define problems. The only real difference is the perceived seriousness of the problems.

Here's the paraphrase (oops! Big word! I mean, here's where I say the same thing in a different way).

I am not intimidated by big words. I am annoyed by people who use them to hide empty ideas.

When any group of people want to try and make conditions better for themselves or another group of people, the best way to go about it...[Emphasis added]

On what basis do you conclude that your way is the best way? I have provided examples where market solutions solved complex problems using much simpler--and less intrusive--processes. I have also noted examples where these kinds of processes lead to worse problems.

Saying that this is the best way is not establishing it as fact.

[list=1] define the condition they want to affect
find out all they can about the place where the condition is found
discuss what they find out, and try to agree about the things that contribute (add to) the condition
discuss and agree on certain things that could be done to change the condition
start doing those things
check the results
start the cycle over again to make their efforts better[/list=1]

First-glance implicit assumptions:
All the people want to achieve the same thing
There is one best way to achieve what is desired
A process of discussion and compromise can achieve an effective solution
Agreement can be reached on evaluation of results
Results can be easily quantified
Trying one solution at a time is more efficient than trying multiple solutions at the same time

When you provide your supporting information, please use my actual "line of thinking" by providing quotes (in context) from my posts that directly support your conclusions regarding my "line of thinking."

I did.

"Almost half"? You mean "slighly over a third, before deductions."

You're just thinking of federal income tax. Enlarge your thinking.

The individual is not, however, compelled to remain a citizen, and is free upon reaching majority to either seek a more suitable government under which to exist or to work within the system to change it.

What do you think I am doing?

By remaining as a citizen, the individual consents to the social contract.

Apparently, you did not read the rest of the thread. Let's look at it like this: By this reasoning, it would be perfectly acceptable for the government to take all our money; you know, socialism, totalitarianism? If you think this argument is acceptable, then explain to me how you do not support totalitarianism. The only difference is that, in this scenario, I can leave? That's quite a difference, don't you think?

The President has constitutional limits to the length and degree of involvement he can command of the armed forces overseas.

Do you know what those limits are? Do you honestly think they have been adhered to?

In addition, the political process of checks and balances prevents any oppressive action taken within the constitutional limitations.

Only if the Constitutional limits are enforced. If you are such a believer in the Constitution, you should be a supporter of the Libertarian party. Remember the platform you read? Remember the central notion of reigning the federal government back in to its Constitutional limits?

How do you go from political control of electoral standards to totalitarianism, which would at least require total control of election results? That may be one small step for you, but it's one giant leap for me.

Gee, let's see. All those not members of the two ruling parties are deliberately excluded and marginalized, while the political views of the ruling parties grow closer and closer together. Do you just ignore changes in a totalitarian direction unless and until totalitarianism is reached?

Your taking[sic] about convicted felons. Do I have to point out that every society since Hamurabi has had criminal law? Does this mean all societies which punish criminals by depriving them of liberty or life are totalitarian?

No, I am talking about the fact that convicted felons can pay their debt to society, be considered ready to rejoin society, but do not have their rights restored. Libertarian thinking is that, if somebody cannot be trusted to exercise their rights peacefully, they should not be released. If they are released, they should be reinstated to full citizenship. (And no, I'm not talking about parole; I'm talking about things like permanently losing your right to keep and bear arms)

The nice thing about our (non-totalitarian) system is that if you don't like certain laws, you can work within the system, as many of us do, to get them changed. "Write your congressman."

The fact that changes are feasible does not negate the fact that the current rule of law is increasingly totalitarian.

It's a brilliant example, however, of market forces in action. It makes law enforcement actually profitable if done in a certain way!

Libertarianism is not about profit. It is about protection of individual rights. Libertarianism would not allow this, and our Constitution specifically prohibits it.

I'm not convinced that less government oversight of law enforcement would yield fewer abuses of power.

Libertarians believe that oversight of law enforcement is an appropriate use of government. But that oversight must focus on the protection of individual rights, not the violation of them.

I can represent my individual interests only so far as I can determine what effect my actions will have.

And you are in a better position to evaluate the effects than the government is.

I cannot represent the collective interests of the nation, and unlike you I firmly believe those collective interests can best be represented by central governmental efforts.

No argument here.

Let me try to be perfectly clear: Totalitarian government is based on the notion that government knows better than individuals, that the wanton violation of individual rights is justified by some notion of the "common good". Totalitarian government justify oppressive policies by a references to what is "good for society". While not as extreme, the difference between your arguments and those of a tyrant is only one of degree. I have not claimed that you, like Hitler, want to exterminate all of Europe's non-Aryan population. I have claimed that you, like Hitler, think that appeals to the needs of society and the effectiveness of central authority justify increasing oppression of law-abiding citizens.

When protection of the rights of individuals is the primary goal of government, totalitarianism will not result. When solving problems at the expense of individual rights is the goal of government, the result is steady motion in the direction of totalitarianism.

-VM

xenophon41

06-01-2000, 02:29 PM

Smartass, our posts seem to be getting longer and longer as we must continually quote back through our exchanges in order to address specific statements. Much as I would like to respond to each and every comment, it's becoming increasingly time consuming to do so. Like you, I have a full-time job.

As an attempt at restoring brevity to my posts, I'm going to paraphrase myself where necessary, and only quote you where you've made statements that represent the basis of your argument, or where you've said something so egregiously misleading or insulting that I must respond.

Firstly, after I asserted that, if left purely to individual contributions, funding for various vital and necessary "causes" (your term) would not be forthcoming, due to general lack of interest or knowledge, you began a fairly pointless exchange about whether any unstated "causes" out of any group of "causes" could have superlatives applied to them. Then, after accusing me of being "deliberately obtuse," you said: "It is the selection of which causes are necessary and vital that is based on opinion." -Absolutely right. You finally seem to be returning to the original bone of contention between us: which of two methods of selection and action proposed in this thread is most effective. [list=a] (xeno): Popularly mandated debate through a legislative process whereby issues are put forth for debate by elected representatives and may be tabled or sent to committee. Issues are typically selected based on economic or emotional impact among constituencies; political expediency and partisan infighting sometimes prevent issues from being pursued, and frequently catapult other issues into high profile committee discussion. (Smartass): Discussion in public fora, prompted by media attention or special interests, whereby issues are put forth by interested parties and may be pursued or ignored by individuals, social groups and corporations as they choose. Issues are typically selected based on economic or emotional impact among specific groups of people; moral judgmentalism, ideological dogma and poor visibility sometimes prevent issues from being pursued, and high visibility or profitibality can funnel large amounts of money into pursuit of other issues.[/list=a]
In both cases, issues may never be brought up for assessment at all, or may linger indefinitely with no consensus as to the merit of the issue. However, in the case of A, the elected officials are answerable to all of their constituents, are able to obtain some perspective on interrelationships between various issues, and are consitutionally empowered to "lay and collect" taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation. In the case of B, whatever can make someone enough money or pull at enough heartstrings will get the attention.

In an earlier post you asserted that: "...if there are a lot of people (which, apparently there are) who would like to see poverty ended, the market will allow various potential solutions to come forward and compete for your dollars." When I asked you to support this mystifying statement you sidestepped by saying that no "governmental system" can provide an end to poverty, but you didn't explain how "the market" could do so. You then made the unsupported assertions that "...governments that allow more freedom tend to have less poverty..." and "Liberal schemes tend to increase the ranks of the poor while draining the resources of everyone else." Please define your terms ("liberal" and "freedom") and cite some documentation that supports either one of those statements.

You've expressed contempt for OSHA. When I asked you how industry standards for safety would be determined if OSHA were dismantled, you said: "It is like asking me through what process American families decide what they will have for dinner." -No, it's like asking you through what process industry standards for safety would be determined.

I described an almost universally preferred process for problem solving to you in response to one of your more pathetic analogies. In response, you implied strongly that a better solution to solving hunger would be to give hungry people food. When I derided you for suggesting that charity was always the solution, you responded: "Libertarians do not say the answer is charity. We do not say the answer is not charity. We say that the answers are more likely to be found by means of non-government decision-making processes. My point was that you threw out a high-minded solution process as if it were obviously the only correct approach to problem-solving." -By "high-minded" I assume you mean "maximally effective." Look, man, whether the problem-solving takes place through the government or by private action, simple reactive efforts aimed at the symptoms of a problem will never be as effective as a systematized approach to deal with the causes for the problem. And just because I advocate scientific investigation of social problems doesn't mean I'm against treating hunger directly, whether it's convenient for you to pretend so or not.

When I laughed at your assumption that social programs were merely governmentally subsidized handouts, you said: "'Oversimplification' I will accept. 'totally false assumption'? You're going to have to back that up." No, Smartass, you're the one posting sweeping condemnations of social programs, you back your pronouncements up.

You made the claim in your last post that: "I have provided examples where market solutions solved complex problems using much simpler--and less intrusive--processes. I have also noted examples where these kinds of processes lead to worse problems." -Where? Please provide links or directions to these examples, as I don't remember seeing them.

By some truly impressive feat of denial, you're still clinging to your "buying a tv or computer" analogy to "understanding social problems": "Yes. Both are extremely complex solutions to difficult-to-define problems. The only real difference is the perceived seriousness of the problems." -This is an obviously false statement! No matter how many times you say this, it will NEVER BE TRUE. There are no "difficult-to-define problems" being solved by tv's and computers. They are fully designed, attractively packaged consumer products intended to perform just well enough to compete in their respective markets. If I purchase a computer, I'm satisfying my need for data processing, communication, graphic design, gaming, whatever, and in NO WAY do I need to understand how the damn thing works in order to use it. Other people have done that for me. What you are proposing to replace government social programs is for each individual to decide what they want to do about it. Which leads us back to the Big Libertarian Fish Handout.

You summed up your argument to me by saying: "When protection of the rights of individuals is the primary goal of government, totalitarianism will not result. When solving problems at the expense of individual rights is the goal of government, the result is steady motion in the direction of totalitarianism." -Well, there's no way for me to prove to you that "solving problems at the expense of individual rights" is not the goal of our government, so I don't think I can argue that point. But by your logic, any government that abridges the rights of any of its citizens, through legislation, constitutional amendments, regulatory restrictions or any other means is moving "in the direction of totalitarianism." This would necessarily include any conceivable Libertarian USA.

Smartass, I'm willing to debate you on any points you wish, and I'll even admit it when my argument has been refuted or I've said something in error. But it seems that every time I call you on a fallacious argument or unsupported statement, you respond by ducking the question and then making even more fallacious arguments and unsupported statements.

Maybe I do "expect a lot from someone who is currently working 50-70 hours a week" --like I am. I expect you to back up your assertions with logical arguments and documentation. I expect you to provide explanations for broad statements regarding national policy without running away from that responsibility by claiming: "Oh, I'm not a politician; you need to ask other posters here to explain what I say to you." I expect you to have a minimum level of familiarity with rules of argument, and to avoid equivocation, prejudicial language and false analogies.

The forum is "Great Debates." If you do not have time to debate properly, perhaps you should take your argument to another forum.

Kimstu

06-01-2000, 05:26 PM

xenophon:

What Shayna said.

:)

Kimstu

matt_mcl

06-01-2000, 07:40 PM

Xenophon:

What Shayna and Kimstu said. :grin:

xenophon41

06-01-2000, 08:03 PM

<clutching oscar and wiping tears out of eyes>

You like me! You really like me!

Smartass

06-02-2000, 07:56 AM

xenophon41:

...I asserted that, if left purely to individual contributions, funding for various vital and necessary "causes" (your term) would not be forthcoming....you said: "It is the selection of which causes are necessary and vital that is based on opinion." -Absolutely right. You finally seem to be returning to the original bone of contention between us: which of two methods of selection and action proposed in this thread is most effective.

There are two bones of contention here:
-Seat of decision-making
-Efficacy

Seat of decision-making
You have an opinion about what causes are necessary and vital. As do I. As does everyone else. You may think that feeding the poor is most necessary and vital. I may think that help for disaster victims is most necessary and vital. Somone else may think that aid to farmers is most necessary and vital. I, for one, think aid to farmers is ridiculous. The point is that selection of necessary and vital causes is not objective. It is based on individual morals and values. Taking money out of my hands and deciding how much will be used for which cause is imposing upon me the morals and values of some other decision maker (senator, the majority, whatever). The result is that I am working to finance causes that I do not support, and money that I would rather see go to one cause is given to another. The end result is that the values and beliefs of individuals are suborned to the state.

Additionally, there is the issue of entitlement. It is one thing to say that poor people should be fed. It is another to say that they are entitled to it. And yet another step to say that they are more entitled to the money that I earned than I am. In my life, I have personal concerns that have nothing to do with the good of society per se, along with whatever feelings I have about the good of society. When I make decisions on how to spend my money, it is based on my own personal evaluation of what is most important. Here are some examples of things that are important to me (not an exhausive list) in descending order of importance:
Food for me and my family
Shelter for me and my family
Lowering of family debt
Saving money for emergencies
Saving money for my daughter's eventual college education
Preventing poor people from starving
Providing education to those who cannot afford it
Yes, I think my daughter's education is more important than that of a stranger. Maybe it is selfish of me to think this. The point is that it is me busting my ass to earn money to enable me to affect these issues. And if I had control of all my money, I would address these issues in order of importance. However, now that government has taken an interest in several of these items, my list has been re-sorted against my wishes--government takes its cut first. As a result, I am contributing so much money to feed and educate the less fortunate that I have none left to set aside for my daughter's education.

I believe that I am more entitled to the fruits of my labor than a stranger is. When I say that a poor person is not entitled to my money, it is not because I don't want poor people to eat; it is because I think I am more entitled to decide how my money is spent. When a stranger, via the government, has first claim on my wages, this is socialism. Not only does socialism not work on a large scale, but it is, to my way of thinking, immoral.

Efficacy
Much of the rest of our debate is about the effectiveness of government decision-making and problem-solving. You describe this as a choice of "which of two methods of selection and action proposed in this thread is most effective." I will say from the outset that I do not have the time or the interest to prove to you that markets work better than governments. You already believe this, but it makes you nervous to consider the implications. If markets did not work better than governments, socialist societies would have been far more successful than more libertarian ones, and communist societies more successful than socialist ones.

The primary problems with centrally-planned solutions result from these facts:
Central planning cannot adequately predict the future of technology
Central planning cannot adjust rapidly to changes in the environment
Central planning cannot consider all the variables involved in any problem
Central planning cannot predict or respond to the side-effects of its own policies.
Central planners face no competition so there is no obvious way to determine or encourage efficiency

The advantages of markets include:
Information is automatically propagated through the system via prices
Decision-making takes place at the places where decisions are implemented
Changes and adjustments can happen almost immediately in response to poor planning or changes in surrounding situation
Technological advances are encouraged by freedom from restriction and rewards for success
Efficiency is encouraged by the existence of competition

You seem to think that certain problems should not be "left up to the market" because they are too serious or too complex. It is in dealing with complex problems that markets shine the brightest, because the complexity need not be analyzed and understood at every point in the system. In order for the personal computer market to function, it is not necessary for any one person to plan supplies, logistics, and production for every item. Decisions are made at points within the system. When imbalances occur, adjustments are made automatically by the participants.

