Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Frohickey, Feb 13, 2004.
Starting a Brush Fire for Freedom
If only all Republicans were like this...
... they'd be Libertarians.
He is a Libertarian. He had to run as a Republican in order to get elected.
There are archives of essays of his at the Lew Rockwell website.
kinda my point...
I believe that Paul was even the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate at some point - '88?.
Ah libertarians . . . the party for people who never got beyond economics 101.
If thats the case maybe Econ 101 is all we need.
The closer governments are to Laissez faire the better the growth and strength of the economy.
But no; we need to tax 50% of people's income to pay for those that can't think for themselves to save for retirement. This is ignoring that if the same sum gathered for said retirement was allowed to be put in a 'standard' investment portfolio its value would be well well over that dolled out of the state funding.
Let's ignore that the way the state retirement plan works is a pyramid scheme that would be illegal for anyone outside the government to propose, even to those who volunteer.
Laissez Faire may be 'cruel', it may be 'unfair' -- but that is the market system (the alternative, I might remind everyone, was what Soviet Russia's economy tried. We all know how that turned out). That's the motivator: get a job or start a business or starve. The two established political parties are both big government fans; all they differ on is where to put the government's teat.
I think you just proved the need for a few classes past Econ 101. The idea that it is either a choice between laissez faire or Soviet economics is just laughable.
Example by extreme. There are other systems but the two that make up the modern economy are, and I hate to use the 'book terms' but, market and command.
A pure market is laissez, a pure command was the height of the USSR.
Are there systems other than these two? yes.
Can you mix these two? Of course
The point is this: The more laissez faire that an economy is in the current day, the better they have been dealing with economic changes and the faster their Standard of Living is rising.
Problem is that doesn't always work. The way I see it the more laissez Faire an economy is the faster the standard of living improves for the rich and the more chance they get to screw over the poor.
As I said in my earlier post; the Market system is *NOT* feel good.
If you're poor; you have to dig yourself out of it.
My political opinions are a bit odd on the subject; but the only fair argument I've ever heard over this is the inherited nature of finance ('old money'); I have some ideas on how to break this but none that seem to encourage a government as small and efficient as I'd prefer so I won't present them until I'm personally happy with them.
I fail to see why someone is entitled to healthcare or anything else if they are of an age where they have the capability to earn it and do not do so. If they do not have the capability for some reason then we have charity.
So you're saying one extremist plan is all bad but yours is all good?
How about this: no extremist plan is good. We know that a moderate stance is most effective.
You simply cannot make your pure, extreme capitalist economy work anymore than you can make a pure, extreme communist economy work.
And if we don't have charity?
Hint: charities would NEVER be able to fill the gap if we even got rid of the meagre protections (disability, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) in place today.
What then? The market lets them die?
Let's see a choice between a system where all economic decisions are made by a few government officials or one where all economic decisions are made by a handful capitalists oligarchs? I choose neither. Worship of the "market" is as stupid as the centralization of the command economy. Libertarians really need to learn a little history about the power and control of "robber barons" in the age of laissez faire.
Thanks Sayhey, pseudobrit, and amnesiac1984.
I alwas find the libertarian mantra of "look at Soviet Russia" to be a pretty clear case of selective reasoning. Look at post-soviet Russia. "Shock Therapy" was fantastic!
Also, command economies can achieve fantastic levels of growth as long as they stick with their chief motivating factor: dig that ditch or you will be shot. I'm not advocating a system based on coercion. I'm just saying that the Soviet Union didn't collapse for the reasons that the libertarians like to fantasize that it did.
Charities have done it before and charities can still do it.
Medicare and Medicaid *ARE* charities. Only I don't have the choice of whether they get my money or another charity I prefer does (a charity where a significant portion of what I pay GOES TO the people for example).
And at risk of sounding overly cruel; yes - we can let them die. I don't have a moral problem with letting dead weights of society stop dragging it down.
I've seen a homeless man begging for change be offered a job - including an offer from the person to help house and transport said person till he got on his feet - refused outright. Is it true that people are often in situations they can't control? Yes. We have charity for that.
But every time I see a friend who has a dieing mother and is denied coverage because she is not of the right "qualifications" (read not a minority, not with 100 children she knows she can't support) I see stupid government beauracracy. She can not work, she is bed ridden and has been. Her family income is well below the federal poverty line. She does not get disability.
When I see her denied, and the homeless man that refuses a good job getting accepted, I can't accept that the government can do any better job of this than private charity.
When I see someone whom is on disability whining that she doesn't get a free trip to Europe "because she's never been there" I see someone far too used to the government's teat.
This might sound holier than thou, in some ways it admitably is. But I have yet to see someone who does not fit these molds. If they deserve it and get it they get addicted to it and have no motivation to break out, or they don't deserve it and exploit it, actually having negative motivation to break out, and then those whom are left do not need it or are denied. It sickens me.
And here's why I think the command system collapsed:
"Dig that ditch." "Here's your money to live" - the two are unrelated. So the motivation to dig the ditch quickly is gone.
"Dig that ditch or get shot" "Here's your money to live" will get the ditch dug; but will lead to a lot of unhappiness which will generally mean a.) they immigrate elsewhere or b.) they stew there until rebellion breaks out.
The market system "Dig that ditch, here's your money" - you know you can eat as soon as you're done so you dig it so you can eat. You don't have to dig it though, you can easily go lay bricks (assuming someone needs bricks laid).
