>> ^ReverendTed:
Your argument (and Stormsinger's) also misses a critical point:
Just because we don't want to give up our income to the government to subsidize one welfare program or another doesn't mean we aren't charitable people. I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it.
The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy.
What Stormsigner might interpret as "I got mine, fuck you", in some cases might be "I got mine, and I'll give some to those in need. I'd just rather give it of my own free will in meaningful ways than have it legislated by and into the Washington bureaucracy. "


And what -you're- missing is that that is no replacement. What Americans give to charity (worldwide, not just to incountry causes) every year does not even cover just the Federal budget for social services, much less State and Local. And that's for tear-jerking causes like starving children and natural disaster victims.

In your selective payment setting, what would get paid for? Roads? Plenty of people don't drive. Education? A ton of people don't have kids. Medicare/Welfare/Unemployment? "I'll never need those! Only those (non-existent) welfare queens use 'em!" That just doesn't work. Like vaccinations, some things absolutely need to be done by nearly everyone for it to work at all.

Now I'm not saying there's nothing in Government that could be cut- 50% of our military budget for sure, and ending the Drug War's popular on the Internet. But that's not what these people are saying. They take offense with the whole concept of taxation to fund the Government. That's completely broken fantasythink, that a tiny tiny government would lead to a better world.


Edit: Forgot about "I would rather designate my charitable giving to institutions and organizations that I trust will manage it well and make effective use of it. The government is not known for its efficiency or efficacy."
That's also a fallacy. There's plenty of inefficiency and overhead in charities as well, and it's an easy argument to say there's a a lot of goal overlap and effort wasted with charities with similar goals and no cooperation.

Hi @NetRunner,

I like immigration in general. However, importing poverty doesn't seem wise. The more poverty we import, the larger a burden it is on the rest of society. Hence California's catch 22: either reduce social services, close state parks, etc, or go bankrupt. Even very high taxes are no longer enough to allow California to behave as if it is a well-off state.

@NetRunner: "My observation was that my peers in school went on to make vastly more money than me, despite their loafish and unintellectual mediocrity and ethically shallow outlook, while the people in my neighborhood went on to make vastly less money than me, despite their innate industriousness, untapped intellectual depth, and generally virtuous outlook on the world."

"Untapped intellectual depth:" That's really a big part of inequality... some folks tap their own depths, and other folks wait for others to tap their depths for them.

When we say people are unable to better their situations, we don't mean they're physically incapable of it... we mean they're ideologically incapable of it. They can't make the sacrifices I make because they're ideologically incapable of doing so. They must watch sports, make bad sexual and marriage decisions, and must generally waste their time in innumerable ways because their ideology is ineffective and they won't change.

I was recently dating a woman who has an ivy league doctorate, but who has the temperament of a short-term thinker. She's in the process of re-training to be a community college instructor in an only tangentially related field because it's more laid back, even though the pay is worse. I tried giving her some career management advice, but her options are limited because she doesn't have a good ideology.

It seems backwards to ask us to subsidize other people's predictably bad ideologies.

@NetRunner: "But then, you're making an easy enough mistake. A man who'd never lived anywhere but an isolated tropical island would deny snow exists, much less is something which people would need to stockpile salt and sand for..."

I've spent around 1/3 of my life living beneath the poverty line. I understand the value of a dollar.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good points - but I'm saying there is a collective feeling of vindication and "rightness" to capitalism now - it is unfettered and unchecked - without any competing system on a world stage.

Before communism's fall - there was a pressure on Western governments to prove that they could do a better job at the issues that Communist countries boasted of - a safety net for the poor, social services and massive projects like the space program.

For the past 20 years though, those kinds of programs have been slashed, privatised or done away with- it's no mistake that the last redoubt of communism - the tiny, poor country of Cuba, has better health care for its citizens than the US - with all its HMOs and private hospitals.

Here's the claim that I'm going make: if the Soviet Union was still around - We would have a better healthcare system in the US.