As an example: Let's say that government stops welfare. In the aftermath two companies form to deal with the problem of poverty in the U.S. They are both run by idealistic guys, like matt_mcl, who have no particular interest in profit, only taking enough money to pay themselves a modest salary. Company 1 takes donations and distributes them evenly among those who do not have enough money to live on. Company 2 purchases food in bulk and distributes it to its clients, leaving some money available to provide job-training services.

As time goes by, people notice that Company 2 seems to be doing a more valuable work with their money; whereas, Company 1 is just providing supplemental income to people, some of whom could be working and making more money. As a result, more and more people begin contributing to Company 2 while less and less are contributing to Company 1.

What is the result? Money is flowing into the solution that more closely addresses the root cause of the problem and produces better long-term solutions. This occurs without a committee researching the problem or teams of sociologists spending hordes of money on researching the nature of poverty. Instead, people saw a problem, had an idea about how to address it, and tried out their ideas. Open competition made it clear which approach was better.

My conclusion: Competition leads to better results faster, with less waste.

Something I want to note:
A. (xeno): Popularly mandated debate through a legislative process whereby issues are put forth for debate by elected representatives and may be tabled or sent to committee. Issues are typically selected based on economic or emotional impact among constituencies; political expediency and partisan infighting sometimes prevent issues from being pursued, and frequently catapult other issues into high profile committee discussion.
B. (Smartass): Discussion in public fora, prompted by media attention or special interests, whereby issues are put forth by interested parties and may be pursued or ignored by individuals, social groups and corporations as they choose. Issues are typically selected based on economic or emotional impact among specific groups of people; moral judgmentalism, ideological dogma and poor visibility sometimes prevent issues from being pursued, and high visibility or profitibality can funnel large amounts of money into pursuit of other issues.[Emphasis added]

This bold part more properly belongs in Item A. When decisions are made by individuals, no issues are "invisible" to decision-makers. The support an issue gets is determined by the number of people who feel strongly enough to act. In your system they vote with votes, one per person. In mine they vote with dollars, meaning they can vote more strongly for more important issues than others, limited by their personal means.

You've expressed contempt for OSHA. When I asked you how industry standards for safety would be determined if OSHA were dismantled, you said: "It is like asking me through what process American families decide what they will have for dinner." -No, it's like asking you through what process industry standards for safety would be determined.

Here is the point: Every family has their own sytem for deciding what they have for dinner. The systems for determining if standards are needed, and what they would be, would depend on the industry and the participants. Remember, libertarians don't instruct businesses how to keep employees safe--they merely hold them responsible when they fail to. Why would a government bureaucracy know more about handling chlorine than the people who manufacture it?

Also, some jobs are more risky than others. How much risk you are willing to take for how much return is a personal preference. It is up to businesses and employees to work out an acceptable ratio. When government stays out of the loop, unions can work quite well for this.

Look, man, whether the problem-solving takes place through the government or by private action, simple reactive efforts aimed at the symptoms of a problem will never be as effective as a systematized approach to deal with the causes for the problem.

There is nothing to prevent market participants from being proactive or using systematized approaches. However, they are much better equipped to react to unexpected events. The problem with your statements is that they assume that there exists one best systematized approach for dealing with problems and that government can accomplish this. I would say that the first part of that was arrogant and presumptive and the second part hopelessly naive.

When I laughed at your assumption that social programs were merely governmentally subsidized handouts...you back your pronouncements up.

I could back this up, but I doubt that there are enough people who doubt this to make it worth my trouble. Most people are wise enough to try to argue that the handouts are necessary or morally correct, instead of being foolish enough to insist that they are not handouts.

There are no "difficult-to-define problems" being solved by tv's and computers. They are fully designed, attractively packaged consumer products intended to perform just well enough to compete in their respective markets.

You're just being obstinate here. Computers solve a multitude of problems for different people. For some, wordprocessing; for some, financial tools; for some, entertainment; for some, communications. And another thing you are ignoring is that there are choices of computers that are better at some functions than others. And the quality of computers improves every year.

Other people have done that for me. What you are proposing to replace government social programs is for each individual to decide what they want to do about it.

It's the same thing. People can come up with various solution strategies, like I described above. Individuals don't have to do all this scientific analysis. Others will do that for them. All they have to do is pick where they want to spend their money.

But by your logic, any government that abridges the rights of any of its citizens, through legislation, constitutional amendments, regulatory restrictions or any other means is moving "in the direction of totalitarianism." This would necessarily include any conceivable Libertarian USA.

Nope. The level of rights abridgement is pre-defined to be minimal. There is no movement in any direction.

Smartass, I'm willing to debate you on any points you wish, and I'll even admit it when my argument has been refuted or I've said something in error.

It seems to me that you disagree with me on one or both of two points:
[list=1] Markets are better at solving problems than governments
The person who makes the money is most entitled to determining how it is spent[/list=1]

If you want to debate the first, you're going to have to do it on some other basis than your prescribed methods for solving problems. I actually think that sometimes, your approach is best. Other times, I think someone just has an inspiration while eating an ice cream cone. Libertarian systems allow both types of solutions to occur, along with many others. Your approach insists on one solution-finding process. How can you claim that yours is better?

If you want to debate the second, then we are arguing over the fact that you don't trust people to contribute to causes that they care about, or that you think that the causes you care about are more important than the causes that others care about. I am interested in knowing how you justify usurping others' decisions in either case.

-VM

xenophon41

06-02-2000, 09:35 AM

Thank you! That was a very well constructed post, with complete points made and delivered in a logical sequence with supporting arguments. I'm a bit humbled by the contrast between the measured, reasonable tone of this post and the increasingly strident tones of [both] of our posts immediately prior to yours.

I'll do my best to respond appropriately to you, but I'll have to wait about 12 hours to do so. Again, thanks for your well delivered (but frequently wrong, of course! ;) ) latest response.

hawthorne

06-02-2000, 10:29 AM

Smartass:
1.Markets are better at solving problems than governments
2.The person who makes the money is most entitled to determining how it is spent
I don't read Xenophon as making either of these binary choices.

Depending on the nature of the goods under discussion, the case for markets varies.

In the occupational health and safety example, if:

1. there is ignorance of risk factors, including difficulties in assigning probabilities or ennumerating outcomes;
2. there is good evidence of percepual bias in decision makers (Kahnaman and Tversky);
3. choices are large and irreversible
4. there is a power imbalance between contracting parties;
5. Adverse selection and moral hazard exist in insurance markets

Then markets will perform very poorly. Sure this must be weighed up against the likely performance of government, but to prefer either one over the other blindly is just assumption.

picmr

Smartass

06-02-2000, 12:59 PM

xenophon41:

Take your time. I'd rather we both make the points we mean to than argue in cicrles because we're in a hurry.

picmr:

I always find your posts to be interesting (and noncommittal), but, due to your phrasing, I often have trouble deciphering what exactly you're trying to say.

I don't read Xenophon as making either of these binary choices.

In the case of the second point, I don't see any way that this is not a binary choice. As it turns out, this is the one that I feel most strongly about, and I don't personally have any inclination to compromise on it. Many people in this thread are willing to choose against the person whose money is being spent because they believe so strongly in the first point.

I assume your list refers primarily to the first point. I think your position is that, in some cases, a government action may be more efficacious than private actions. I think it depends on what your ultimate goals are. If nothing else, by handing it over to government, you're acknowledging a desire to control outcomes, which of course implies an assumption that one person can better evaluate the desirability of outcomes for another.

I'll try and see if I understand your points correctly, although I'm not sure that they are exactly relevant to the discussion per se.

1. there is ignorance of risk factors, including difficulties in assigning probabilities or ennumerating outcomes

I don't know that anyone can ever have complete knowledge of risk factors, or that probabilies are necessarily the best way to make a decision. Also, risk factors in and of themselves aren't decision makers. They must be considered with relation to potential rewards. Given the perception of these things, individual decisions must also be filtered through a person's attitude toward risk.

I am working for a start-up company. IIRC, about 90% of start-ups fail. Statistically speaking, I have made a bad choice. Of course, the potential rewards are much larger than if I were joining the ranks of IBM. How much risk exists is difficult to quantify, and I have an opinion about it. Neither of my parents would ever consider taking this kind of risk, even if they had the exact same perception of risk and reward that I do. They are more risk-averse than I am.

Governmental standards force everyone to act as if they were equally risk-averse.

I think that there is an implicit assumption here that companies would deliberately mislead employees about the risks they are facing. In a libertarian context, this would be fraudulent and would result in stiff penalties--stiff enough that it would not be in a company's best interests to do this.

2. there is good evidence of percepual bias in decision makers (Kahnaman and Tversky)

There is perceptual bias in all decision makers, as I mentioned above. Maybe because I don't recognize your reference, I am missing your point.

3. choices are large and irreversible

This means risk is higher. I don't see where it justifies usurping the decision-making from the person taking the risk.

4. there is a power imbalance between contracting parties

This is always true also, to some extent. It is the reason that unions came into existence. I am unconvinced that creating a greater power imbalance in the other direction is an improvement.

5. Adverse selection and moral hazard exist in insurance markets

I have no idea what point you're making here.

Then markets will perform very poorly.

In the short-term, possibly. In a number of cases, government can outperform markets for a short time. I would argue, though, that in the long-run, government performance trends downward while market performance trends upward, for reasons I have been discussing. While this is not something I can prove inductively, it is not assumption: It is based on experience and observation.

-VM

Smartass

06-02-2000, 01:08 PM

xenophon41 and picmr:

It is Friday night here. There is a good chance that I won't see this message board again before some time Monday. So, definitely, take your time. Mainly, I don't want you to think when I respond slowly that I am ignoring you.

-VM

tracer

06-02-2000, 06:58 PM

Smartass wrote:

You did read the part [in the U.S. Constitution] where all powers not specifically granted are reserved to the states, or the people, right? Given that this document is supposed to contain the rules for our government, how do you explain

-FDA

Interstate commerce.

-OSHA

Interstate commerce.

-ATF

Federal taxes.

-DEA

Federal taxes and Interstate commerce.

hawthorne

06-04-2000, 10:29 AM

Sorry to have made my points opaque again Smartass.

I was trying to get at the second point: that people know best how to spend their money. It is one reason why markets might fail to do a good job. Of course, as you point out, saying that markets fail does not mean that governments will do a better job, merely that there is a question about the possible usefulness of policy.

I guess I was responding to your earlier analogy of "what to have for dinner". For a number of reasons, workplace safety is not like deciding what to have for dinner.

I am taking "an individual knows what best for themself and will choose accordingly" to be a strong - but rebuttable -presumption.

In the case of choosing whether to have noodles or rice with dinner, clearly the individual knows best: they have worthwhile experience of the goods, are confident about the properties of the goods, and can apply their preferences accordingly. And anyway, if it goes badly, it's no big deal.

In the case of occ health & s, it is not so clear cut.

First, much information pertinent to the choice (how much of a wage premium to demand, how careful to be on the job) is not available.

Secondly, there is strong evidence that people are poor at assessing probabilities (they overweight their own experience). They downgrade the possibility of serious accident because it hasn't happenned to them.

Thirdly, there is strong evidence that due to cognitive dissonance reduction, small probabilities of catastrophic events tend to be ignored or undervalued.

Fourthly, in an employment relationship, workers have few choices: they can leave, but in general safety "tweaks" are not their choice - they can like it or lump it.

Employers, who tend to have better information (larger sample size, greater incentives) about workplace risks do not have strong incentives to inform workers, nor to incur costs if workers in their ignorance fail to require them.

Lastly, since insurance dominates health and industrial safety markets, firms do not face the full (marginal) costs of their safety practices. This means that markets will not tend via competition towards employing efficient safety practices (becuase firms don't have an incentive to employ them [moral hazard]) and that some insurable risks will remain uncovered [adverse selection].

All this means to me that the presumption that a person's choice may be assumed to be in their best interests is drastically weakened. Given that consequences of this are serious (losing a leg v. having a disappointing meal) the prima facie case for government intervention is there. Notice that I have not even considered effects on other people (externalities).

picmr

xenophon41

06-04-2000, 09:20 PM

Smartass

There are two bones of contention here:
-Seat of decision-making
-Efficacy
Fair enough.

The point is that selection of necessary and vital causes is not objective. It is based on individual morals and values.
Selection of which causes are necessary and vital can never be a completely objective process, nor should we try and make it so (and I have not suggested this). However, it is not only based on "individual morals and values," it can also be based on societal values and mores (which indeed are more likely to prevail when a group consensus is sought), as well as on dispassionate and objective assessments of economic impact (Profit/Loss) or scientific relevance. This part of our argument, as I see it, is not about whether value judgements for social causes can be made objectively, it is about whether the subjective value judgements made are more representative of the common interest (i.e. "common good") when made by legislatures and regulatory agencies whose job it is to do so, or when made through the socioeconomic processes of a free market.

If we state the goal as "Selection of Social Programs which Serve the Common Interest", then here are my arguments in support of Legislature as opposed to free market.
Advantages of selection through legislative body: Elected representatives receive frequent and direct input from their constituents regarding social concerns. Market determinations are based on profitability; consequently all market forces tend to be reactive to sociological phenomena. Selection of social causes by business is motivated in some cases by community standing but mainly by market tie-ins or tax advantage. The legislature has the opportunity and responsibility to deal with issues about which most citizens have little knowledge or few opinions, can create special agencies to administer programs and have oversight of these agencies. Legislatures are empowered to call experts and commission studies of complicated social issues. Individuals, no matter how good they are, how cognizant of need or sympathetic to the conditions of others, are motivated in the spending of their money by self interest over collective need.

Taking money out of my hands and deciding how much will be used for which cause is imposing upon me the morals and values of some other decision maker (senator, the majority, whatever). The result is that I am working to finance causes that I do not support, and money that I would rather see go to one cause is given to another. The end result is that the values and beliefs of individuals are suborned to the state...
...I believe that I am more entitled to the fruits of my labor than a stranger is. When I say that a poor person is not entitled to my money, it is not because I don't want poor people to eat; it is because I think I am more entitled to decide how my money is spent. When a stranger, via the government, has first claim on my wages, this is socialism. Not only does socialism not work on a large scale, but it is, to my way of thinking, immoral.
I can only argue the morality of taxation with you within the context of the social contract I've mentioned before. Taking money out of your hands to fund the government imposes no one's values or morals on you. You may not agree with all of the ways in which the government spends the money (I certainly don't), but the use of tax money to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is neither prima facie immoral nor contrary to constitutional limitations.

Much of the rest of our debate is about the effectiveness of government decision-making and problem-solving. You describe this as a choice of "which of two methods of selection and action proposed in this thread is most effective." I will say from the outset that I do not have the time or the interest to prove to you that markets work better than governments.
Markets work better than governments at what markets do. If you can't explain how markets would work better at solving social problems than does government, then that is a matter of faith to you, and cannot be debated.

