Quote :

"Bogus Rights Feb 8, 2006 by Walter E. Williams Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights. Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn. If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress." The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena. "

Who thinks the gov't has the right to take away your money and give it to someone else in the form of free health care, housing, and emergency assistance?

2/8/2006 10:51:08 AM

emergency assistance, yes.




everything else? no.

2/8/2006 10:51:59 AM

I think, as I've said a gazillion times, that the government shouldn't do this or at best should be a regulator for people freely giving their money and resources to each other. If people aren't willing to support their societies without being forced by the government, I don't believe that society deserves to exist.

2/8/2006 10:55:54 AM

^
Well..D-Greek, I'm glad you stated it one more time

2/8/2006 11:14:23 AM

Quote :

"Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God."

This part is a bit off base. In Acts it talks about income redistribution (Acts 4:31 - Acts 5:11):

...
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
...

This makes more sense to me. I would think that God would rather see everyone have their needs met than seeing a small percentage of the population with riches while many people were poor and starving.

The problem with the income redistribution system in the United States is that it does not require that a citizen contribute in any form or fashion. They get something for nothing. How many people are content with not working because the government provides them with all their needs? The Bible also covers this base:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

A simple solution. If you are receiving public assistance you must also be required to perform 40 hours of community service per week.

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 11:24 AM. Reason : -]

2/8/2006 11:22:09 AM

jesus was a fucking commie.

2/8/2006 11:42:50 AM

^^gov't, force, and coercion are nowhere to be found in that text. that the church should be redistributing its wealth to help its poor voluntarily is unquestionable, but when it's no longer voluntary, and enforced at the end of a gun by a secular authority - there gets to be real problems. Not the least of which is finding anything remotely similar advocated in Acts.

2/8/2006 11:54:27 AM

I agree there is a huge difference between doing it voluntarily and being forced to do so. My post only addressed the notion that it is a sin to redistribute wealth.

[Edited on February 8, 2006 at 12:00 PM. Reason : -]

2/8/2006 11:59:23 AM

they didnt mean it literally, duh.

2/8/2006 12:03:03 PM

i don't think people should starve.
































the government should pay for their euthanization.

2/8/2006 12:09:11 PM

I HATE CIVILIZATION RARRRRRRR.

2/8/2006 12:12:09 PM

Obviously the situation is more complex than you care to take in.

There is a fine balance/range that needs to exist, and extremes on both sides of it are a road to serfdom.

But if you require a simple to the question:

Quote :

"Who thinks the gov't has the right to take away your money and give it to someone else in the form of free health care, housing, and emergency assistance?"

I do.

2/8/2006 12:23:43 PM

^^^^^ You have to define "redistribution" pretty loosely for it to include voluntary giving.

Redistribution automatically carries with it some concept of a third party intervening and authoritatively taking from one in order to give to another. In that sense, there is no redistribution there.

2/8/2006 12:55:05 PM

Now we are splitting hairs. You also have to loosely define "redistribution" to include involuntary giving, as the definition of redistribution in and of itself does not specify whether wealth was voluntarily given or otherwise.

Party 1: Individual members of the church give all of their possessions to
Party 2: the apostles which in turn distribute everything to
Party 3: the general membership according to their needs.

If that isn't redistribution of wealth I don't know what is. It might not fit Walter E. Williams' definition of forced redistribution of wealth but it is redistribution of wealth nonetheless.

2/8/2006 1:27:47 PM

Bogus Thread

2/8/2006 1:45:29 PM

Libertarians.

aahahaahahahahahaha

2/8/2006 3:03:47 PM

I have some sympathy for this point of view.

Still, stealing to give health care to the poor is better than stealing to bomb folks in other countries and to build bridges to nowhere.

2/8/2006 5:20:46 PM

Quote :

"God would rather see everyone have their needs met"

I would rather see everyone earn it.

Quote :

"I do."

On what grounds does someone have the right to give my money to those who don't deserve it?

2/8/2006 6:27:33 PM

it's not your money

it's the government's

and really, do you think the only people who should ever be allowed to make any kind of changes to our government died 300 years ago?

Why do you think the consititution allows for itself to be changed?

