If they’re not, who is? You think the government is doing an efficient job of any of these things? Or that it is producing something for nothing?
Most of the time, I don’t need most public services. If I was only spending money on things I actually needed, I would have a lot more disposable income. You would have more money to give to the poor, or support starving artists, and you could choose which causes you support, so that more of your money would go to the causes that are most important to you.
Canada has capitated the price of medicine. Medical companies are able to charge more than production costs, but not enough to fund research and development. If American medicine prices were capitated in this way, the companies would have to charge more to Canadians, thus making some medicines unavailable. And, without Americans paying the research and development costs, how many new medicines do you think would be invented?
But of course I’m not pleased that the numbers of poor go up. What is your point? Are you claiming a causative relationship between aid programs and economic status? Or, if you’re not saying that government aid causes poverty, then are you under the impression that programs such as WIC or school lunches or social security are designed and intended to reduce poverty?
While I disagree with your statement that Social Security is “guaranteed” to be bankrupt (I’ve been hearing this since 1970), I totally agree that you can do better. 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. The original idea, while inconsistent with Libertarian ideals, was very good. Sure, it’s been used to fund programs for which it was never intended. If this had been a Libertarian country we wouldn’t even have the remnants of the program.
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. Which means only the more popular causes would get funding, people on the whole being short sighted (not a cynical remark, just an opinion borne out by observation). (Remember your Dickens? “Are there no workhouses for the poor?” Bah!)
I’m not sure I follow the logical path that got you to “divide the money equally” between public television and feeding the poor.
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. Making national concerns the responsibility of concerned individuals instead of the government takes away any chance for meaningful solutions on a large scale.
For most people, most of the time, the idea that they are not using public services to the limit they could is correct. That should not mean they ‘get their money back’. I would have shared that opinion eight months ago, along with the one that insurance is useless if you aren’t going to get hurt. I was also not too fond of educational scholarships for people who were unable to pay for schooling.
And then I got really sick. And watched my friend get thrown out of her nice Christian home for dating an atheist. And all sorts of other wonderful things that this last bit of time has handed my not-so-immortal-now personage.
I am glad that most of those services are there, even if they are abused, especially if most people are lucky enough to never have to use them. The mandated saftey net is an indication that society wants to take care of its less fortunates. That is how democracy works, supposedly. It echoes the ideals of the people. Evidently, we want to know that our populace is being educated, fed, clothed, and sheltered to the best of our aility to support. 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 think that we should get away from the idea that programs for the poor are going to keep everyone from being poor. Didn’t Jesus say, in one of his many profound moments, that there would always be poor people?
I don’t think that it’s possible to have a purely capitalistic system without having a group of people at the bottom who don’t have enough to get by. It’s not really a group of people so much as a percentage of people. So even if one person pulls himself up by his bootstraps and climbs above the poverty line, the line just moves up to include one more person.
This same system that allows, say, 10% of the people to have less than they need, allows 90% of the people to have more than they need. (I’m way oversimplifying here.) Therefore, I think that the 90% owes it to the 10% to see to it that they have enough to get by. (Man, this would be easier if I could draw some graphs.)
But Doc, you’re saying, why should the government enforce that obligation? Don’t you have enough faith in humanity to believe that those 90% would take care of that 10%? No, frankly, I don’t. For one thing, I don’t think most people think the same way I do–they think that if all the poor people would just stop being lazy, there wouldn’t be any poor people. For another thing, the government should ideally be in a better position to identify that 10% and their needs. (That isn’t to say that they always do a great job of either.)
Personal charity would probably work in a balanced community. If there were, say, 100 of us, and we could see that 10 of them didn’t have enough to get by, the other 90 would probably step up and help out. We don’t have balanced communities, though–our “communities” tend to be made up of people at about the same economic level. The poor people aren’t “us”, they’re “them”, and people aren’t as willing to be charitable toward one of “them” as one of “us”. 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.)
So to sum up, 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”. Flame away.
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!
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.
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?
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?
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!
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?
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!
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.
I don’t think they are designed to reduce poverty, but that is how they are marketed.
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%.
This was a libertarian country. Read the Constitution, of which we seem to have only remnants.
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.
Why would you want to fund causes that people don’t care about?
You said that no more people would contribute to feeding the poor than contribute to PBS.
-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.
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:
And its success is an indication that government can’t provide this service.
Actually, a democracy echoes the ideals of the majority.
And, evidently, we are willing to pay massive amounts of money to fail to achieve this.
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:
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.
And it’s okay to force them to act as if they do.
So, if I see a starving person in my hometown, I should ignore him until the government, from Washington, has “identified” him?
Libertarianism does not require personal charity. You can have community charity. But national charity is ridiculous.
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?
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.
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.
<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.
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:
and
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:
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.
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:[ul][li]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 immunizationsthe interstate highway system[/ul][/li]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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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!
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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’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).
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:
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.