If markets did not work better than governments, socialist societies would have been far more successful than more libertarian ones, and communist societies more successful than socialist ones.
Ah! I see something that could be helpful here. You apparently have imperical evidence that libertarian societies are more successful than socialist ones. Please name the historical example(s) of a libertarian society that you must've been thinking of when you wrote this.

While I wait for that example, I'll address your analysis of the disadvantages of "centrally planned solutions":

The primary problems with centrally-planned solutions result from these facts: Central planning cannot adequately predict the future of technology Central planning cannot adjust rapidly to changes in the environment Central planning cannot consider all the variables involved in any problem Central planning cannot predict or respond to the side-effects of its own policies. Central planners face no competition so there is no obvious way to determine or encourage efficiency
I'll examine these statements one by one.
Central planning cannot adequately predict the future of technology Why not? You haven't defined "adequate" but let's say that in this context (dealing with social issues), "adequate" would mean "able to estimate the future effects of technologies on society." If that is the case, then I believe Congress has greater opportunity to gauge these effects and equal access to futurist projections.
Central planning cannot adjust rapidly to changes in the environment I thought we were comparing legislated social solutions to market-driven social solutions. If Congress is slow to react to environmental issues, at least they have the means, opportunity and popular mandate to do something about it. Industry, on the other hand, does nothing to react to environmental changes that is not either driven by profit motive or legislation
Central planning cannot consider all the variables involved in any problem Given. This statement is equally applicable when the phrase "Central planning" is replaced by any nominative clause (except perhaps for "God" if you believe in and omniscient deity).
Central planning cannot predict or respond to the side-effects of its own policies Another unsupported statement presented as fact. I have no idea why you think Congress has no means by which they can determine the effects of social programs and make adjustments.
Central planners face no competition so there is no obvious way to determine or encourage efficiency I'm sure you've noticed these "elections" we have in November. That's where the fierce competion between political rivals comes to a head when one candidate is elected over other candidates based either on their own platform or a poor track record on the part of the other candidate(s). As far as determination of efficiency of government, the GAO and the countless media "watchdog" groups do a fairly good job of determining and ecouraging this.

The advantages of markets include: Information is automatically propagated through the system via prices Decision-making takes place at the places where decisions are implemented Changes and adjustments can happen almost immediately in response to poor planning or changes in surrounding situation Technological advances are encouraged by freedom from restriction and rewards for success Efficiency is encouraged by the existence of competition
One by one again.
Information is automatically propagated through the system via prices This information concerns the market value of a product, service or concept. What is the market value of a methadone clinic?
Decision-making takes place at the places where decisions are implemented I think you mean to say that decisions are made about problems where the symptoms are shown. If so, then you can see that this immediately prevents any national or global perspective on the problem.
Changes and adjustments can happen almost immediately in response to poor planning or changes in surrounding situation You seem to be speaking about market adjustments. How does this drive selection and solution of social causes?
Technological advances are encouraged by freedom from restriction and rewards for success When you say "restriction" are you talking about regulatory agencies? In what way is are technological advances discouraged by economic, environmental or safety and health regulations? If you would like to cite some studies to show this, I'd be delighted to provide evidence to the contrary. As a matter of fact, technological advances are often prompted by issues of safety and health.
Efficiency is encouraged by the existence of competition I have no quarrel with this statement.

You seem to think that certain problems should not be "left up to the market" because they are too serious or too complex.
No, I think certain problems should not be left up to the market because market solutions are always concerned with profit and loss, never with right and wrong.

It is in dealing with complex problems that markets shine the brightest, because the complexity need not be analyzed and understood at every point in the system. In order for the personal computer market to function, it is not necessary for any one person to plan supplies, logistics, and production for every item. Decisions are made at points within the system. When imbalances occur, adjustments are made automatically by the participants.
In what way is this different from governmentally funded programs? Do you actually think OSHA has some poor schlep who's responsible for all logistical concerns within the agency? Or that Dell (for instance) doesn't have a Chief Financial Officer or company controller?

As an example: Let's say that government stops welfare. In the aftermath two companies form to deal with the problem of poverty in the U.S. They are both run by idealistic guys, like matt_mcl, who have no particular interest in profit, only taking enough money to pay themselves a modest salary. Company 1 takes donations and distributes them evenly among those who do not have enough money to live on. Company 2 purchases food in bulk and distributes it to its clients, leaving some money available to provide job-training services.
The weakness of your hypothetical situation is that these two companies would actually be formed. Sure, people like matt_mcl exist, but what are the market forces involved that cause these companies to be created? In order for me to believe your hypothetical, you will have to show me that.

As time goes by, people notice that Company 2 seems to be doing a more valuable work with their money; whereas, Company 1 is just providing supplemental income to people, some of whom could be working and making more money.
Really? Are you sure Company 2 is doing more valuable work? After all, instead of giving the funds directly to the recipients, who I'm sure you'll agree know best how to use them, Company 2 takes the **totalitarian approach of deciding where and how to use the money! Whereas Company 1 has enough respect for the recipients to allow them to make their decisions individually based on their own needs. I would think such Libertarian ideals would produce better results. Or are recipients of this hypothetical generosity somehow not connected to the same market the donors to the two companies are connected to? Or, if connected then they don't have the same independent capacity as the more "productive" members of society?

What is the result? Money is flowing into the solution that more closely addresses the root cause of the problem and produces better long-term solutions. This occurs without a committee researching the problem or teams of sociologists spending hordes of money on researching the nature of poverty. Instead, people saw a problem, had an idea about how to address it, and tried out their ideas. Open competition made it clear which approach was better.
The bolded section of your statement is not a necessary assumption to your hypothetical situation. If as you say Company 2 witholds some donated money to fund job-training services, how do they gauge the effectiveness of those programs? You say "people notice." How do they notice? Do they each make individual surveys to track beneficiaries of these programs and determine which company has fewer recidivists in it's recipients? Does a third company step in to do the research, and if so, who purchases their research? And if Companies 1 and 2 are really engaged in "open competition" for the generosity of their donating partners, why did they rely purely on the results of their programs to compete in the market? Are they stupid? Didn't they advertise, play up their successes, ridicule the competition's failures? Did they aggressively pursue their competition's doners through clever marketing strategies and smear campaigns? Remember BETA vs. VHS? Macintosh vs. Microsoft? The most effective solution doesn't always win in the marketplace.

When decisions are made by individuals, no issues are "invisible" to decision-makers. The support an issue gets is determined by the number of people who feel strongly enough to act. In your system they vote with votes, one per person. In mine they vote with dollars, meaning they can vote more strongly for more important issues than others, limited by their personal means.
Your first and third sentences don't tell the whole truth. If decisions about social causes are made by individuals under a system of no government involvement, some issues may be invisible to decision-makrers simply due to the fact that discussion and investigation of problems has not occured in any organized way. For the same reason, other issues may be judged "unimportant" by the majority because their full impact hasn't been assessed by individuals. In "my system" (I guess you mean the present political system in the US), people vote for representatives (both state and federal), for senators, for the Governor of their state, for the President, and for a host of other major and minor government positions. They vote in referenda, they participate in protests and demonstrations, they share their opinions with elected officials in a great many ways.

You've expressed contempt for OSHA. When I asked you how industry standards for safety would be determined if OSHA were dismantled, you said: "It is like asking me through what process American families decide what they will have for dinner." -No, it's like asking you through what process industry standards for safety would be determined.
Here is the point: Every family has their own sytem for deciding what they have for dinner. The systems for determining if standards are needed, and what they would be, would depend on the industry and the participants. Remember, libertarians don't instruct businesses how to keep employees safe--they merely hold them responsible when they fail to. Why would a government bureaucracy know more about handling chlorine than the people who manufacture it?
And how would a libertarian system determine when businesses have failed to keep their employees safe? You've freed them from any regulations or inspections! Are we then to wait until businesses have enough amputations, chemical burns, back injuries or fatalities to warrant interference by your reluctanct Libertarian government before safe practices can be assessed? If that sounds familiar to you, it's because that's how it worked before OSHA!
And by the way, OSHA's not exactly a bureaucracy, it's more of a technocracy (please see Boris B.'s excellent explanation of this in GQ: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=24399 in that the methods of safely handling almost all chemicals found in workplaces in the US are exhaustively researched and evaluated. Including chlorine.

Also, some jobs are more risky than others. How much risk you are willing to take for how much return is a personal preference. It is up to businesses and employees to work out an acceptable ratio. When government stays out of the loop, unions can work quite well for this.
Except where unions aren't present due to union busting by your (now) unregulated businesses.

There is nothing to prevent market participants from being proactive or using systematized approaches. However, they are much better equipped to react to unexpected events. The problem with your statements is that they assume that there exists one best systematized approach for dealing with problems and that government can accomplish this. I would say that the first part of that was arrogant and presumptive and the second part hopelessly naive.
My statements were in response to your assertion that a simplistic approach to problem solving was better at solving poverty ("give a hungry man some food"). I was neither arrogant about this nor presumptive in assessing what is essentially the scientific method as the best systematized approach for investigating sociological phenomena (not for "dealing with problems" as you put it). Here's the "polysyllabic" statement I made that you call hopelessly naive:
Policy determinations, to be effective, must result from an iterative process of investigation, induction, experimentation and improvement, and must adapt to changes in the conditions over which they apply.
I've never claimed that market participants can't or won't take systematized approaches to their problems. I have, on the other hand, argued energetically against the magical thinking of Libertarians that "market participants" will have the incentive and the means to tackle the types of social problems that governments do.

When I laughed at your assumption that social programs were merely governmentally subsidized handouts...you back your pronouncements up.
I could back this up, but I doubt that there are enough people who doubt this to make it worth my trouble. Most people are wise enough to try to argue that the handouts are necessary or morally correct, instead of being foolish enough to insist that they are not handouts.
Let's discuss the wisdom of the argument I actually made, rather than the one you seem to think (or wish) that I made. My one statement was that your assumption that social programs are merely handouts was simplistic and foolish. I never claimed anything about these programs, other than that many are vital and necessary, and that I prefer a government that undertakes these programs. I've spent my time countering the foolishly insistent statements you've been making.

There are no "difficult-to-define problems" being solved by tv's and computers. They are fully designed, attractively packaged consumer products intended to perform just well enough to compete in their respective markets.
You're just being obstinate here. Computers solve a multitude of problems for different people. For some, wordprocessing; for some, financial tools; for some, entertainment; for some, communications. And another thing you are ignoring is that there are choices of computers that are better at some functions than others. And the quality of computers improves every year.
If I'm being "obstinate" it's because you keep clinging to an analogy that is so unsuitable it cheapens the rest of this already ludicrous debate. It's entirely freaking irrelevant what "multitude of problems" are being solved by computers. Here is your analogy, presented as a response to my remark that the ordinary citizen did not have time to research social problems in order to figure out solutions:
Do you have to break away from your job to research how to construct a computer in order to purchase one? Do you have to an expert in physics to select a TV? What makes you think people need to be experts in social policy in order to know how to spend their own money? We don't mandate that an electrical engineer make all our computer-purchasing decisions. Why do you suppose that is?
So what you were doing was comparing researching solutions to social ills to shopping for a computer or tv. If you're seriously going to claim that understanding what to do about declining literacy rates among children of middle income families or rising rates of homelessness in the inner cities is as easy as finding the best buy in flat screen monitors, then I won't waste any more of my time with you.

But by your logic, any government that abridges the rights of any of its citizens, through legislation, constitutional amendments, regulatory restrictions or any other means is moving "in the direction of totalitarianism." This would necessarily include any conceivable Libertarian USA.
Nope. The level of rights abridgement is pre-defined to be minimal. There is no movement in any direction.
I can't believe it! You just told me "The difference is, in a libertarian society we define any abridgement of rights to be minimal, therefore we can't move toward totalitarianism." George Orwell would be so proud!

It seems to me that you disagree with me on one or both of two points:[list=1] Markets are better at solving problems than governments The person who makes the money is most entitled to determining how it is spent[/list=1]
Not quite.[list=1] I don't disagree that markets are better at solving some problems. I just think markets don't, won't and can't solve most social problems. There are certain things everyone must spend their money on. Food (whatever food they want), clothing (any style), shelter (many choices) and taxes (you're free to choose another country --- I wouldn't recommend any truly socialist country if you hate paying taxes). Whatever's left over, do what you will with it. It's a free country.

I actually think that sometimes, your approach is best. Other times, I think someone just has an inspiration while eating an ice cream cone. Libertarian systems allow both types of solutions to occur, along with many others. Your approach insists on one solution-finding process. How can you claim that yours is better?
Collective efforts at problem solving have never precluded inspiration. And I'm not advocating a single problem solving paradigm, just a consistent general group process by which investigation and experimentation occur.

If you want to debate the second [point], then we are arguing over the fact that you don't trust people to contribute to causes that they care about, or that you think that the causes you care about are more important than the causes that others care about. I am interested in knowing how you justify usurping others' decisions in either case.
On the contrary. (Have you just been skimming my responses or did you read any of them?) It's the fact that I do trust people to contribute to causes that they care about, and only those causes that leads me to doubt the effectiveness of a libertarian society in dealing with major social problems. I've never once in this entire thread stated that I think the causes I'm passionate about are necessarily more important than causes others care about, nor have I advocated usurping others' decisions. My position, as stated to you clearly a few posts ago bears repeating, since you're ignoring it in order to counter straw man arguments I never made:

My Position
by xenophon41
It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital.

Just for future reference.

lee

06-05-2000, 12:55 AM

I would not have made it this far without a bit of government handouts. I was in my last semester of college when we had to go on foodstamps.

My college was paid for by scholarships and grants, except for the last year, that was paid for with government guaranteed student loans. I worked work study and my husband worked at minimum wage jobs. During the last semester there was nothing left to do but go on food stamps.

I graduated magna cum laude and moved to near a large city and soon my husband and I joined the ranks of the middle class. Our incomes and tax bills have increased fairly steadily with just a few setback since.

One more illness, one less government handout and we would not have made it. We also used credit cards to fund our college life using them for such luxuries as basic clothing, interview suits, medications, doctor bills, and before food stamps, groceries.

We are still paying off the debts, but it was worth it. We lived quite conservativly. We did not go out to eat, we only bought new clothes when we had worn out old ones. For years, i did all my laundry by hand in the tub.

There were many reasons that we could not rely on extended family or religious organizations. All we had was each other and the government.

Smartass

06-05-2000, 07:38 AM

tracer:

I don't think that it's really necessary to go into how the interstate commerce clause has been twisted to allow all manner of abuses of the Constitution. Such logic could be used to interpret the entire document away to nothing.

Also, if the ability to tax and promote the "general welfare" is seen as justification for any governmental act, then there really is no need even read any more of the document. After all, if this statement is that powerful, then the Bill of Rights can just be taken to be suggestions.

picmr and xenophon41:

Okay, we seem to keep getting tied up in issues where I think our disagreement is smaller than it seems. I blame myself for not adequately expressing libertarian positions. On the other hand, I don't claim to be an expert on libertarian positions.

