And conservatives want government to do less than necessary.
Define necessary, and this thread is, well, unnecessary.
Visit the DMV, the VA, or the military and report to us how the government embodies efficiency.
I could ask you to define “necessary”, but I can see that this is quickly going nowhere. The problem is that phrases like “doing only what is necessary” have the noble ring of objectivity whereas in fact they are used by the right to disguise the unpalatable aspects of their social antipathy, their willful disregard of things like poverty, malnourishment, and lack of health care in wide swaths of society. There is a radically different view between the two basic ideologies of just what is actually necessary to have an optimally beneficent and peaceful society. In fact the far-right conservative places no value on societal interests whatsoever, but merely seeks to have the government protect his immediate life and property and leave everything else to the anarchy of the jungle.
How about this: “necessary” = things only the government can do. The conservative position, then, would be that the government shouldn’t be doing anything that private individuals or organizations can do as well or better.
I’m not sure this distinction works, totally, but I think it’s along the lines of what many conservatives are getting at when they say they want the government to do as little as necessary.
Burn those strawmen!!!
It’s certainly true that the poor are not a monolith (and neither are the rich). But I don’t think there are many people that believe they are.
-
I never used the word “efficiency”. I used the word “necessary”, which has quite a different meaning.
-
Visit any large multinational corporation and report to us how any massive bureaucracy is, on average, efficient. Are you familiar with Dilbert?
-
There is a pragmatic matter of what governments do well and what private enterprise does well. Review the statistics on health care costs in any advanced country on earth and compare them to the US. Many of those countries actually have better health outcomes, too. The differences are staggering. In terms of strict regulation or direct operation of universal single-payer, governments do the job best because health care is fundamentally uniform and amenable to simple standardization – if it’s medically necessary, it’s paid for at a standard rate, done. It’s the marvelous private system that wastes billions jumping through hoops and creating paperwork mazes and untold frustrations for doctors and patients as they devote themselves to the time-honored task of trying to avoid payment.
“Can do as well” or “are doing as well”? Let’s say that private individuals and organizations are capable of addressing a problem but are not doing so. Does that give the government license to address the problem?
What is “necessary” about $27.6 million in payments for conservation, disaster relief and crop subsidies to dead people?
https://www.coats.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/-coats-federal-payments-to-dead-people-must-stop
Not much.
But what percentage of the annual federal budget is this? It would be invisible on a chart. And do you have any familiarity at all with the operations of multinational corporations? I have personally witnessed the complete waste of almost twice that amount on a single stupid ill-advised project in a private corporation. And I’m sure there are far worse examples in both government and private enterprise.
As I’ve already said, government is very good at some things, not others. It’s certainly good at running single-payer universal health insurance for everyone and reliably paying the bills. It’s good at administering social policy for the general benefit of society. It’s not particularly good at running profitable corporations, although in terms of innovation, it did somehow manage to send men to the moon, landers to Mars, and robotic explorers to every planet in the solar system, and put GPS satellites and remarkable telescopes in orbit around the earth, advance medical technology and our state of knowledge of ourselves and the world we live in, and extend our quality and longevity of life on it. It’s even done a little toward social justice and equality of opportunity here on earth. Maybe it’s more useful than you think. Maybe there’s more to government than just armies and police forces and the removal of the starving poor from your park benches.
Private health insurance has utterly failed to offer affordable coverage for a large portion of the population, and increasingly expensive and inadequate insurance for the rest of the country. Therefore health insurance is a necessary function of the federal government.
I don’t really understand how we apply the “liberal” and “conservative” labels to current life and politics. As far as I can tell, “conservatives” are opposed to government involvement. Yet the GOP, who is conservative? seems quite determined to regulate people’s sex lives and personal choices in life, down to whether they can buy dildos and which bathroom they use. How is that getting government out of people’s lives?
I think I’m a conservative, but I do not see any current politician or party that actually supports “Get government out of your life” values.
The labels encompass too much.
Pandering to religious organizations.
Libertarians operate on “get government out of your life.” Most people get scared of the drastic proposals they usually make. 3rd parties seem unable to grasp tact in campaigning.
If that’s the case, then one person stating what other folks not themselves assume is completely counter productive. Arrogant even.
Maybe there’s not. Why is your position automatically correct?
Certainly. That’s why I started the thread - I want conservatives to correct any misconceptions I and other liberals have about them, and I want to help correct any misconceptions that conservatives have about liberals.
If that was the goal it’s going quite poorly. It’s like a parade of strawmen.
There have been some good responses, and good corrections, among all the chaff. Please feel free to help if you see any misconceptions, especially from me.
Or, if you’d prefer, I guess you could just shit all over the thread.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to threadshit - I’m trying to course correct. I think it’s a solid thread topic. Though anything along the lines of [someone other than me] thinks X is contrary to its purpose, right?
I don’t think liberals or conservatives or any other group has enough cohesiveness to nail down a group wide underlying assumption for their positions. There will be overlap sure, but given the nature of this thread the generalizations seem unintentionally ironic. I would have liked the ground rules to be that someone can only state positions of a group if they self identify with that group.
I’ll respond more substantively later.