Am I wrong?
i commend you for living a life where you've taken nothing from society. you took off on your own at what age, four? in fact, since you're so incredibly independent, i'm a little surprised you're interacting w/ society at all. such a shame that we, the lowly society participants sucking helplessly at the government's teat, will never learn anything from you. i mean, how can we expect you to give back to a society you've so obviously never needed?
i wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
There is a difference between sufficency within the system and self sufficency. If I provide a service deemed valuable enough to the public that they utilize it, then I may utilize services provided by others. That's the basis of the market system.
"Taking nothing" from society is not the same as taking without giving.
As for 'taking off on my own' -- I had my first "business" when I was 4 or 5, yeah probably. Selling lemonade which later became shovelling driveways and mowing lawns and computer repair. Was I completely independent? No. But the odds of me becoming productive after being supported outweighed that of raising me.
I hate to make it sound callous but economics does not have much room for emotional attachment - so in a purely economic sense parents are often venture capitalist with their children. They pay for the children to be raised in hopes the child will 'turn a profit' and support them later in life. It works pretty often too.
And to those who say "the middle is always best"
I counter with "No food or too much food"
While too much is just that; and can cause harm (normally in terms of farmer income), I'm sure most people would not pick the middle, they'd want somewhere /close/ to too much. That's my stance on command vs market -- "laissez faire normalement" as it were.
In answer to your question, yes you are wrong. You are wrong with your anecdotes about welfare (kindly give us one verified report of the government sending welfare recipients on paid vacation to Europe or anywhere being a minority qualifies you for welfare benefits) and you are wrong about the benefits of letting people who can't fend for themselves die. You are still stuck on an either or choice, which is also wrong, between laissez faire and command and control. Again I would suggest taking that Econ 202 course and looking at real life alternatives.
Damn... I guess all these Econ 100, 200, and 300 classes I've gotten As are nothing, as are the 400s I'm in right now.
As for verified report: as best I can
I won't give names but I can tell you I know someone who is unemployeed and on disability whom is as we speak getting prepared to go to England.
I'll do the same for minority benifits; short of finding some online .pdf though; I don't see a reasonable way to 'prove' it unless you want to fly down here and have me show you.
It's not an either or choice; read my last post. I'm "laissez faire normalement" -- there are clear cases that you need government involvement. Social Security and Medicare are NOT two of them.
I'll make my view explicity clear so this doesn't become any more name-calling than it already is, This is becoming personal attacks as opposed to making any points:
The government has a 4 fold purpose
1.) Protect its people from those whom are not (the army, navy, CIA)
2.) Protect its people from each other (police, child labor laws, and monitoring of monopolies)
3.) Protect its people from the enivronment (FEMA, Fire Depts)
4.) Protect the environment from its people (EPA)
With the overriding statement of "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
it's a rare man who can claim that he gives more to society than he takes. it's even rarer for that man to be right.
i can't decide if your naiveté ("i got all A's!") is charming or hubristic.
i've yet to meet any parent who had a child for this reason. if you want to talk about moderation, i'd recommend balancing your education w/ your life experience.
I stated already that I'm dismissing the emotional factors (and I might add biological factors)
I didn't state "I got all As" I said I'd gotten As in econ classes at all those levels. Read more carefully please.
"A rare man who gives more than he takes"
What's your qualifier here? If most take more than we have a fundamental problem of where is all that supply coming from?
You can't say resources from the Earth because those don't just 'appear' in a factor, a man /gives/ that value to society by mining it or however it is harvested. If that man was not there; either the resources would not be supplied or another person would supply them. Can you please explain?
Ok, then we will have to check into what university is teaching such economic doctrines. The sad state of higher education these days.
The point concerning your stories is that the government does not pay for vacations to Europe for welfare recipients who would like them. You may well know someone who is going on such a trip but the government is not picking up the tab. Secondly, being a minority does not qualify you for welfare benefits - being poor does. If you see minorities who have such benefits then they got them because of their economic status not what ethnic group they belong to. But surely they teach you all this in those higher level Econ courses?
To your last point, medicare and social security are vital parts of the economic system that we have constructed since the New Deal days. They have allowed for us as a society to do away with many of the severe economic and social consequences of unregulated markets. If we destroy or do away with these programs we will have taken a giant step backwards towards ignorance and injustice.
edit: didn't see your edit until after my post. What about all the infrastructure necessary for a modern society to work. I guess you didn't go to public schools because they certainly wouldn't fit into your scheme of the "role" of government. There are scores of other necessary roles that government needs to play in a modern society.
Yes the government IS picking up the tab. Might not do that for each and every one but I never said that; the fact that it does it at all is silly.
Did I claim that you could be a rich minority getting welfare? no. But being poor and not in a minority does lower your chances as opposed to an equally poor person that is. That's wrong.
And lastly: Explain why nations with social security being decided by the recipient are overwhelmingly preferred (hate to quote it as I know your opinion but:
Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system -- LP)
and explain why Social Security is ILLEGAL for me to set up (meaning if I were to make my own 'retirement savings' type company and ran it just like the US runs Social Security, it would be illegal)
I did go to public school, and it was a complete waste of my time. I got tested every other day, I test well so I did well. I learned far more from going home and having my grandfather teach me, and I several times begged them to homeschool me because public education was so boring. They aren't willing to advance kids above their grade or hold them back due to 'social development' so the whole class gets taught on the back end of that bell curve. A private school would never keep students that way.
And so, yes, public schools do NOT fit into my view of government role. Instead schools should fit under category 2 -- they should be monitored in semi-monopoly states and price watched (similar to the way that power and cable TV are provided in most of the US)