I'm going to try to do a little discussion, and then I'll address some individual points. First off, to reiterate, libertarians are not anarchists; however, it would not be inaccurate to say that libertarians are mistrustful of government. Therefore, we advocate minimizing government. However, we do recognize a need for government intrusion in certain cases. Unlike some of the debates I've gotten into in other threads, I think most of our discussion is about cases where government intervention of some type is probably warranted. In these cases, libertarians do not stomp off in a huff; rather, libertarian thought turns to how best libertarian principles can be applied to the issue. Just to review, some key libertarian principles:

-The purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals. These rights stem from Locke's natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
-Market-based solutions are more effective, and less intrusive, than centrally-planned ones.

I don't think anyone, at least in this thread, disagrees with these general notions. It is in the cases where the rights of individuals become blurred, or where inequalities between buyer and seller exist, that questions arise. In the first case, the easy answer is that the rights of individuals should prevail. Unfortunately, this does little to clarify issues like air pollution. In the second case, the knee-jerk libertarian reaction is to say that the market will naturally handle these situations over time. This is an oversimplification. A more accurate representation of current libertarian thinking would be more like this: In those cases where the market may not act automatically, government should still focus on market-based solutions.

Let's think for a moment about the issue of environmental pollution. If you are polluting my property, it is clear that you are violating my rights. However, if you are polluting a river that happens to pass through both are properties, it is not so clear. The problem is that, unless it happens to be frozen, it is hard to establish ownership of a river. Similarly, unless we construct huge atmospheric barriers, it is difficult to establish ownership of air. These items are often referred to as "open-access commons", in that they are commonly shared and used by everyone.

If you are polluting the air, then a strict interpretation would be that you are violating the rights of everyone who breathes that air, and thus you must be stopped. Unfortuanately, the implications of this conclusion would bring society to a halt, with automobiles becoming illegal and most manufacturing halted. While we would like to reduce air pollution to zero, a realistic goal is to reduce it as much as possible without bringing progress to a halt. The good news is that, as time passes, technology for reducing air pollution gets better and better. Theoretically, then, we should be able to, over time, improve quality of life while simultaneously reducing damage to the environment.

Clearly, this is an area where government intervention is necessary. The difference between central-planning solutions and libertarian solution is one of approach. Both libertarians and central planners recognize that some amount of pollution is unavoidable and seek to lower pollution to an "acceptable" level. Central planners perceive a problem and set out to determine the correct solution(s), then force all participants to implement the solution(s). Libertarians, on the other hand, define the acceptable level and leave it to market participants to achieve that level. The cutting-edge libertarian thinking wrt protecting the environment is by creating a market of tradeable permits for pollution. Needless to say, this latter solution requires much less government bureaucracy and obviates the need for reams of regulation. If you're interested in the details, check out this article from Reason Magazine, 1996:

Selling Air Pollution (http://www.reason.com/9605/Fe.BRIANemissions.html)

For a general discussion of when federal government should act, and how it should do so, check out this from the same issue:

Evolutionary Ecology (http://www.reason.com/9605/Fe.LYNNenviro.html)

As you can see, libertarians aren't quite so extreme as we sometimes seem. This year's May issue has a cover story about the 30th anniversary of Earth Day (Earth Day, Then and Now (http://www.reason.com/0005/fe.rb.earth.html)).

The same general approach is true of occupational safety. Most libertarians would not say that government has no interest in this area. On the other hand, libertarians are against voluminous regulations and micro-management of American business practices. Outside of philosophical issues, there are practical reasons to be agains continuously expanding government regulation. Here is another article from Reason, with some libertarian bitching:

Occupational Hazards (http://www.reasonmag.com/9705/fe.olson.html)

I couldn't, in a quick search, find a good article focused on specific libertarian proposals. However, the libertarian approach would be, instead of parental, market-based. If government action is needed, a libertarian government would focus on establishing solutions that could be implemented by the market, rather than by massive regulatory agencies.

I'm going through all this because I find myself in a surprising position of arguing against all government action, when that is not actually my position. A better description of my position is that government action should be minimized, but when unavoidable, libertarian ideals should be incorporated into the resulting action.

I am hoping that, if you will take a look at the links I've provided, we can get away from arguing about extremist dogma, and maybe figure out those areas where we actually disagree and focus on them. I think that in the future it would be better for me to provide links to articles by more "academic" libertarian thinkers than to try to talk policy when it is not my area of expertise or interest. My support for libertarianism is more philosophical.

After all this, I'm not sure that it's necessary to go point-by-point through your previous posts, but there are a few things worth noting.

picmr:

I don't think we are in major disagreement. As I said above, yes, there are cases where government involvement is unavoidable, and it is not surpising, given your specialty, that you are able to key in on important factors. A few quibbles:

First, much information pertinent to the choice (how much of a wage premium to demand, how careful to be on the job) is not available.

This is true. However, I think it's safe to say that, with each passing year, more people have access to more information. So, I think this issue is becoming less significant over time.

Secondly, there is strong evidence that people are poor at assessing probabilities (they overweight their own experience). They downgrade the possibility of serious accident because it hasn't happenned to them.

I don't disagree. However, I would also be against forcing people to make better assessments. Freedom is not just the freedom to make good decisions. It includes the freedom to make bad ones as well.

Thirdly, there is strong evidence that due to cognitive dissonance reduction, small probabilities of catastrophic events tend to be ignored or undervalued.

No argument here. If you'll think about how this fact pervades life decisions for everyone, you'll probably realize while I would be against trying to fix it governmentally.

Fourthly, in an employment relationship, workers have few choices: they can leave, but in general safety "tweaks" are not their choice - they can like it or lump it.

I think this may sometimes be true. If we're talking about worker safety, I don't have anything to add to what I said above. If talking about the worker-employer relationship in general, I would point out that less government intervention generally leads to more prosperity, which leads to higher employment, more competition amone employers for workers, and more choice for workers.

Employers, who tend to have better information (larger sample size, greater incentives) about workplace risks do not have strong incentives to inform workers, nor to incur costs if workers in their ignorance fail to require them.

Once again, libertarians would see knowingly misleading workers about their safety as fraud and as a violation of their rights. Do not think that libertarians would be against punishing this sort of behavior.

Lastly, since insurance dominates health and industrial safety markets, firms do not face the full (marginal) costs of their safety practices. This means that markets will not tend via competition towards employing efficient safety practices (becuase firms don't have an incentive to employ them [moral hazard]) and that some insurable risks will remain uncovered [adverse selection].

Yes and no. Unregulated insurance markets will tend to punish those who do engage in high-risk behavior (by taking away their coverage). Once again, I would not say that libertarians would totally remove government interest in worker safety, but would say that, in those cases where intervention is necessary, traditional regulation is the wrong approach.

All this means to me that the presumption that a person's choice may be assumed to be in their best interests is drastically weakened.

I only note that the key to libertarian thinking is not that the individual has perfect knowledge of how his best interests may be achieved, only of what they are.

Given that consequences of this are serious (losing a leg v. having a disappointing meal) the prima facie case for government intervention is there.

In some cases, yes. Once again, in those cases, a libertarian government would not bury its head in the sand, but its approach to intervention would be more...er, libertarian.

Notice that I have not even considered effects on other people (externalities).

Thank god--I wouldn't be able to give much of an answer anyway. picmr, if you don't already read it, I highly recommend Reason magazine. I get the impression that your thinking links up very closely with much current libertarian thinking in terms of government policy (as opposed to philosophy). Many of the contributors to this magazine are, like you, economists and the level of discussion can be quite high.

xenophon41:

First, I think our discussion about decision-making is getting too theoretical to be of much use. We're forcing each other to argue from extremes: I'm forcing you to argue as if government should always be involved and you're forcing me to argue as if government should never be involved, thus misrepresenting both of our positions. The key to my position is that
-government involvement should be minimal.
-government involvement should only be considered to handle violations of individual rights or issues of supremem importance to society.
-when government involvement is unavoidable, its actions should focus on encouraging market-based solutions rather than top-down solutions.

Elected representatives receive frequent and direct input from their constituents regarding social concerns.

And if they attempt to address all social concerns, before too long there is no area of life that government is not involved in to some extent. Government involvement should be minimal.

Market determinations are based on profitability...

This is simply not true. I think you are confusing market activity with corporate decision making. Corporations are generally judged by their stockholders based on profitability (along with their own personal values). Market transactions are predominantly transactions between individuals and are based on the values, needs, and desires of the participants. For some participants, profitability is the key goal, for others, quality of life is key. When you decide which grocery store to go to, your decision is only partially based on price. You also are interested in selection, perceived food quality, convenience, etc. Markets, in and of themselves, do not care about profitability, and are not successful because of it. Competition is the key. If you are a corporation, you compete for shareholders through profitability, while competing for customers through price, quality, image, etc. of the goods you offer. If you were, say, the Red Cross, you compete for dollars based on the quality of services you provide with the dollars you are given.

Individuals, no matter how good they are, how cognizant of need or sympathetic to the conditions of others, are motivated in the spending of their money by self interest over collective need.

You say this as if it were a bad thing. The point I was making is that people tend to attend to their own needs before they worry about the needs of others. Market economies lead to generally higher levels of prosperity. People who are prosperous have more money after attending to their needs to devote to other goals. Top-down solutions tend to drain resources while reducing, rather than increasing, general prosperity.

the use of tax money to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" is neither prima facie immoral nor contrary to constitutional limitations.

That is true. And if the government were sticking to constituional limitations then my objections would probably be small. I don't think you can use the phrase, "provide for...general Welfare..." to condone creation of a welfare state, which is generally contrary to the "general welfare". Likewise, providing for common defense does not justify sending American soldiers to kill people in foreign lands that we are not at war with. That would be providing for common offense.

I don't think most libertarians see a complete end to government involvement in poverty in the near future, even though we believe that, ultimately, it would lead to better outcomes for everyone. At the very least, however, we do believe that this sort of provision of welfare falls under those powers reserved to the states.

If you can't explain how markets would work better at solving social problems than does government, then that is a matter of faith to you, and cannot be debated.

I did explain. By allowing multiple solutions to be implemented simulaneously and to compete for dollars, better solutions are found more quickly and cheaply, in a general environment of continuous improvement.

You apparently have imperical evidence that libertarian societies are more successful than socialist ones. Please name the historical example(s) of a libertarian society that you must've been thinking of when you wrote this.

More extremist rhetoric. The fact that no purely libertarian society exists is not a failure of libertarianism per se, and it is disingenuous to imply that it is. It is also disingenuous to deny that societies that are more libertarian than socialistic are more successful. Thus the success of the U.S., which, while not libertarian, was founded on the same notions of individual rights, and is probably the most libertarian society in the world.

Why not? You haven't defined "adequate" but let's say that in this context (dealing with social issues), "adequate" would mean "able to estimate the future effects of technologies on society." If that is the case, then I believe Congress has greater opportunity to gauge these effects and equal access to futurist projections.

Because nobody can predict future effects of technology. Unfortunately, top-down solutions require an ability to make these predictions; market-based solutions do not.

If Congress is slow to react to environmental issues, at least they have the means, opportunity and popular mandate to do something about it.

I was using "environment" in the general sense, not the Green sense.

Industry, on the other hand, does nothing to react to environmental changes that is not either driven by profit motive or legislation.

Once again, market participants set their own goals, which may or may not be profits.

This statement is equally applicable when the phrase "Central planning" is replaced by any nominative clause.

As I thought I mentioned, the shortcoming here is that government solutions need this ability in order to be efficients. Market-based solutions do not require anyone to be able to evaluate, or even be aware of, all variables.

I have no idea why you think Congress has no means by which they can determine the effects of social programs and make adjustments.

Okay, they can make adjustment, but when government is regulatory in nature, the adjustments serve only to increase complexity and make compliance more unattainable.

As far as determination of efficiency of government, the GAO and the countless media "watchdog" groups do a fairly good job of determining and ecouraging this.

The problem is that they have nothing to compare to. Market-based competition allows you to view solutions and their results at the same time. Thus, the GAO can find general inefficiency, and candidates can propose ideas, but that's not the same as having competitors vying at the same time for dollars based on performance.

This information concerns the market value of a product, service or concept. What is the market value of a methadone clinic?

Don't know--depends on how much market participants value the item. You make it sound like market valuation is some sort of inherent perversion of the notion of value. I would say that, in most cases, it is a clarification of value. A thing is worth what you are willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it, or what you require in order to forego it.

I think you mean to say that decisions are made about problems where the symptoms are shown. If so, then you can see that this immediately prevents any national or global perspective on the problem.

Actually, I meant it the way I phrased it. But I think I've addressed your general point already.

In what way is are technological advances discouraged by economic, environmental or safety and health regulations? As a matter of fact, technological advances are often prompted by issues of safety and health.

Once again, I think we disagree more on means. Government intervention in the form of regulation stifles business.

If you would like to cite some studies to show this, I'd be delighted to provide evidence to the contrary.

Please see the links above. I can offer more, but I don't think that we disagree as strongly as it seems.

No, I think certain problems should not be left up to the market because market solutions are always concerned with profit and loss, never with right and wrong.

Market decisions are made by market participants. Market participants are people. Your statement equates to, "...people are always concerned with profit and loss, never with right and wrong." If this is true, no government can help us.

The weakness of your hypothetical situation is that these two companies would actually be formed. Sure, people like matt_mcl exist, but what are the market forces involved that cause these companies to be created? In order for me to believe your hypothetical, you will have to show me that.

The market forces are Matt's desire to do good, and the public's desire to see poor people fed. Markets respond to the wants and needs of the participants. If people want TV's, markets will provide them. If the want programs to help poor people, markets will provide them.

Really? Are you sure Company 2 is doing more valuable work?

You're nitpicking my example needlessly. The point is that people will give their money to those companies or individuals who they perceive to be using the money in the best way. These two companies are strictly hypotheticals.

Remember BETA vs. VHS? Macintosh vs. Microsoft? The most effective solution doesn't always win in the marketplace.

Depends on how you define "effective". Obviously, VHS and Microsoft more closely offered what the more of the public wanted for prices they were willing to pay.

And how would a libertarian system determine when businesses have failed to keep their employees safe? You've freed them from any regulations or inspections! Are we then to wait until businesses have enough amputations, chemical burns, back injuries or fatalities to warrant interference by your reluctanct Libertarian government before safe practices can be assessed?

In case you haven't noticed, that's still basically the way it works now. The only difference is that now you can get in trouble for violating this or that of thousands of regulations, even if you have actually harmed no one.

Except where unions aren't present due to union busting by your (now) unregulated businesses.

Please do not confuse "unregulated" with "lawless".

Policy determinations, to be effective, must result from an iterative process of investigation, induction, experimentation and improvement, and must adapt to changes in the conditions over which they apply.

