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.
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.
Cognitive dissonance reduction.
picmr
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.
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:
Ignoring for the moment the obvious misrepresentation of my beliefs, let’s compare your take on this:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
and
May I borrow your rose colored glasses sometime?
Finally, you say:
Now who’s being elitist?
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
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.
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.
Lotus said
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.
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.
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.
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
avalongod:
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:
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 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.
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.
Let’s let people do what they think is right. True freedom includes the option of making mistakes.
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?
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.
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 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.
You mean the ones you wear when evaluating government programs?
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you seriously comparing pre-engineered consumer products to broad-based sociological phenomena? Your analogy is specious and simple minded. Here’s why:[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li]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.
You’ll have to share your definition of “totalitarian” with us. My dictionary defines totalitarianism as:[list=1][li]centralized control by an autocratic authoritythe political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority[/list=1][/li]
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.
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.
What percentage of the population cannot afford to get by? I suppose we can include children and those to disabled to work. What's a livable wage? Most people in this country living in poverty have food, shelter, and clothing.
Marc
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.
I have now become a Libertarian. For the intellectually challenged among us, I will simplify the Libertarian philosophy.
[ol][li]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.[/li]
[li]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.[/li]
[li]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.[/li]
[li]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.[/li]
[li]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).[/li][/ol]
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.
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:
Every cave dweller who learned how to build a factory would have driven other spear chuckers further into poverty
the total sum of the world’s wealth never would have exceeded that of the cro-magnon
there would be no industrial revolution, nor any increase in living standard.
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.