>> ^jonny:
The problems of the "last 20 years" that you're talking about were in fact problems long before the 1990s, and thus not a consequence of the fall of the Soviet Republics. The recent excesses of capitalism are nothing new - they've been happening since it was first created and in fact long before that. The basic problem is much broader than capitalism or communism or any other "ism" you care to name. The basic problem is concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. But that problem is not unique to any particular economic or political model. It's a fact of human nature. Communism was probably the best ideology to handle that, but every communist country that ever existed was stuck in the "revolutionary" mind set - The Revolution must continue until everyone is on board, and until then we'll keep complete control in, uh, the hand of a few, uh, party members that understand the, uh, revolution.
Good luck breeding human nature out of humans. Haven't you seen the same concentration of power and "wealth" here in your own social experiment? Same old story. You can build as many roads and access ramps as you want, but there will always be gate keepers and toll collectors.

Meh. Lots of the "facts" are garbage. "Top 10 in demand jobs in 2010 didn't exist in 2004". Here's a random list of top in-demand jobs I just found. Sure it might not be perfect, but it sounds pretty reasonable:

1. Computer programmer
2. Day care provider
3. Elder care
4. Employment specialist
5. Environmental engineer
6. Home health aide
7. Management consultant
8. Networking specialist
9. Physician's assistant
10. Social services co-ordinator

Other lists I found have random tradespeople, nurses, and other pretty boring jobs that just don't attract enough people to meet growing demand. I've yet to see any job listed that didn't exist in 2004.

Can anyone think of jobs that exist in 2010 (in any kind of number, and without being hyperspecific) that didn't exist in 2004? It's just a stupid fact that someone thought sounded good, so they wrote it somewhere - and 10 copies later here it is in a video.

Gordon Brown
CCTV
Speed Cameras
Chavs
Teen pregnancy
Rain
Social Services
Fuel Prices
M.O.T's
School holidays

Hmmm, all fuck no's...

But other than that, wooooo Britain

*quality

"charities would handle need", can you point to any instance where this has worked better than federally mandated social programs?

also, charities, theoretically, reserve the right to refuse services based on lifestyle choices and proselytize at will. governments don't.

if we are upset because our tax dollars are going to fund aggression, foreign occupations, war and a prison state, then fuck yeah i'm with you.
if we are bitching that our tax dollars are providing much needed social services, then... meh.

do those social services need innovation and renovation? could they be run better? absolutely.
could we stop foreign aggression and bloated defense budgets and save billions and still have the funds to provide social services and infrastructure in a vastly superior fashion than we ever have before? fuck yes!
do those services need to be abolished? that's dangerous.

as far as your willingness to help people who's needs aren't met by a nanny state: may i point you to somalia? algeria? the sudan? DR congo, perhaps? or how about the 17% of american children who belong to the "working poor" and don't ask for state assistance?

also, let's talk about CPS.
I have had personal and professional dealings with CPS that lead me to believe that it is severely underfunded and that has led to its gross incompetence. however, i still think it's a very important service.
so if, theoretically, charities would take care of the poor. who is going to take on the nasty job of removing, investigating, and protecting children from abuse?
here's a hint: law enforcement is severely ill-equipped to handle this all by itself, the needs of those children reach far beyond arresting offenders. and in a lot of counties in the country, women and children are still property.






>> ^blankfist:
>> ^peggedbea:
what is the libertarian solution to making sure these people are cared for and have the highest quality of life possible?
i obviously believe that a society is responsible for taking care of its most vulnerable members.
but milton friedman and ayn rand say i'm wrong.
so what is the solution? sometimes people with disabilities are born into poverty too. and i refuse to accept that their dignity, health and quality of life just aren't as important as your bank statement.