In which case, you should have no objection to experimenting with libertarian solutions which have been investigated and induced.

If you're seriously going to claim that understanding what to do about declining literacy rates among children of middle income families or rising rates of homelessness in the inner cities is as easy as finding the best buy in flat screen monitors, then I won't waste any more of my time with you.[Emphais added]

You're playing word games. Understanding what to do is comparable with designing and producing flat screen monitors. Deciding which solution you approve of and want to contribute your money to is comparable to picking out a flat-screen monitor. At least, keep the correct comparisons together when expressing your disgust.

You just told me "The difference is, in a libertarian society we define any abridgement of rights to be minimal, therefore we can't move toward totalitarianism." George Orwell would be so proud!

More word games. When government is designed and created such that it's sole purpose is the protection of individual rights, it cannot move toward totalitarianism without violating its mandate. In much the same way, the USA cannot move toward socialism and government-as-parent policies without violating the Constitution.

It's the fact that I do trust people to contribute to causes that they care about, and only those causes that leads me to doubt the effectiveness of a libertarian society in dealing with major social problems. I've never once in this entire thread stated that I think the causes I'm passionate about are necessarily more important than causes others care about, nor have I advocated usurping others' decisions.

It's not about you personally. What you are describing is imposing the will of the majority onto the minority.

It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital.

Once again, I don't think we're as far off here as it seems. Indeed, in some cases, there is no way around government intervention. However, this phrasing makes me very uncomfortable, as we have already agreed that determination of "necessary and vital" is a matter of opinion based on personal values. A more libertarian phrasing would go ahead and define necessary and vital with relation to the protection of individual rights, hopefully preventing the possibility of some fool deciding that buying cheese and burying it in the ground was necessary and vital.

lee:

Just to be clear: Most libertarians would not object to the fact that you were able to get assistance when you needed it. Generally, speaking, we approve of it. What we object to is government-mandated entitlements that say that one person's need takes priority over the need of the person who actually earned the money.

And, if it helps, my wife and I are still massively in debt from my decision to go back to school for a Master's.

-VM

lee

06-05-2000, 08:39 AM

Once in my last semester of college I was participating in a conversation about assistance and I mentioned that we had to go on food stamps. I was told by one of my classmates that if I had any morals that I would eschew the handouts, drop out of college, which I had not rightfully earned anyway, and get a job to pay my own way. He said he would starve to death before accepting government charity like I had.

He is not he only one who has expressed this point of view to me. Some say things similar to, "Well, it is too late now, but he is right, you should not have accepted handouts." It doesn't matter to them that I now pay in taxes annually more than I earned annually prior to graduation. When I have mentioned this, I have been told, "The ends do not justify the means."

I have no guage that measures what most libertatrians think is right or would object to. I do know that many people object to government handouts in all forms.

Smartass

06-05-2000, 09:06 AM

lee:

I was told by one of my classmates that if I had any morals that I would eschew the handouts, drop out of college, which I had not rightfully earned anyway, and get a job to pay my own way. He said he would starve to death before accepting government charity like I had.

Who knows? Maybe he would have. If so, he's trying to impose his moral position on you. It would be foolish to say, though, that you are worth less to society educated than than you were before. And yes, the government is getting a good return on its investment in your particular case.

I don't think that most libertarians are against people getting a "hand up", which is what you apparently received. And, in fact, most libertarians do not think that there is something immoral about people receiving handouts. To be honest, if you can make more money not working than you can working, you would be a fool to go to work.

In other words, the libertarian position is not about the morality of those on welfare. It is about the morality of a system that says another person's need of my money takes priority over my need for my money. Particularly when that money is used to create dependency among those who could be productive members of society.

When I have mentioned this, I have been told, "The ends do not justify the means."

I don't have any problem with your moral position. And I think that our current welfare system negates the ends/means argument. If more cases were typical of yours, probably very few people would be calling for an end to welfare.

Libertarian idealists would say that, ultimately, government provided welfare does more harm than good, and that society would ultimately provide for this sort of help for its members without government intrusion. And I would agree with them. However, the current state of the U.S. makes this a near-term impossibility. A more realistic libertarian goal is to get the federal government out of the welfare business. Constitutionally, this is a function that should fall to the states. At least if were left to the states, there would be 50 different systems in place, all of which could be evaluated on their merits. It wouldn't be perfect competition, but I think it would encourage better solutions to rise to the top faster.

[QUOTE]I have no guage that measures what most libertatrians think is right or would object to. I do know that many people object to government handouts in all forms.[QUOTE]

Libertarians generally object to government handouts. However, that is not the same as saying that they object to people giving or receiving help. I don't personally have any problem with the fact that you needed help or that you accepted it when you needed. To me, that is just evidence that you are a rational thinker. However, I do object to the fact that federal government has almost completely usurped this helping function.

-VM

xenophon41

06-06-2000, 09:24 PM

Smartass, I admit it; you've confounded me. You have managed for over 100 posts in this thread to sidestep close examination of even your most ludicrous assertions by responding with a subtly different argument or by ignoring valid points while at the same time reworking many of the arguments presented against you into fascist ideology or communist propoganda. I admit that I cannot argue with you, as you do not exhibit the capacity to evaluate either your own arguments or mine.

I understand SingleDad's decision to move toward ridicule and heavy satire as a more effective means of dealing with Libertarian doctrine. I'm even sure I will join him very soon in this more worthy endeavor.

But first, for those scoring this debacle at home and for those who don't have the time to read back through the thread, I intend to accurately portray both the character of my debate with Smartass and the specific arguments within the macrosquabble to which I've foolishly been subjecting myself.

There's really one main area of difference between Smartass and myself (in this thread anyway), mixed in with at least three other side issues that have served more to distract from the point than to clarify our differences or elucidate our positions. So as to spare both bandwidth and the readers' stamina, I'll paraphrase all of our statements, retorts, counterarguments and divergent meanderings into short declarative paragraphs, and then wrap up by adding my final comments. Smartass will of course dispute the accuracy of my attempts at reduction and restatement. In order to facilitate independent evaluation of my accuracy, I'll include the date and time at which each post was made. I leave it up to each individual reader to judge for him/herself whether I've succeeded in delivering an ingenuous portrayal of our quarrel (although I'd rather a collective evaluation was performed, in this case I'll live with a simple majority of opinion).

I'll begin with the minor arguments and conclude with the major.

***WARNING***

All subsequent summaries contain frequently humorous reductions of arguments made by myself and Smartass. These paraphrases are not intended to be read as verbatim quotations of the original statements.

Subsquabble # 1
"Are government social programs worthwhile?"

Smartass (5/26/00, 19:41): Here's my question --- if we let the government spend tax money on social programs, will there be fewer poor people and less abuse?

xenophon41(5/26/00, 20:52): That's not the point of having social programs. Because we do have these programs in the US, people in dire situations can receive help.

Smartass (5/26/00, 21:15): So then, are you happy that we keep spending more and the numbers of poor go up?

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 23:15): What's your point? Are you saying government aid causes poverty?

Smartass (5/27/00, 10:19): Yup.

xenophon41 Dropped it. Refocused on main argument (see below).

Smartass Never provided support for specious assertion that government aid causes poverty.

xeno wrap up: There is much evidence that welfare programs have created in some families a mindset where succeeding generations remain on the public dole as a way of life. The fact that this occurs is not sufficient reason for a blanket condemnation of the program, nor does the fact in and of itself constitute valid evidence that the program has caused poverty. A valid argument can be made (supported by recent welfare reforms in Minnesota) that overly stringent maximum income requirements and disincentives for marriage encourage "welfare mothers" and public dole families, rather than the mere existence of a government welfare system.

Subsquabble # 2
"US Government - representative democracy, constitutional republic or TOTALITARIAN REGIME?"

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 20:52): (said to Mr. Zambezi) The Libertarian philosophy seems to be "Shit happens and it's not my responsibility."

Smartass (5/26/00, 21:15): No, libertarian philosophy is "Shit happens and it's not the government's responsibility, nor should responsibility be forced onto me."

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 23:15): In our representative democracy, "government" means "the people"; if you remove the responsibility for social programs from the government and place it on individuals, there's no possibility for meaningful, large scale solutions.

Smartass (5/27/00, 10:19): A) Nonsense! Our government is too centralized for "the people" to have any voice in it. And this isn't a representative democracy, it's a constitutional republic. B) This used to be a libertarian country - read the Constitution! C) You sound like Hitler when you say "meaningful solution on a large scale."

xenophon41 (5/27/00, 13:23): A) and B) I read the Constitution frequently. I like the "We the People" part of it, and the part where it says Congress should lay and collect taxes to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." The Constitution was never a libertarian document. C) If Hitler used the word "responsibility" should I stop using it 'cause I don't want to sound like a nazi?

Smartass (5/28/00, 08:12): A) and B) Well, I didn't mean it in the absolute sense; this country used to be more libertarian than it is today. C) I apologize for comparing you to Hitler. And by the way, since you've said (somewhere I won't quote directly) that you think the government should force it's own morality on people, then you're a nazi, Adolph.

xenophon41(5/28/00, 14:21): C) Oh, hey, why not call me the boogie man while you're in the mood for name calling, Goebbels? You've deliberately misrepresented my argument, which is that the government should work to ease societal problems through coordinated efforts.

Smartass (5/29/00, 06:32): Look, Nazi, if we let the government dictate morality (by deciding that hunger is bad) and deprive the people of any choice in how they participate in the betterment of society (by using taxes to fund social programs), then it is like Hitler's Germany. Libertarians respond negatively to totalitarian governments!

xenophon41 (5/29/00, 12:27): Unless Libertarians define "totalitarian" differently from everyone else who uses the word, this is not a totalitarian government. Either show me how our government resembles Nazi Germany in any fundamentally oppressive way or shove the 'Hitler' references up your libertarian keister.

Smartass (5/30/00, 10:48): Oh yeah, well Hitler was elected ya know; he didn't just achieve totalitarianism all at once. Here's how our gov't is totalitarian: a) They tax us. b) The President sends our armed forces into combat on a whim. c) It's hard for third party candidates to get on the ballot, 'cause the two major parties set the rules. d) We have laws agains "victimless" crimes. e) There are federal laws that allow seizure of property without a court order.

xenophon41 (5/30/00, 18:54): a) Taxation in the US occurs with respresentation, in other words, the social contract between citizen and gov't is honored on both sides. b) Hardly at a whim. There are constitutional limits to the President's authority. c) Rules of candidacy in no way preclude a fair electoral process. d) Write your congressman. e) Yeah, that sucks. Fortunately, our system provides for court challenges to laws and for the repeal of laws.

Smartass (6/01/00, 09:11): a) But we're taxed alot. (And I'll help support your point by saying) I'm working within my social contract to change government. (And now I'll contradict what I just told you by saying) by your reasoning, the government can then take all of our money! b) The President has gone beyond those limits. You believe in Constitutional limits, Libertarians say the federal gov't goes beyond its Constitutional limits, therefore you should be a Libertarian. c) Third parties are excluded and marginalized by the two ruling parties. You'll just sit back and let this become a two party system, won't you? d) No, dammit, even though I clearly said people are convicted of crimes that didn't hurt anybody, I obviously meant that convicted felons lose their right to bear arms. e) The fact that our system allows popular will to force repeal of laws doesn't change the fact that we live in an increasingly totalitarian society! The only difference between you and Hitler is you haven't advocated killing any Jews yet.

xenophon41 (6/01/00, 15:29): By your extremely broad definition of "totalitarian," any conceivable government that restricts the rights of any citizen, even a libertarian government, would have to be considered as leaning toward totalitarianism.

Smartass (6/02/00, 08:56): Oh no, we libertarians take care of that by allowing "minimal" abridgements of rights in our system. Since we define what "minimal" means based on what rights we restrict, we could never move toward totalitarian.

xenophon41 (6/04/00, 22:20): George Orwell would be so proud!

Smartass (6/05/00, 08:38): You're just playing word games. I'm saying that since a libertarian government would be designed with the sole purpose of protecting individual rights, it could not move toward totalitarianism without violating it's mandate.

xeno wrapup: So you're actually saying two things here. The first is that a libertarian government would have the one job of protecting individual rights, and would not attempt any other form of control. The obvious questions are "Who decides what types of behavior constitute individual rights?", and "How do you protect my individual rights without ever restricting someone else's?" (Respond if you want to, but be aware I'm discontinuing my end of the discussion after this.) The second thing you're saying is that any government that intends to actually govern it's citizens must, by the definition provided by the holy book of libertarianism, be despotic in nature.

Subsquabble # 3
"Solutions to society's problems - complicated issues requiring investigation and thought, or easy as pickin' out a boob tube?"

Smartass (5/26/00, 19:53): Libertarianism seeks to allow people to choose how their money can be spent to help others by keeping government out of social programs.

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 08:52): Being a cynical bastard, I'm pretty sure social programs would receive about the same level of voluntary contributions as PBS pledge drives do.

Smartass (5/26/00 21:15): Well if people think feeding the hungry is no more important than public TV, then we should divide money equally between the two.

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 23:15): I don't quite understand your remark about dividing your money. In any case, I think people would contribute a small amount of their income to programs they like, which means only the most popular programs would receive funding, people on the whole being short-sighted.

Smartass (5/27/00, 10:19): Why would you want to fund programs that most people don't care about?

xenophon41 (5/27/00, 13:23): One of the reasons we have any type of government is to establish direction and rule of law. Most people don't have the ability to research the consequences of social programs. I realize this attitude makes me elitist and distrustful of the "common wisdom." However, I'm not disdainful of my fellow man; I merely see the reality that most people will choose to remain uninformed and apathetic about social causes, and therefore some of the necessary and vital ones would remain unfunded.

Smartass (5/28/00, 08:12): You are arrogant and disrespectful to the opinion of others, thus you don't deserve your freedom, and you never will until you treat each opinion as equally valid, no matter how ill-informed. And those of us who are educated enough to examine these issues know that your social programs do more harm than good. So there.

xenophon41 (5/28/00, 14:21): I'm not foolish enough to disallow anyone's opinion, but only a jackass would think an uninformed opinion is as valuable as an informed one. You mistake my distrust of the effectiveness of popular thinking in funding social programs with a lack of respect for individuals. But let's try it your way; I'm sure all caring citizens will take the time away from their jobs to properly research controversial topics so that they can understand what must be done.

Smartass (5/29/00, 06:32): Do you have to be a physicist or an engineer to buy a tv? Nobody needs to be an expert in social policy to decide how to spend their money.

xenophon41 (5/29/00, 12:27): Your analogy is false. You're comparing understanding sociological phenomena to shopping for a consumer product. Social policy cannot be set by individuals contributing to whatever program sounds good. A scientific approach must be pursued in order to find and rectify the underlying causes for adverse social conditions.