2/8/2006 7:39:53 PM

Welcome back Kris! And back to a rip-roaring start I see!

Quote :

"and really, do you think the only people who should ever be allowed to make any kind of changes to our government died 300 years ago?"

Exactly. The constitution allows for the ability to amend the constitution. As such, there is NO valid argument against enforcing the constitution as strickly as possible. If society "NEEDs" the constitution to say something different ("Nationalize all industries! YEA!") it can. The Amendment can say anything we want! It can litterally say "EVERYTHING before this amendment is hereby repealled. See attached for new constitution."

"But no, what we need is an illegal government, because amending the constitution is just too difficult. We are the government after-all, who is going to stop us? The Constitution is just a piece of paper."

2/8/2006 9:14:26 PM

Quote :

"it's not your money it's the government's"

I see. Do they own my body, thoughts, and labors as well?

Quote :

"and really, do you think the only people who should ever be allowed to make any kind of changes to our government died 300 years ago?"

I don't know if that was directed to me, but no, I'm not concerned with the views of the first congress.

2/8/2006 10:02:55 PM

don't get too excited, I probably won't start posting too much more frequently unfortunately

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying

The government can pretty much do whatever it wants to the constitution as long as it has the support required. What it should and should not do rely soley on the power of the people it represents, and unfortunately for you Earthdogg only very few americans are wackjob liberitarians.

2/8/2006 10:03:48 PM

^ No one is questioning that, Kris. We realize that if the government wished and the generals didn't rebel it could literally do anything. That is not the point at hand. The question is not whether it "can" but "should" it be able to break the law (constitution)?

I know you will say yes, the government should be able to rob/execute without trial/warning and all the stuff it can get away with (assuming all the reporters were killed/shut-up). This is why we will always disagree: we don't think the government should be "getting away with stuff" when, if it really had the support of the people, it could democratically amend the constitution thus legally/morally gaining the right to rob/execute without trial/warning etc.

2/8/2006 10:14:37 PM

Quote :

"I see. Do they own my body, thoughts, and labors as well?"

In the communist world, yes they do. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness- three rights that hold little value under communist rule.

Quote :

"What it should and should not do rely soley on the power of the people it represents,"

This might be true under a pure democracy, where people can "vote" themselves other people's property. But fortunately we are still basically a republic..designed to protect individual rights.

Quote :

"it's not your money it's the government's"

Probably the most succinct definition of communism I've run across. I would just substitute the word "money" with "life" and I think you've got it.

2/8/2006 10:16:25 PM

^I disagree with this wholeheartedly. What you speak of is democracy. Another way to describe how democracy works is mob rule. A 51% majority can take away the rights of a 49% minority. Do you think this is right? I think the Constitution should be modified in such a way that certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, etc., can never be modified by the majority. The federal governments purpose is to protect the rights as outlined in the Constitution, not create new ones (like the "right to healthcare, education, equal pay, bullshit like that). The United States is a constitutional republic, a place where majority rules but not at the expense of the rights of the minority.

2/8/2006 10:28:31 PM

Quote :

"This might be true under a pure democracy, where people can "vote" themselves other people's property"

No, it's still true in ours, if those people could elect a 2/3 senate majority, president, appointed judiciary, etc.

This is a republic, but it is still ultimately rulled by democracy, there are simply checks in place to prevent mob rule.

Quote :

"I think the Constitution should be modified in such a way that certain rights, such as the right to freedom of speech, etc., can never be modified by the majority."

It takes a lot more than just a 51% majority to change the consititution. It's more complicated than that for a reason, just like our tax system.

Quote :

"The question is not whether it "can" but "should" it be able to break the law (constitution)?"

That question should be decided by the people who give the politicans their power. We shouldn't rely on politicians good judgement to keep us from become facist, we should rely on our own common sense, and as such, we do.

Quote :

"the government should be able to rob/execute without trial/warning and all the stuff it can get away with"

It should only be allowed to do that if the people it represents want to allow it to. The purpose of our government is to do what the people want, not to save the people from itself.

2/9/2006 1:22:51 AM

Quote :

"It takes a lot more than just a 51% majority to change the consititution. It's more complicated than that for a reason, just like our tax system."

