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
), 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.