Smartass (5/30/00, 10:48): Before I answer you, I'm gonna make a completely idiotic joke that has nothing to do with what you said: <pointless idiotic joke> What's tough to understand about hunger or unemployment? Do you think a hungry guy would rather you investigate how he got to be hungry or give him a sandwich? Your wasting our time with big words that mean nothing. And most government policy decisions cause more problems than they cure.

xenophon41 (5/30/00, 18:54): What a stupid thing to say! You think the answer is always "just give 'em food"? Here, let me explain things using small words so even you will understand them: Even when we treat the symptoms, we still have to find out why bad social conditions happen and what can change those conditions before we can do any good.

Smartass (6/01/00, 09:11): Libertarians don't give answers, we just say answers are more likely to be found without the government involved. So it really is like computers and tv's, 'cause they're both complex solutions to hard to define problems.

xenophon41 (6/01/00, 15:29): <howls of derisive laughter> WTF are you talking about?!! There's no hard to define problems being solved by computers and tv's. They are consumer products designed to fit specific lists of consumer expectations. Nobody has to know how these things work in order to make a good purchase. You're an idiot.

Smartass (6/02/00, 08:56): You're just being stubborn by not letting me win. Obviously, individual people won't have to make these tough determinations; if people want solutions, the market will magically provide them, even though there's nothing forcing careful examination of either conditions or causes. If there's a desire, the market will make it come true, because we libertarian philosophers say that it will.

xenophon41 (6/04/00, 22:20): Let's examine your analogy as originally stated. It was: "Setting up social programs is no more difficult than deciding which computer or tv meets your needs." This is asinine.

Smartass (6/05/00, 08:38): You're just playing word games. Don't you understand that people won't have to understand what has happened, because the market automatically provides a cure for every social problem? Sheesh you're dumb!

xeno's wrapup: Shut up. Go sell your magic act to some other sucker.

Main Argument
"Should the government lay income taxes and fund social programs, or will the Invisible Pink Unicorn provide for us if we JUST GIVE HER A CHANCE?"

This one is actually pretty easy to reduce. I'll present Smartass' position first, then present mine.

Smartass sez: Plank 1: It is evil of the government to take any of my money through taxation. Government should stick to providing for national defense, policing whatever libertarians allow them to and performing services that don't infringe on anyone's inalienable rights as defined by libertarians. Plank 2: And they better find a way to turn a profit at it, 'cause we're not paying taxes. Plank 3: If markets and individuals are left free of government interference all social ills that people want to eliminate will be solved through the invisible actions of the market.

xenophon41 sez: It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital. Any replacement to governmentally run social efforts would require some central control, a central process by which both popular will and objective need could be evaluated, a reliable source of funding, mandated continuity, and accountability to representatives of the citizens funding the effort. In short, any replacement to government in this case would resemble government in so many ways as to be indistinguishable from government.

I'll let the rest of you determine who won that one. I have no further interest in trying to subject articles of faith to rational evaluation.

(If anyone wants to play the bonus round, see if you can count how many arrogant put downs and condescending implications of naivety were bandied about in the course of this whimsical pas de deux.)

Smartass

06-07-2000, 08:08 AM

xenophon41:

To be honest, when I first read your post, it just pissed me off, if for no other reason than it is built around the idea that I am refusing to debate. And to be honest, satirizing my positions isn't all that useful. However, after having given it some thought, I think there is some value to it, because it helps to clarify where you are coming from, and why you think my positions are unreasonable. We have been arguing a lot of issues while only scratching the surface of the disagreements that lie underneath. Maybe it will have some value if I provide a similar translation of the debate from my point of view. I will try to do it in a less snide way than you have, but I'll admit that this is against my nature (hence, the name).

Subsquabble # 1
"Are government social programs worthwhile?"

Smartass (5/26/00, 19:41): Here's my question --- if we let the government spend tax money on social programs, will the situation improve or will the problems become worse? Libertarians object to government solutions because they don't work.

xenophon41(5/26/00, 20:52): Social programs don't solve the problems they attempt to solve. That's not the point of having social programs. At least we're not doing nothing.

Smartass (5/26/00, 21:15): So then, are you happy that we keep throwing more money at these problems only to make them worse?

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 23:15): What's your point? Are you saying government aid causes poverty?

Smartass (5/27/00, 10:19): Yup.

xenophon41 Dropped it. Refocused on main argument (see below).

Smartass Never provided support for specious assertion that government aid causes poverty because xenophon41 never disputed it.

Smartass wrap up: There is much evidence that having the federal government in charge of welfare to deal with poverty leads directly to an increase of the problem. As the problem gets bigger, more money must be thrown at it, helping it to continue to grow. A libertarian solution would either leave charity up to individuals or, at the very least, remove it from federal control. The example of improvements in the welfare system in Minnesota supports this argument, in that it results from experimentation at the state level rather than top-down mandates from the federal government. Control at state level leads to more experimentation and allows different states to pursue different strategies at the same time. While this certainly doesn't create a market, it encourages competition among states to make the most efficient use of productive citizens' dollars, which will encourage more better solutions to be discovered/invented.

Subsquabble # 2
"US Government - representative democracy, constitutional republic or TOTALITARIAN REGIME?"

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 20:52): (said to Mr. Zambezi) The Libertarian philosophy seems to be "Shit happens and it's not my responsibility."

Smartass (5/26/00, 21:15): No, libertarian philosophy is "Shit happens and it's not the government's responsibility, nor should responsibility be forced onto me."

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 23:15): a) If this had been a libertarian country, there would be no welfare b) The U.S. is a representative democracy, c)which means "government" equals "the people"; d)if you remove the responsibility for social programs from the government and place it on individuals, there's no possibility for meaningful, large scale solutions.

Smartass (5/27/00, 10:19): a) The government was created based on libertarian principles, as can be seen by reading the Constitution b) The U.S. is not a democracy; it is a constitutional federal republic c) "'the government' equals 'the people'" is a nonsense statement. You are not the government and neither am I. The government has been so heavily centralized (in contradiction to the Constitution) that no individual's voice has any particular effect. d) In my experience, "meaningful, large scale solutions" refers to something bad being forced onto citizens--Hitler's "final solution" comes to mind.

xenophon41 (5/27/00, 13:23): A) and B) I read the Constitution frequently. I like the "We the People" part of it, and the part where it says Congress should lay and collect taxes to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." The government is more centralized than the framers intended, but the Constitution is not, and never was, a libertarian document C) “solution” “meaningful” “grand scale” are just words. The fact that both Hitler and I use them to justify massive powerful governments doesn't mean anything.

Smartass (5/28/00, 08:12): A) and B) You are correct--my statement was overreaching. The constitution is not libertarian per se, however it sets forth a much more libertarian government than we have in practice today C) You're right. Your position that government should impose the morals you possess on everyone is not anything like what Hitler's government did.

xenophon41(5/28/00, 14:21): C) You're just calling me names because that's what Libertarians do when they know they're wrong. If you knew how to debate, you’d answer my argument that government should use its power to solve social problems using citizens money, even if the citizens are too stupid to appreciate it.

Smartass (5/29/00, 06:32): If the government decides what society's problems are and forces citizens to solve them by government methods, then it is like Hitler's Germany, though obviously not as extreme. People are offended by Hitler's totalitarian government because they believe it was wrong for him to take away freedom and life from Jewish people, among other things. It is also wrong for the U.S. government to take away freedom from its citizens, even if the case is less severe.

xenophon41 (5/29/00, 12:27): Unless Libertarians define "totalitarian" differently from everyone else who uses the word, this is not a totalitarian government. Either show me how our government resembles Nazi Germany in any fundamentally oppressive way or shut up.

Smartass (5/30/00, 10:48): I haven't said we have a totalitarian government. However, with each passing day, our government is moving closer to total control and farther from freedom. In the same way, Hitler did not achieve totalitarianism all at once. Here are some examples of moves toward totalitarianism and away from freedom: a) Government takes away almost half our incomes and spends the money as it pleases. b) The President sends our armed forces into combat on a whim, without a formal declaration of war. c) It's hard for third party candidates to get on the ballot, 'cause the two major parties set the rules. d) Those who have displeased the state are deprived of many of their rights for life e) We imprison people who have harmed no one but themselves. f) There are federal laws that allow search and seizure of property without credible evidence of a crime having been committed.

xenophon41 (5/30/00, 18:54): a) You are not forced to pay taxes--you can always leave the country. By staying, you are choosing to pay taxes, and it's only a third of your income. You are free to try to change the system. b) There are constitutional limits to the President's authority and political checks and balances that prevent him from abusing it. c) This is not totalitarian. d) You cannot enforce laws without violating some rights e) If you don't like the law, write your congressman. f) Yeah, that sucks. It's an example of the failure of the market. Without government control, law enforcement would be worse.

Smartass (6/01/00, 09:11): a) Yes, over a third, if you only consider federal income taxes. And I am trying to change the system. Your theory of social contract places no bound on the authority to tax. By this reasoning, it would be perfectly okay for the government to take all of our money. b) The President has gone beyond those limits, and the checks and balances aren't stopping him. Libertarians believe in enforcing Constituional limits; if you were as big a supporter of the Constitution as you claim to be, you would support these libertarian ideas. c) Third parties are excluded and marginalized by the two ruling parties. Unless the U.S. actually becomes totalitarian, I guess any moves in that direction are okay with you. d) I was referring to the fact that after criminals have paid their "debt" and been returned to society, their full rights as citizens are not restored, including the right to bear arms. e) The fact that the government is not totalitarian does not negate the fact that it is moving away from freedom and toward totalitarianism. f) I have not said that government should not be involved in law enforcement. Libertarians believe that oversight of law enforcement is an appropriate use of government. But that oversight must focus on the protection of individual rights, not the violation of them.

xenophon41 (6/01/00, 15:29): By your extremely broad definition of "totalitarian," any conceivable government that restricts the rights of any citizen, even a libertarian government, would have to be considered as moving toward totalitarianism.

Smartass (6/02/00, 08:56): A libertarian government would not be moving toward or away from totalitarianism, because the level of rights abridgement that the government is allowed is defined from the start.

xenophon41 (6/04/00, 22:20): So, you're defining "abridgement of rights" to be whatever the government doesn't do. George Orwell would be so proud!

Smartass (6/05/00, 08:38): I am not redefining any words. I'm saying that since a libertarian government would be designed with the sole purpose of protecting individual rights, it could not move toward totalitarianism without violating it's mandate.

Smartass wrapup: Most of the confusion in this part of the conversation was caused by a comparison I made at the beginning and now regret because you have so completely misunderstood it. It started when I said that violating the rights of citizens and taking their money to apply to "solving society's problems" was offensive for the same reason that Hitler's totalitarian government was offensive. You then wanted me to prove that the U.S. is totalitarian. Why, I have no idea, since I never said that it was. What I did try to convey is small, medium, and large violations of citizens by government are all offensive. The fact that they are not as large in the U.S. as they were in the Third Reich, does not take away from the fact that they are offensive and the level of violation is growing each year.

Subsquabble # 3
"Solutions to society's problems - Are government people the only ones smart (and caring) enough to come up with them?"

Smartass (5/26/00, 19:53): Libertarianism seeks to allow people to choose how their money can be spent to help others by keeping government out of social programs.

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 08:52): Being a cynical bastard, I'm pretty sure social programs would receive about the same level of voluntary contributions as PBS pledge drives do.

Smartass (5/26/00 21:15): Well if people think feeding the hungry is no more important than public TV, then why aren't we dividing money equally between the two causes? Government supposed to spend money in ways that matches the will of the people, right?

xenophon41 (5/26/00, 23:15): I don't quite understand your remark about dividing your money. In any case, I think people would contribute a small amount of their income to programs they like, which means only the most popular programs would receive funding, people on the whole being short-sighted.

Smartass (5/27/00, 10:19): Why would you want to fund unpopular programs?

xenophon41 (5/27/00, 13:23): One of the reasons we have any type of government is to establish direction and rule of law, because people are short-sighted. Most people don't appreciate the problems of society the way I do, and they are not smart enough to come up with solutions. Even if you offer them solutions, I don't trust them to support them of their own free will. If this means I am elitist, then I am elitist. However, I am not disdainful of my fellow man; I just recognize that it is necessary to force him to do what is right.

Smartass (5/28/00, 08:12): Those of us who are educated enough to examine these issues know that your social programs do more harm than good. Your attitude toward your fellow humans is totally at odds with the spirit under which this country was founded. Until you give equal respect to the opinions of others, regardless of education, you will have no conception of the value of freedom, and will remain undeserving of it.

xenophon41 (5/28/00, 14:21): Obviously, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some opinions are better than others. Actual decisions must be made by the people who are properly well-informed. The fact that I am unwilling to let people make their own decisions doesn't mean I lack respect for them as individuals. But let's try it your way and allow people the chance to make bad decisions; I'm sure all caring citizens will have plenty of time to break away from their jobs to adequately research these controversial topics.

Smartass (5/29/00, 06:32): Maybe they will make good and bad decisions. Do you have to be a physicist or an engineer to buy a tv? People do not need to be experts in social policy before they can spend their money on social causes they support.

xenophon41 (5/29/00, 12:27): Your analogy is false. You're comparing understanding sociological phenomena to shopping for a consumer product. Social policy cannot be set by individuals contributing to whatever program sounds good. A scientific approach must be used--in fact, it must be the scientific approach I recommend: [polysyllabic claptrap]

Smartass (5/30/00, 10:48): Why do you insist that solutions be complicated, and why do you assume that each person has to understand every aspect of a solution for it to be implemented? Sometimes a solution is simple. How many of these complicated solutions, so far, have managed to solve more problems than they cause?

xenophon41 (5/30/00, 18:54): I'm sorry that you are not bright enough to understand that the solution strategy I have offered is the only one that will work. Let me try to make it simple so someone as stupid as you can understand: Even when we treat the symptoms, we still have to find out why bad social conditions happen and what can change those conditions before we can do any good.

Smartass (6/01/00, 09:11): On what basis do you conclude that your solution strategy is the only one that will work? Why is the government the only group smart enough to pursue a scientific strategy? High-tech companies are able to produce, and improve, complicated devices like computers and TV's (using science), and without requiring everyone who purchases them to be electrical engineers.

xenophon41 (6/01/00, 15:29): <howls of derisive laughter> WTF are you talking about?!! Computers and TV's are consumer products designed to fit specific lists of consumer expectations. Nobody has to know how these things work in order to purchase them. Only the people that make them have to understand how they work. You're an idiot.

Smartass (6/02/00, 08:56): You're just being stubborn and refusing to recognize the analogy. Social policies are also complicated products designed to meet the expectations of the people who pay for them. Nobody has to know how they work in order to purchase them. Only the people who are implementing them have to understand how they work.

xenophon41 (6/04/00, 22:20): So what you are doing is comparing researching solutions to social ills to shopping for a computer or tv. This is asinine.

Smartass (6/05/00, 08:38): No. I am comparing researching solutions to social ills to designing a computer or TV. I am comparing deciding which programs to support with deciding which computer or TV to buy.

xeno's wrapup: Shut up. Go sell your magic act to some other sucker.