It doesn't matter how complicated it is, there are certain rights that should NEVER be modified no matter what the publics opinion or desire.

Quote :

"It should only be allowed to do that if the people it represents want to allow it to. The purpose of our government is to do what the people want, not to save the people from itself."

WHAT?! The purpose of the government, in the US anyway, is to protect the rights as outlined in the Constitution. Not to rob/execute at the publics demand. If you want that shit, move to North Korea.

2/9/2006 2:49:34 AM

Outright, capital-L libertarianism is foolish, just like outright Communism. I have said this many times.

The government can take money from people, because the people have given them that right. Sure, there are individuals who disagree, but democracy is not about appeasing everybody, and everybody must surely admit.

As it happens, there are a large number -- quite possibly majority -- of people in this country who believe that there is a basic right to certain necessitites. And, as it happens, I am inclined to agree.

America can easily afford to provide everyone in the country with the housing, food, and medical care necessary for a basic existence. We can do so with a minimal, barely-noticeable impact on taxpayers -- maybe not under the current tax system, about which I do not know enough to claim certainty, but definitely under a similar and attainable one.

It won't get us anywhere acting as though people, left to their own devices, will voluntarily contribute enough to help those in need. They won't. It's that simple. At the end of the day, I am perfectly willing to deprive certain individuals of certain luxuries in order to provide others with basic necessities. I could do so without even a twinge in my conscience.

I'm not saying that we should level everything out. I'm not calling for massive wealth redistribution. The individuals who can drag themselves out of the greatest depths of poverty to a prosperous life are so few and far between that every example is a historic and remembered one. In essence, then, no really poor person can lift themselves out of those depths to prosperity when from the very start they cannot afford food, a roof, and basic medical care. Our meritocracy, if it even exists anymore, is not perfect enough to accomodate as much. If "necessities" are a part in "wealth," well, I'm no longer a true capitalist, and I don't mind saying so.

I am therefore forced to stand by my beliefs that a true and righteous conservatism must hold dear an equality of means.*

---

*Last time I said "equality of means," it was radically misinterpreted by TGD and others. I'm talking about the basic tools -- libraries, public education through the university level, and other things with which you cannot do without if you hope to get anywhere in the world beyond your current station. I have to explicitly state that I DO NOT use "means" in the sense of "wealth, money, property," or anything of the sort.

2/9/2006 2:58:52 AM

Quote :

"The individuals who can drag themselves out of the greatest depths of poverty to a prosperous life are so few and far between that every example is a historic and remembered one."

Historic? I beg to differ, my friend. Every single person today in the middle-class and upper-crust did not start there. (I know this because 200 years ago we were all poor). As such, 90% of everyone does not sound like "few and far between." The "Historic" examples you refer to are instances where people didn't stop at the middle class but became captains of industry (rulers of the world, per-se). Every immigrant group came to this country poor. Do you know any poor Jews?

Quote :

"It won't get us anywhere acting as though people, left to their own devices, will voluntarily contribute enough to help those in need. They won't."

Look, historically speaking, you have nothing to stand upon. The only people in this country that die from starvation or exposure to the elements do so because they are mentally impared and chose to do so. The only time in US history when this was not the case was the great depression when there was not enough money in existance to fill the need, much less be given voluntarily. Yet, even then, people did not starve to death (housing was another matter, I grant).

However, this is not the point. The point here is that the Federal Government is Constitutionally prevented from doing this and many other tasks. At no time did "those people...elect a 2/3 senate majority" to make it legal by changing the constitution, to quote Kris. They simply elected a 51% majority for a long time and packed the SCOTUS with judges incapable of reading the constitution.

This technique has had unintended consequences. Yes, the government can now do all the stuff we want it to do (take care of poor, set wages, etc). But it also has the power to pick winners, hand out favors, enforce prohibition, all unconstitutional but allowed anyway.

Now is reversing, but not as one would like. Instead of a 2/3 majority, all it takes is a political machine capable of a 51% majority (earned through hand-outs) held over-time. Suddenly, abortion, which should be handled by the states according to the constitution, will be ruled illegal nationwide (violation of the civil rights of the child).