Not all Libertarianism is shades of Friedman and Rand. The truth is charities would take care of those without if people didn't A) think there's already a welfare system in place to take care of everyone and B) they weren't already taxed so much currently. You sound like you already understand that the welfare system is broken if there's a 7 year wait for medicaid benefits for these people, yet I don't imagine you'll attribute that to poor government management. The military spending is enough to take care of every poor soul in this country, but the fact that politicians from the two party system are content on raising military budgets while people are suffering domestically should be the biggest indicator that they're not capable of handling the welfare responsibly and legitimately!
Taxation of this magnitude is immoral. They're saying they own your labor if they can directly steal from what you earn, and then they can use that money any way they choose to use it. They claim they want to help, but they're too busy dumping bucketfuls of the stolen money into the military and prison industrial complex, while those on welfare and social security have drudge through the harassment of red tape to get any help.
I'd take any system outside of government and bet it would work more efficiently and better than government. Any of them. If I learned there was a place where old people were dying because they didn't have funds for health care (and there wasn't a nanny state already devised to take care of them), you better believe I'd be there to help in what way I could. Not wanting the government stealing from you does not mean you are against helping others. You honestly think everyone around you is a cretin who is selfish and unwilling to help those in need? When did we become so cynical of our neighbors? If this is the case, then we should just throw in the towel on humanity now, because we certainly don't have a chance, government or no government.

america's high crime rate is due to our crappy selfish citizenry who vote against social services and allow massive wealth inequality.

people don't normally want to live a life of crime, but when you take away all their other options, what's left?

QM, as a conservative, wouldn't you agree that too much is being spent on foreign wars?

Even with all the inevitable Dept. of Defense waste? No. The first priority of any nation is to defend itself from invaders. If you took all the money we spend on defense, redirected it for "social services" and scrap the military, China would quickly move in. I think liberals have a tendency to forget that it's our nuke-carrying submarines circling the globe that keep monsters like China in check and everyone honest.

Unfortunately, America has no choice but to be the world's policeman, we've been cast in that role, and a Ron Paul-style return of all our Armed Forces around the world would mean absolute chaos. Think of how many rogue nations there are now, still acting like dicks WITH our military everywhere.

You won't believe this, but "spending (on national security) as a share of the national economy has actually decreased sharply in recent decades and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought only relatively minor increases. In 1951, with overall government spending less than half what it is today, the defense budget was nearly twice its 2009 level. (9% to 4.7%). In other words, military spending as a percentage of all governmental spending is today only one-fourth what it was sixty years ago.

"In 1968, due to Vietnam, military spending rose to 9.8%. That number (of defense spending as a percentage of GDP) came down after the conclusion of the war in Southeast Asia, and sank to a modern low of 3% under Bill Clinton, a level criticized by many military planners as irresponsibly low. Defense spending has increased steadily since then (to an estimated 4.7% this year) under the pressures of the War on Terror. The defense budget nevertheless remains historically low far below its levels under Eisenhower, say, or Kennedy, or Reagan (6%). In explaining the outrageous increase in federal, state and local spending, its obvious that defense and international entanglements had nothing to do with it."

Wood Chipper and Friends are complaining that "no one is doing anything" to help "the poor."

"A book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics" written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:
Social Security: 23%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Net interest on debt: 11%

In 2005, Senator Judd Gregg, then Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee stated that "Mandatory entitlement spending now represents a whopping 55 percent of all federal spending. If left on its current path, that could jump to more than 60 percent in 10 years. That will force us to cut out other necessary expenditures or raise taxes and weaken our economy." Source: The Hill newspaper, Washington DC."

Believe what you like, but there are the facts. Defense spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements aka health, education, welfare. And while military tech has much improved, you don't see a doubling of quality in our govt. schools and you SURE as hell aren't going to see quantum leaps of innovation and efficiency in health care by letting the government run it.

For Kucinich & Friends we could spend 99% of the annual budget on entitlements and they would, and STILL never be happy. It's straight up fking bullsht that so many people have to have their hard-earned sht stolen by a thugverment and handed to people that don't give a sht, don't try and don't care. Yes, some of them need help, but what about the guy that can do the same as you, only he chooses to fk off? Why should you have to pay for his indolence? Do you really think it's just "the rich' getting soaked? Take a look at your paystub. The feds take a nice chuck out of your ass every week or two weeks, even if you're flipping burgers.

mootie writes At least some of that goes towards HELPING people instead of KILLING them.