Smartass's wrapup: I remain unconvinced that government is required for intelligent thought to occur. And I remain unconvinced that people are too irresponsible to support valuable social programs if not forced. And you're efforts to convince me that there is only one way to approach social problems may be the most ridiculous discussion I've ever had.

Main Argument
"Should the government be responsible for solving social problems?"

Since you feel comfortable misrepresenting my position, I feel comfortable misrepresenting yours:

Smartass sez: Plank 1: Government exists to protect the freedom of the people. People do not exist to support the freedom of the government. Every individual is equally entitled to freedom. The best way to grant equal freedom to everyone is by guaranteeing "natural" rights to life, liberty, and property. Government should be restricted to protecting these rights. Plank 2: Performing these functions is not expensive enough to require a national income tax. However, even if there were no other options, such an income tax would be very small. Plank 3: Governments are less suited to addressing complex problems than markets. If markets and individuals are left free of government interference, individuals will be able to leverage the power of the market to address social problems as they see fit.

xenophon41 sez: It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine to be necessary and vital. Without centralized control and forced contributions, people cannot be trusted to have the competence and moral uprightness to provide for programs that I deem to be necessary and vital. Even if they did, since there is only one way to solve social problems, the programs would resemble government in so many ways as to be indistinguishable from government. My solution is more efficient and more matches my moral beliefs: Government should give people what they want, even if they don't know that they want it, and don't want government to give it to them.

Xenophon, we can continue this debate if you like. It may be that after these two posts, we better understand each other's positions. Or it may be that my stubbornness and stupidity make this a waste of your valuable time.

Obviously, there are 3 or 4 people watching this thread who support your positions automatically. However, I would be interested in other evaluations of the debate so far. Consider this a call to any other people lurking here to post your opinion. Am I being totally unreasonable? Is Xenophon? Is either one of us clearly "winning" this debate?

-VM

hawthorne

06-07-2000, 09:51 AM

Okay, haven't posted in a while in this thread, so here goes.

First, xenophon41, as a fanatical moderate myself, I think you're doing fine, but I also think Smartass is doing fairly well. In my experience, for a libertarian he is honest and open to (reluctant) recognition of the limitations his arguments.

Now, to remark on both your closing paragraphs (my comments in italics)

xenophon41 sez: It is okay (indeed, it is required) for a central government to use taxpayer money to fund programs which the representatives of the taxpayers determine through investigative processes to be necessary and vital.

Sure, as long as those processes are any good at picking which programmes are necessary and vital. If the current system in your or my country has a track record of funding counterproductive or overly expensive programmes, it is time to take a look at the process. Representative government of itself is unlikely to do well here. My guess is that you and I would be in favour of better investigative processes and pressure to bring about such processes, whereas Smartass would think that better processes are wishful thinking, and would rather limit government.

Any replacement to governmentally run social efforts would require some central control, a central process by which both popular will and objective need could be evaluated, a reliable source of funding, mandated continuity, and accountability to representatives of the citizens funding the effort. In short, any replacement to government in this case would resemble government in so many ways as to be indistinguishable from government.

Nicely put. I take this to mean that the rule of law must be supported by lots of people to work and that informal as well as formal rules and codes of behaviour are required for a society to work, and that a living, breathing democracy can achieve this in a way that an "enforce property rights" automaton could not.

Now Smartass: Government exists to protect the freedom of the people. This is what you think they should do. Others disagree.

People do not exist to support the freedom of the government. I don't know what this means. If you mean that the activities of governments should be judged according to the (broadly defined) welfare of the people, I don't think anyone's against you on this.

Every individual is equally entitled to freedom. The best way to grant equal freedom to everyone is by guaranteeing "natural" rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only true if everyone accepts your definition of freedom, which they don't, and if everyone agrees that only freedom matters, which they don't. The "natural rights idea is still pretty silly. Rights emerge from societies. A lone individual in the wild has no rights.

Government should be restricted to protecting these rights. same again

Plank 2: Performing these functions is not expensive enough to require a national income tax. unknown However, even if there were no other options, such an income tax would be very small. Obviously true, although income taxes are not obviously worse than other taxes (yep, I teach tax theory).

Plank 3: Governments are less suited to addressing complex problems than markets. Some complex problems, probably not others. BTW I agree that government intervention is most likely to work if it harnesses or at least takes account of market forces.

If markets and individuals are left free of government interference, individuals will be able to leverage the power of the market to address social problems as they see fit.

This can be seen in two ways: (i) by definition they will have solved social problems, since otherwise they would act differently; (ii) large groups of individuals will solve market failure problems.

Taking (ii) to be the serious option, this is xenophon41's point (end of his summing-up paragraph): they will agree to be bound by certain rules to solve certain problems. Newcomers will be expected to adhere to those rules. A decision-making system which is flexible enough to address problems that arise, but contains safeguards to prevent gross abuse will be adopted (if they're real lucky). Look around: the system with the best track record is: majority decision making subject to investigative processes, a constitution and the rule of law.

picmr

xenophon41

06-07-2000, 11:51 AM

picmr, I think you've summed it up very well. Thank you. I agree with your assessment of the track records of government funded programs, and also with your assumption that I'm in favor of improving the processes by which government establishes need and effectiveness, rather than shifting responsibility to private sectors.

Smartass, I intended to piss you off a bit with my analyses. I think we've spent far too much time speaking ideologically here when the OP that started us off was addressing the real effect that a practical application of libertarian principles would have on society. If I've occasionally come across as extreme in my defense of "big government" it has been while responding to your polemic attacks on what seem to many of us to be quite reasonable functions of government.

I know from many of your statements to me and to others that you are not, in fact, as hard-line in your thinking as the stances you've taken in our argument. However, when your responses take the form of "slippery slope" arguments that any federal involvement leads inevitably to totalitarianism, or that if I support the idea of strong central government I don't deserve to be free, then you should expect some vehemence in my reply.

Smartass, you're an obviously intelligent and passionate person. Many of your arguments could be quite persuasive if you admitted some of their limitations when you presented them. Personally, I think your arguments in favor of civil liberty are very strong (in fact we probably agree on most of those points), but I think your arguments regarding the efficacy of the market in protecting the health and welfare of workers are very weak. Many other points you make are certainly worthy of debate, and this might be pleasurable if you joined in examining each argument presented instead of trying to represent the libertarian philosophy at all times.

In any case, I would thoroughly enjoy debating/arguing/discussing more topics with you. I just think I've exhausted my ability to contribute any more of value to this particular thread.

Smartass

06-07-2000, 01:53 PM

xenophon41:

I think we've spent far too much time speaking ideologically here when the OP that started us off was addressing the real effect that a practical application of libertarian principles would have on society.

I agree. However, the nature of the OP was not a consideration of libertarian principles--it was just an attack on them, as has been much of the debate in this thread. I will say this, though: If you guys can back out of attack mode, I can try like hell to back myself out of counterattack mode.

I think your arguments regarding the efficacy of the market in protecting the health and welfare of workers are very weak.

If my arguments were that markets would protect health and welfare, then they would just be silly. Markets are tools for achieving society's goals, as are governments. My arguments are that, for most problems, markets are better tools than governments. Both of our arguments rely on people wanting to achieve the goals being discussed. In those cases where government action is the only way to get the problem addressed, I would argue that the focus should still be on taking advantage of markets--specifically, competition--to achieve the desired goals.

Now, if we were going to create Libertaria, then government would be kept out of the social welfare business from the start. However, this is not an attainable goal, and you would not desire it if it were. Alternatively, if we were going to create Socialaria (or whatever you prefer to call it), then government would have first rights to everything we all produce from the start. However, this has been shown not to work very well, and I certainly would not desire it.

The question then becomes, can we rationally discuss some sort of compromise position? During calm moments, I have been trying to point the way in this direction. For instance, I have said that federal welfare is offensive to me and that the Constitution does not authorize the government to do this. On the other hand, the Constitution does not prohibit individual states from implementing it. So, let's say that we eliminated welfare as a federal function but did not disallow states from providing this function. Hell, we can even require that states take some action in this regard.

Advantages, from your perspective:
There is still government provision for those that are abandoned by the market.
Since state governments can require and collect taxes, programs are not allowed to founder because of general public apathy.
The voters are still able to use government as a tool to accomplish social goals, only in this case it is the state government that is the tool.

Advantages, from my perspective:
Distributing this function helps alleviate the tendency of government programs to grow massive and unchangeable.
Having the different states able to approach the problem in different ways at the same time introduces an element of competition into the mix. States can copy successful approaches tried in other states, while dropping those that can be seen, by comparison, to be ineffective.
My lonely vote is that much more effective because the decision is being made by a much smaller pool of voters.

To me, this represents a reasonable compromise position from which to start. I'm thinking that if we try to figure out a place where we can agree, maybe we can start talking about ways to accomplish the noble goals that you aspire to without necessarily having to rip all my libertarian ideals to shreds.

Who knows, maybe enough of us can ban together and get this insane drug war stopped. It is not the goal of the libertarian party to make everyone in the U.S. subjects of the market. Libertarians want a better world the same as everybody else, but we also don't want to lose sight of the principles that have gotten us this far. Rather than try to fight and overcome those aspects of human nature that make markets work, we would rather use them to our advantage.

It is usually the case of libertarian thought that, on first glance, it sounds like a massive implementation of survival of the fittest. However, when you start digging a little deeper, you realize that we are not blind to social problems and societal concerns. We just approach dealing with them from a different perspective. We operate in a different paradigm.

Thoughts?

-VM

Smartass

06-08-2000, 06:59 AM

Hi, picmr, thanks for the eval. I wrote this before Xenophon's post yesterday, and then forget to post it while I was responding to him.

A few remarks:

My guess is that you and I would be in favour of better investigative processes and pressure to bring about such processes, whereas Smartass would think that better processes are wishful thinking, and would rather limit government.

With respect to my opinion, you are correct, sir.

I take this to mean that the rule of law must be supported by lots of people to work and that informal as well as formal rules and codes of behaviour are required for a society to work, and that a living, breathing democracy can achieve this in a way that an "enforce property rights" automaton could not.

That is not how I interpret his statements, although if it were, I would agree with the first part of it. However, to reduce libertarianism to "an 'enforce property rights' automaton" is is to overlook a significant part of the core of the philosophy and a great deal of libertarian thought.

Government exists to protect the freedom of the people. This is what you think they should do. Others disagree.

I don't deny it. However, not only do I think this, the people who wrote our constitution, while not exactly libertarians, also thought it.

People do not exist to support the freedom of the government. I don't know what this means. If you mean that the activities of governments should be judged according to the (broadly defined) welfare of the people, I don't think anyone's against you on this.

Broadly speaking, it means that the citizens should not be made servants of the government. It is because of the tendency of reasonable people to disagree that I think it is ridiculous to expect a government to be able to represent all of their interests or welfare. Better to let them represent their own welfare and the government protect their freedom.

Every individual is equally entitled to freedom. The best way to grant equal freedom to everyone is by guaranteeing "natural" rights to life, liberty, and property.

Only true if everyone accepts your definition of freedom, which they don't, and if everyone agrees that only freedom matters, which they don't. The "natural rights idea is still pretty silly. Rights emerge from societies. A lone individual in the wild has no rights.

I can't think of a definition of freedom that shares as much freedom as possible with every individual, and no one has offered an alternative that is enforceable. Any other definition requires one person's freedom to take precedence over another's. Also, it is not that only freedom matters, but that, without freedom, most everything else that matters becomes increasingly unattainable. Finally, I put the word "natural" in quotes, because I don't think that whether or not the rights are natural is important. What is important is that recognition of these rights leads to a fair and equal distribution of maximum freedom to everyone.

Performing these functions is not expensive enough to require a national income tax. unknown However, even if there were no other options, such an income tax would be very small. Obviously true, although income taxes are not obviously worse than other taxes (yep, I teach tax theory).

I have never said that government should be free; I have said that it shouldn't be ridiculously expensive.

Some complex problems, probably not others. BTW I agree that government intervention is most likely to work if it harnesses or at least takes account of market forces.

I think we are definitely in some agreement here. Our differences are about what situations should prompt government action.

Taking (ii) to be the serious option, this is xenophon41's point (end of his summing-up paragraph): they will agree to be bound by certain rules to solve certain problems. Newcomers will be expected to adhere to those rules. A decision-making system which is flexible enough to address problems that arise, but contains safeguards to prevent gross abuse will be adopted (if they're real lucky). Look around: the system with the best track record is: majority decision making subject to investigative processes, a constitution and the rule of law.

I think you are juxtaposing arguments for the existence of government and arguments about what functions it should serve. If the social problem you are referring to is protecting freedom, then all this applies. However, in and of itself, this line of reasoning does not place any boundary on government. The majority could decide that the lack of microwave ovens in every household was a social problem, or take collective ownership of all property. The reason libertarians limit government functions to the protection of freedom is that these are the functions that may only be achieved through use of force. Government force cannot be applied without violating the rights it was created to protect, so we require strong justifcation for these violations. Generally speaking, the only justification for this use of force is in protection of these rights.

Other social problems that do not involve rights violations can be addressed without the use of government force. I do not accept the premise that in order for social problems to be addressed, they must be addressed from some central authority. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to support that top-down solutions just don't work very well, while market-based solutions work better than anything else humans have tried.

And, you are correct that I don't delude myself into thinking that markets are always perfect or always produce correct results. However, they are a lot more perfect than governments and, given time, generally produce much better results.

As for those situations where markets fail, which are pretty few and far between, I agree there is a quandary. For one thing, how do you establish that the market has failed, as opposed to having just not made corrections yet? How can you intervene without making the problems worse? I don't know, but I'm not prepared to scrap libertarianism because I can't anwer these questions.

Lastly, as far as the social issues being discussed in this thread, I haven't seen any reason to suppose that markets will fail in addressing them. I've just been accused of selling snake oil for believing that they won't.

-VM

xenophon41

06-08-2000, 07:55 AM

The question then becomes, can we rationally discuss some sort of compromise position? During calm moments, I have been trying to point the way in this direction. For instance, I have said that federal welfare is offensive to me and that the Constitution does not authorize the government to do this. On the other hand, the Constitution does not prohibit individual states from implementing it. So, let's say that we eliminated welfare as a federal function but did not disallow states from providing this function. Hell, we can even require that states take some action in this regard.

Well now I'm just confused. While I certainly agree that many federal programs could be successfully handled at the state level --with federal oversight-- I find it a bit unnerving to see you suggest that a government action you consider a violation of your individual rights is ok when done by a state government but not by the federal government. (Did Mrs. Smartass sneak over to the computer and write that?) (Just kidding...)

As far as welfare programs go, I think experimentation and reform at the state level is a very good thing. It's important, though, to realize that without federal funding, Minnesota's successful experimentation would not have been possible. Other federal programs must by necessity stay firmly at the federal level, particularly the regulatory commissions and agencies (FCC, FAA, OSHA/MSHA, EPA, etc.) that need to provide consistent application of trade laws and civil rights protection.