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/9/2006 8:58:25 AM

Quote :

"Still, stealing to give health care to the poor is better than stealing to bomb folks in other countries and to build bridges to nowhere."

2/9/2006 9:47:35 AM

^Not really. Stealing is stealing. I don't care if you are doing it to feed your family or to buy a gucci handbag. Wrong is wrong, and stating that you are doing wrong for a "good" purpose doesn't change the fact that it is wrong.

2/9/2006 9:50:09 AM

i still think likening the government to some thug who clunks you over the head and steals your purse sounds dumb and is a bad analogy.

it just seems the entire argument rests on poor people being these lazy dogs who deserve nothing and are there only to sap the great riches you'd have earned without taxation. if that isnt what you beleive, best choose better examples or wording cuz you all sound like tremendous assholes.

2/9/2006 10:38:54 AM

I've enjoyed this thread so far...a interesting range of arguments with relatively little name-calling.

My quasi-libertarian approach to gov't is based mainly on the thoughts laid out by Frederick Bastiat in his 1850 booklet entitled "The Law". I highly reccomend it.

Basically each of us has a natural right from God to defend his life, liberty and property. It then follows that a group of people have the collective right to defend these rights..because it is based on the individual's right. This is what gives any gov't its legitimacy..the collective protection of individual rights.

Once you are ok with this approach, you then run the different things that people want gov't to do through this filter.

Let's look at health-care as an example. Put aside the fact that Capitalism would create a much more effective system then today's gov't-mangled mess. Does gov't have the right to put a single-payer plan in place?

I, as an individual, cannot go up to a doctor and force him to treat me for free or even at the price I want to pay. I also am not allowed to point a gun at him and force him to treat my poor neighbor. So if an individual is not allowed to commandeer the labor of doctors, so cannot a gov't. Walter Williams states this perfectly.. "when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn."

Law is basically force. Therefore the proper use of law cannot extend beyond the proper functions of force - to protect the individual's right to his life, liberty and property.

2/9/2006 11:02:07 AM

the exact same argument could be applied to anything widely-accessible and public. if view the govt as some huge bully taking your money to directly apply it elsewhere, i dont think you can get far. if you look at it as a large body we elected that requires cash to run, it isnt so bad. they then give the money to what they (and technically we) deem necessary, such as public schooling, defense, social programs, etc.

the issue here is that you are taking your philosophy and assuming it to be true, or at minimum assuming everyone agrees with you. as someone else has already said, im sure a majority does not share that view. it isnt taking away your freedoms because you DO use a lot of things that the government pays for. the idea of being able to pick and choose what your funds go to would just make a more bloated and inefficient system and opting out just isnt an option.

2/9/2006 11:09:47 AM

Quote :

"Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress.""

This is so stupid it doesnt even need to be commented on.

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 11:59 AM. Reason : 8]

2/9/2006 11:59:22 AM

^And yet you have commented.

2/9/2006 12:01:05 PM

No, I commented about it, not on it.

2/9/2006 12:16:27 PM

Quote :

"the issue here is that you are taking your philosophy and assuming it to be true, "

Well.. aren't we all doing that here? Don't you feel in your heart of hearts that your personal philosphy is true? And I'm painfully too aware that the majority does not share my views. The love of liberty and protection of individual rights is under attack daily.

I'm not against gov't, cyrion, I'm for smaller gov't. I think gov't should basically provide a vigorous collective defense against foreign aggression. Another purpose of gov't is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force and fraud by other citizens and to set up a system of laws that enable people to engage in the contracts and voluntary exchanges that make captitalism work.

Other than that, gov't should act only to provide public goods, as Charles Murray says "...strictly defined, observing the principle of subsidarity and compensating individual citizens for costs that fall disproportionately upon them"

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2006 1:02:53 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter how complicated it is, there are certain rights that should NEVER be modified no matter what the publics opinion or desire."

If the people want them violated, they will be violated, de facto or de jure. The government can't save the people from themselves, nor should it try. The obligation of those rights not being broken should rely on our own common sense, not the government trying to police us into believe something.

Quote :

"The purpose of the government, in the US anyway, is to protect the rights as outlined in the Constitution."

The government can change the constitution as they see it fit, as long as they have the support to do it.