We spent massive treasure and blood removing a tyrant from Iraq and giving 30 million Iraqis a chance to govern themselves. Doesn't that HELP them?

Liberalism starts with a negative premise, then gets even angrier that the impossible can't be solved with huge sums of money. It's like jumping down a hole and hanging from the bar of weights you're trying to lift while dangling.

Well, off the top of my head, how about Computer City, Packard Bell, Circuit City, SCO, SGI, DIVX (not the codec), Commodore, Amiga, XM Radio (with Sirius XM following closely behind), Atari, 3DO... most of these are companies who were once dominant until their consumers took their dollars to greener fields.

Oh, wait... You didn't want me to answer that, did you? You just wanted me to concede the point? My bad.

As for building schools and bridges; that's a different topic and one which I think is totally suited to government. I'm not anti-government across the board, I just think it ought to be kept in check and that it's not the miracle cure to all problems.

The federal government is too big for my tastes at the moment. I have an infinitesimally small influence on the federal government because my one vote is a molecule in a drop in the bucket. I have no real choice or say in any matter. All I can do is pick the preselected candidate whose lies I find most comforting. They're going to do whatever they want once the election is over.

If the local governments were the focus of power, at least the people would have more influence. There my one vote is a far bigger portion of the pie and it's not even unrealistic for me to run for office myself if I really don't feel represented. If power were more distributed it would be more difficult for lobbyists to buy power.

I like the idea of moving an hour away and having a drastically different government if I'm unhappy with how things are run where I live. Moving from state to state can give you a little bit of that nowadays, but I think it ought to be taken further.

I agree that neither smaller == better and larger == better are universal truths and that there's a happy medium to be found, but it sounds like my happy medium is smaller than yours. I guess that's why you're so popular with the ladies.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Can you give me a meaningful example of consumers bringing down a corporation by "wallet voting"? Of course not, because it is a ridiculous notion. Consumerism doesn't challenge corporate power, it increases it. At best, consumerism has the power to stop Coca-Cola from marketing a new cola that tastes like ass. Consumerism doesn't build schools or bridges. Consumerism is reactive, not proactive.

In a democracy, the power rests in the hands of the people, by way of 1 person: 1 vote. It was a populist response to older forms of government based around wealth, power and nobility. It is a testament to the success of democracy that so many now can take it for granted. Government power is people power (read=your power). Limiting the power of government limits the power of the people, and if you are interested in stopping corrupt corporations, public government is the only thing big enough and powerful enough to get that done.

It is very true that our democracy has been subverted in many ways, but through democracy, we can change this. I agree with you that apathy is one of the big enemies here, but I see much reason for hope. With increased access to information, the public has become much more aware of corporate abuse, and has become much more politically involved. Despite what Obama may or may not do in his 4-8 years in office, I think it is significant that he was able to break through the corporate propaganda and win on a very pro-people platform.

Last point, one of the great red herrings in this debate is that of 'size'. Notions about 'big' or 'small' government are completely arbitrary and meant to distract you from the more important qualities that you wisely mentioned: efficiency and effectiveness.

Government should not be shoehorned into some arbitrary concept of big or small. Government should be just the right size in needs to be, to be both efficient and effective. Getting rid of valuable social services in order to make the government smaller only makes the it less efficient and less effective.

Can you give me a meaningful example of consumers bringing down a corporation by "wallet voting"? Of course not, because it is a ridiculous notion. Consumerism doesn't challenge corporate power, it increases it. At best, consumerism has the power to stop Coca-Cola from marketing a new cola that tastes like ass. Consumerism doesn't build schools or bridges. Consumerism is reactive, not proactive.

In a democracy, the power rests in the hands of the people, by way of 1 person: 1 vote. It was a populist response to older forms of government based around wealth, power and nobility. It is a testament to the success of democracy that so many now can take it for granted. Government power is people power (read=your power). Limiting the power of government limits the power of the people, and if you are interested in stopping corrupt corporations, public government is the only thing big enough and powerful enough to get that done.