It is usually the case of libertarian thought that, on first glance, it sounds like a massive implementation of survival of the fittest. However, when you start digging a little deeper, you realize that we are not blind to social problems and societal concerns. We just approach dealing with them from a different perspective. We operate in a different paradigm.
Thoughts?

There is nothing to preclude government programming from working in concert with business and industry; in fact this type of involvement is the rule rather than the exception. I see the basic flaw in libertarian philosophy ( I do not say Libertarian party platform; that's a different issue) to be that it does not recognize the key role a democratic process indeed has in reflecting and enforcing the will of the majority. Every type of government is a compromise between social good and individual rights. IMHO, no government has ever walked the fine line between those two high goals with greater success than the US (obviously those from other democratic --or even socialist-- countries may have different opinions!). However, the line exists, the compromise must be made over and over again, and it is my considered and firm belief that only strong government involvement in the market allows this balance to be maintained.

Smartass

06-08-2000, 09:49 AM

xenophon41:

(Would it offend you if I left off the numbers? I can type your name much faster that way.)

Ah, so close...and yet, so far.

Did Mrs. Smartass sneak over to the computer and write that?

I only wish it were so. Unfortunately, for at least another 10 days, I remain about 5000 miles away from Mrs. Smartass and Baby Smartass.

While I certainly agree that many federal programs could be successfully handled at the state level --with federal oversight-- I find it a bit unnerving to see you suggest that a government action you consider a violation of your individual rights is ok when done by a state government but not by the federal government.

Yes, I can imagine that would be unnerving. Obviously, I have a political agenda. Primarily, it involves reducing government power and getting government fingers out of our lives as much as possible. I don't think you object to this in principle, but are unconvinced that the country won't go to hell in a handbasket if it were to happen. We can argue until we're both blue in the face and never get anywhere. Or, we could try reducing government power, decentralizing it a bit, and seeing what happens. Once you see that things get better instead of worse, you won't be so disturbed by the concept.

I admit, it's pretty sneaky. But remember, I'm not suggesting taking away freedom from you a little bit at a time--I'm suggesting giving it back a little at a time. Since you don't have a conflict with my ideals per se, this should not be objectionable to you. My personal goals match up pretty closely with libertarian ideals, but that doesn't mean that slow progress is preferable to no progress. And certainly preferable to negative progress, which has pretty much been the case since FDR.

It's important, though, to realize that without federal funding, Minnesota's successful experimentation would not have been possible.

You're not playing the compromise game. I'm backing off on my demands for my rights, but you're not backing off on your demands for centralized control. Why is federal funding a requirement? Can Minnesota not levy taxes equally as well? Not to mention, if federal taxes were significantly reduced, then state taxes could be raised without changing the overall tax burden. What is the advantage of adding an extra set of hands for the money to pass through?

Other federal programs must by necessity stay firmly at the federal level, particularly the regulatory commissions and agencies (FCC, FAA, OSHA/MSHA, EPA, etc.) that need to provide consistent application of trade laws and civil rights protection.

Okay, now you're definitely not playing fair. These are all separate discussions and you're already refusing to give any ground. For the record, you can see my thoughts on the EPA in the Sprawl thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26209&pagenumber=1). There are some good links at the beginning, then a bunch of sniping, and today I've started putting in some actual discussion.

There is nothing to preclude government programming from working in concert with business and industry; in fact this type of involvement is the rule rather than the exception.

Um, maybe from your paradigm it looks that way. From mine, it looks like government wants to increasingly micromanage business and industry. Naturally, in those areas where government involvement is unavoidable, I would prefer for that involvement to be at the lowest possible level of the government hierarchy, and that solution strategies would be market-based.

I see the basic flaw in libertarian philosophy to be that it does not recognize the key role a democratic process indeed has in reflecting and enforcing the will of the majority.

The assumption here would be that the decisions of the majority are correct. Libertarianism per se does not advocate or preclude majority decisions. What it does do is recognize the shortcomings of majority rule and try to minimize the damage that the majority can inflict on the minority (and itself).

IMHO, no government has ever walked the fine line between those two high goals with greater success than the US (obviously those from other democratic --or even socialist-- countries may have different opinions!).

No argument here. And we probably also agree that it could do even better. We just disagree about how.

However, the line exists, the compromise must be made over and over again, and it is my considered and firm belief that only strong government involvement in the market allows this balance to be maintained.

Obviously, I disagree. While I do not believe that you could realistically hope for no government involvement, it is my firm belief that society is better served when government endeavors to minimize its interference in market functions. Markets are complex and agile beasts. To me, trying to use stacks of regulations to control the market is like trying to redirect a stream by throwing rocks into it. A few rocks and the stream just goes around; a lot of rocks and you've created a dam. Better to decide where you want the stream to go, then make sure that the path of least resistance leads there.

-VM

xenophon41

06-08-2000, 11:29 AM

Unfortunately, for at least another 10 days, I remain about 5000 miles away from Mrs. Smartass and Baby Smartass.

My sympathies. (I'll listen to 'Sweet Home Alabama' in your honor today.)

It's important, though, to realize that without federal funding, Minnesota's successful experimentation would not have been possible.
You're not playing the compromise game. I'm backing off on my demands for my rights, but you're not backing off on your demands for centralized control. Why is federal funding a requirement? Can Minnesota not levy taxes equally as well? Not to mention, if federal taxes were significantly reduced, then state taxes could be raised without changing the overall tax burden. What is the advantage of adding an extra set of hands for the money to pass through?

Let's back the buggy up a little bit. My point is that, without the funding support from the federal tax base, Minnesota would've had nothing with which to experiment. Of course Minnesota can levy it's own taxes for this! (It's hard for me to get used to this new tax-friendly Smartass you've become!) Centralized control of each state program can come from the state legislature if you want (which still means government control, which I want), but I don't think it unreasonable to insist that federal guidelines be applied. This is consistent with the congressional duties imposed by the Constitution, and in no way constitutes a "big brother" type of demand.

Other federal programs must by necessity stay firmly at the federal level...
Okay, now you're definitely not playing fair. These are all separate discussions and you're already refusing to give any ground...

OK, I'll leave the other agencies out of this discussion. However, the fact that I recognize the right and necessity for federal regulation of interstate commerce and protection of civil rights does not mean I'm unwilling to compromise on the scope of application or on the organization of the regulatory bodies.

...Naturally, in those areas where government involvement is unavoidable, I would prefer for that involvement to be at the lowest possible level of the government hierarchy, and that solution strategies would be market-based.

From the standpoint of efficiency and minimized bureaucracy I agree with you, I really do. However, you must admit that decisions affecting the mechanisms of interstate trade and the operation of large, multistate/multinational corporations must, by constitutional directive, be made by the federal legislature under jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

[Your] assumption here would be that the decisions of the majority are correct. Libertarianism per se does not advocate or preclude majority decisions. What it does do is recognize the shortcomings of majority rule and try to minimize the damage that the majority can inflict on the minority (and itself).

The shortcomings of majority rule are the major preoccupations of our federal judicial system! The difference in this case between our present system of government and libertarianism is the way in which control of majority decisions is accomplished. Libertarianism seeks to limit the power of the majority to make decisions; our Constitution seeks to provide means to contest and overturn majority decisions through court rulings. Admittedly, there are trade-offs in both cases. A libertarianist method would prevent minority concerns from being crushed by limiting majority decision-making power, but would be less able to prevent abuses of the minority by limiting regulation. Under the US Constitution, minority concerns are frequently overruled by the majority, but the ability of the majority (or powerful) to oppress the minority (or weak) is curtailed through regulation.

While I do not believe that you could realistically hope for no government involvement, it is my firm belief that society is better served when government endeavors to minimize its interference in market functions. Markets are complex and agile beasts. To me, trying to use stacks of regulations to control the market is like trying to redirect a stream by throwing rocks into it. A few rocks and the stream just goes around; a lot of rocks and you've created a dam. Better to decide where you want the stream to go, then make sure that the path of least resistance leads there.

Believe it or not, I agree with your first sentence. Looking back on this thread, our disagreement has been about the expectations that can be placed on the market's ability to allow individuals to resolve social problems without government involvement. If I may borrow your dam analogy (read carefully; I did not say "damned analogy" ;) ), sometimes the path of least resistance in a market may be through the oppression or endangerment of a group or class of people; in that case, it is the function of government to redirect the stream, or even to dam it (dammit) in order to protect the individual rights of the people in the affected class.

Smartass

06-08-2000, 12:03 PM

xenophon:

My sympathies. (I'll listen to 'Sweet Home Alabama' in your honor today.)

Singin' songs about the Southland
I miss ole Bammy once again
And I think it's a sin...

Thanks. I'm afraid responses to the rest will have to wait 'till tomorrow.

-VM

Smartass

06-09-2000, 09:08 AM

xenophon:

It's hard for me to get used to this new tax-friendly Smartass you've become!

[*COUGH*] [*SPLUTTER*] There's no need to be insulting. [*sniff*]

Centralized control of each state program can come from the state legislature if you want (which still means government control, which I want), but I don't think it unreasonable to insist that federal guidelines be applied.

If the federal guidelines are about how, then they are unacceptable. If they are about what, then I can imagine them being acceptable. Sometimes the federal government must manage, but it should not micro-manage.

However, the fact that I recognize the right and necessity for federal regulation of interstate commerce and protection of civil rights does not mean I'm unwilling to compromise on the scope of application or on the organization of the regulatory bodies.

Now, that is a purple passage of prose. I wouldn't argue the federal government's authority over interstate commerce. However, surely you are aware that Congress and the Courts have managed to "interpret" this passage in such a way that it puts the federal government in a regulatory position over every business activity. Needless to say, I think this is absurd.

However, you must admit that decisions affecting the mechanisms of interstate trade and the operation of large, multistate/multinational corporations must, by constitutional directive, be made by the federal legislature under jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

I have no argument with this statement as it stands. I would have conerns about how it might be applied.

A libertarianist method would prevent minority concerns from being crushed by limiting majority decision-making power...

Sounds like the Bill of Rights. Once again, if you want to talk about pure libertarian philosophy, it doesn't prescribe, as far as I know, how government decisions are made. That is to say, majority decisions per se are not dissallowed. As you say, the ability of the majority to oppress the minority is limited by the establishment of "inalienable" individual rights, and the courts, theoretically, should overturn decisions that violate them without Constitutional justification.

In other words, the Constitution is naturally laid out to provide for a government that is very much in keeping with libertarian ideals. That is why most libertarians are not screaming for a Constitutional convention. Rather, we are screaming for the Constitution to be upheld.

If I may borrow your dam analogy (read carefully; I did not say "damned analogy" ), sometimes the path of least resistance in a market may be through the oppression or endangerment of a group or class of people; in that case, it is the function of government to redirect the stream, or even to dam it (dammit) in order to protect the individual rights of the people in the affected class.

If you don't like my damn analogy, just say so.

Sounds like we are indeed in agreement in a lot of ways. I did not say that government is never to redirect the flow--I said that government should not try to redirect the flow by throwing rocks at it. Remember also that dams don't stop the flow--they're just really big rocks.

wrt your example, proper protection of individual rights would not allow the course of least resistance to be the oppression of a group or class of people.

********************************

Okay, I'm about burned out here, and I'm also hitting crunch time on my Germany project. The purpose of this foray into state funding of welfare was to show you that, while you may have issues with pure libertarian philosophy, the goals of the Libertarian Party are not so extreme as you may think they are. You've actually basically agreed here to one of the goals of the Libertarian Presidential candidate. Here's a quote (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/stands/welfare.htm) from Harry Brown's campaign site (http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/):

The only reform worthy of the name is to get the federal government out of welfare altogether -- just as the Constitution dictates -- and leave local governments to return to the "temporary expedient" view of welfare.

I actually thought about going through a bunch of issues and showing you how it wasn't that much of a stretch for you to agree with positions taken by the Libertarian Party. But, I think we would both get bored with it, and I really don't have the time.

What I hope you'll carry away from all this:
Libertarians are not extremist nuts: We do not want to abolish the government and we don't want to starve all the less fortunate.
Debates about libertarian philosophy don't directly translate into political aims. This thread started off on philosophical issues and got confusing when we started translating them directly into policy. The philosophical position is fairly simple to understand and attack/defend. In terms of actual political goals resulting from the philosophy, it gets more complicated. Libertarians often disagree among themselves about implementation while still agreeing on the importance of individual rights.
After a period of ridiculous sniping, we discovered that our core values and goals aren't particularly different, which leads to
The end goals of libertarians are not significantly different from your end goals--we just have different ideas about how they can be achieved.
If you look at the complete list of Libertarian party goals, I think you will find that you agree with some and disagree with others, much as you would when considering Democratic and Republican candidates. However, I think you would probably find more to like in the Libertarian Party's platform.
Part of understanding Libertarian positions requires stepping back from a lot of assumptions that many Americans have been raised with. At the very least, if you will try to think to yourself, libertarians do not want to ruin the country, they want to make it better--as do I, then you will be able to consider our positions in a fairer light.
There is a great deal of merit to approaching problems from less of an interventionist standpoint. Rather than just saying, "How can we attack this problem?" I urge you to consider saying "What kind of solutions can we come up with that minimize impositions on people's freedom?"

Finally, I'd like to share a little personal information:

I have been a subscriber to Newsweek for many years. I maintain this subscription because it is rarely convenient--or enjoyable--for me to do too much TV news watching or newspaper reading, but I want to have at least a general notion of what's going on in the world. On the other hand, it annoys me to get just pieces of news stories, or to only see issues from what seems to be one side.

I don't remember exactly how it happened, but I subscribed to Reason Magazine because I wanted to get more discussion. I wanted to see some arguments that consider the issues from more sides. At the time, I didn't know a libertarian from a hole in the ground, but I really enjoyed the way they dug into issues and presented a lot more detail. And I was duly impressed by how many articles are written by people or focus on people whose names end with "Ph.D.". I also liked the way they presented the full text of reader comments and rebuttals from other people. Sometimes the writers of the articles will respond to these letters, so it is like a debate. At first, the positions being taken by the authors seemed a little nutty and extremist to me.

Maybe they brainwashed me. As years have gone by, I have noticed that the positions being taken make more sense to me now, and that the authors seem less nutty, while the Newsweek articles seem more and more slanted (Time reads like a pure political tract to me).

In retrospect, it seems to me that I have sort of "wandered into" libertarianism. The problem is that, in this type of forum, I cannot really distill the complexity of libertarian thought or fully explore the background of libertarian positions. In trying to, I think I often just wind up coming off as some kind of lunatic. It doesn't help that I enjoy picking apart other people's positions more I enjoy trying to make them understand mine. I think Libertarian has an even harder time than I do because he often can't even imagine where the other side is coming from.

I encourage you not to, like many posters on this board, dismiss libertarianism as a bunch of magical thinkers and to expose yourself to libertarian thought. With time, I think you will see the sense of it, too.

Oh, and vote for Harry Browne in the meantime. If nothing else, you can help send the message to Democrats and Republicans that we think they are assholes.

-VM