It is very true that our democracy has been subverted in many ways, but through democracy, we can change this. I agree with you that apathy is one of the big enemies here, but I see much reason for hope. With increased access to information, the public has become much more aware of corporate abuse, and has become much more politically involved. Despite what Obama may or may not do in his 4-8 years in office, I think it is significant that he was able to break through the corporate propaganda and win on a very pro-people platform.

Last point, one of the great red herrings in this debate is that of 'size'. Notions about 'big' or 'small' government are completely arbitrary and meant to distract you from the more important qualities that you wisely mentioned: efficiency and effectiveness.

Government should not be shoehorned into some arbitrary concept of big or small. Government should be just the right size in needs to be, to be both efficient and effective. Getting rid of valuable social services in order to make the government smaller only makes the it less efficient and less effective.

>> ^gwiz665:
^... did you watch the clip? How is that libertarianism? Because she wants to save money?


She is cutting a social service to save money, seemingly ignorant of long term ramifications.

This is a great example of the short sighted madness of American libertarianism. Denying important social services in order to save money in the short term will always end up costing exponentially more in the long.

You mean "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." ? It has to do with crossing state lines, read you own link.

Exactly, so limiting someone's ability to travel is infringing on this right. Gwiz mentioned walking as an example of a way to freely move without driving. In Gwiz's world you are free to walk and carry all of your worldly possessions on your back if you choose to move out of state. But, that's not practical.

Allow me another impractical example. If I decided to move my entire home from Los Angeles back to North Carolina and loaded everything onto a horse drawn buggy and headed down the roadways, how far do you think I'd get before I was stopped by men with guns?

By not giving you piles of money the government is limiting your right to own half the skyline of New York

I think you're grasping at straws with that one. Specifically giving you permission (which is what a driving permit is) is not the same as not giving you something you didn't necessarily earn. Not "giving" you something (i.e., money) isn't taking a right away. Having a right to something (i.e., movement, expression, press, etc.), then having a government give you specific permission to that right is the issue.

The freedom of movement is as important as freedom of speech and can be seen to work together hand-in-hand. If you were to protest the war, would it be fair for the government to restrict your movement on public property in front of the federal building because you didn't have a proper permit to protest? In cities, I understand why people prefer loads and loads of laws and regulations and government given permissions, but in rural areas those municipal laws tend to be dangerously out of place. But, that's a whole other conversation.

Yes [the DMV] will [negotiate the terms of the driver's license contract], just not to anything you want.

Oh really? I'm not sure you're telling the truth. I'm pretty sure NO ONE at the DMV has the "authority" to modify the terms of that contract. And if you asked, they'd probably look at you strange. A government contract is never negotiable when it comes to social services. Name one that is. Name one.


And, gwiz, right to free mobility isn't specifically a right to drive. It's a right to move, and driving is the most accessible personal mode of transportation. Are you just trying to mess with me.

Still, these are terrible arguments for health care being a right. Benefits for society? That could be a parade. That could be a soda fountain. Loose language, in my opinion.

"people pay taxes for social services"

Still, that doesn't mean "social services" are a right. Let's be clear, I wasn't speaking against health care reform or Obamacare or whatever the colloquial way of addressing it is. I was explaining how health care cannot be a right.

^blankfist
We decide what the rights of our citizens are, I understand there is no 'human aggressor' but people pay taxes for social services. I feel like we have already acknowledged health care as a right in some way because you can't be turned away from a hospital. At the very least they have to stabilize you and why shouldn't they? becuase another person didnt cause your injuries?

Those emergency room visits already cost the tax payers way too much money, the reform would reduce the number of those emergency visits by making regular care more affordable. I'm one of the people who avoids going to the doctor unless im actually very sick, not because I don't want proper care or a check up - because it just costs me too damned much money.

The last time I went to the doctor I needed to have some kind of special X ray so they could check something out. It wasn't covered by my insurance but he still recommended I have it done, the bill came about a week later for $340 something dollars. I dont know about the rest of you, but that plus the doctor's visit cost me around $400 and I just dont have that kind of cash to spare...EVER. I get my bills paid, but I count myself lucky nothing terrible has ever happened to me medically (yet).