That IS the way our government works.

Quote :

"Every single person today in the middle-class and upper-crust did not start there."

You know damn well you can't prove that.

Quote :

"I know this because 200 years ago we were all poor"

Poor is a relative term. And everyone was not poor 200 years ago.

Quote :

"Every immigrant group came to this country poor."

No they didn't.

Are you just making shit up?

Quote :

"They simply elected a 51% majority for a long time and packed the SCOTUS with judges incapable of reading the constitution."

There is only so much the SCOTUS can do.

Quote :

"Suddenly, abortion, which should be handled by the states according to the constitution"

Politicains have the power to change the consititution to explictily put abortion through to the states if they had the popular support to do so, There isn't much the SCOTUS could do about that.

And like I've said before, it's not your money, it's the government's. Yes you earned it, but don't you owe a good bit of that to the government? You drove to work on it's roads, you work within it's protected boundry. It keeps the foods you eat healthy and helps to sustain the economy you depend on for a job.

Let's say you own a store, but you rent the shop your store is in. Why should you pay the landlord rent that you earned by selling your products? It's your money, you earned it, the landlord is stealing it from you because if you didn't pay him he'd evict you.

2/9/2006 2:09:55 PM

I have a hard time understanding how any reasonable person can see that it's the government's primary job to protect the lives of its citizens but that it should have no stake whatsoever in preserving the QUALITY of life of said citizens.

2/9/2006 2:16:26 PM

Quote :

" Every immigrant group came to this country poor."

Flat out wrong.

Quote :

"Every single person today in the middle-class and upper-crust did not start there."

Bullshit. The overwhelming majority of them did, because we're talking about individuals in their lifetime, not families over generations.

Quote :

"The only people in this country that die from starvation or exposure to the elements do so because they are mentally impared and chose to do so."

I'm not sure. What's your evidence that current charitably-funded organizations have the capacity to acceptably deal with the people who do use them on top of the people that don't?

Not that it matters much. We don't have many poor people to begin with, so we can give relatively little and dent our problem. But do you think that an America with a wealth distribution more like India's would see sufficient charitable giving to get people an acceptable standard of living?

Quote :

"The point here is that the Federal Government is Constitutionally prevented from doing this and many other tasks."

Elastic clause like a motherfucker.

Quote :

"the proper functions of force - to protect the individual's right to his life"

There you go. Can't have much of a life to have a right to if you've got a fixable health problem but no money to fix it.

2/9/2006 3:37:19 PM

Seriously, what happened to you Loneshark? We never saw eye-to-eye on most things, but I've never seen you so blatantly make up history. Did you get hit on the head or something?

2/9/2006 4:29:17 PM

Quote :

"I have a hard time understanding how any reasonable person can see that it's the government's primary job to protect the lives of its citizens but that it should have no stake whatsoever in preserving the QUALITY of life of said citizens."

Because it's cooler to spend money on tanks and bombs than on doctors.

Duh.

2/9/2006 5:40:45 PM

well slaves had the right to pursue happiness

I mean they could improve their lives, just look at fredrick douglas, he was a slave and he made a much better life for himself, any other slave that doesn't simply isn't taking responsibility for their situation.

2/9/2006 5:47:11 PM

Quote :

"but I've never seen you so blatantly make up history."

Unlike Grumpy, my writting doesn't get better with intoxication... misunderstanding, I tell you. Grumpy noticed that I was not talking about each person in his lifetime, but each family over generations. This made my statement something like 98% correct, close enough for government work, but still should have been given "most" "mostly" or "nearly all."

[Edited on February 9, 2006 at 9:01 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/9/2006 8:57:23 PM

You're still very wrong.

BUT I DARE NOT MATCH WITS WITH AN ENGINEER

2/9/2006 9:07:19 PM

Quote :

"Can't have much of a life to have a right to if you've got a fixable health problem but no money to fix it."

To be more clear, I meant that the proper use of force is to prevent others from using force upon you...not to provide you with govt'-controlled healthcare. How many "good intentions" do we justify before our pathway to hell is complete?

It isn't really relevant to argue about what the minimum size of gov't should be anymore. What is important is that most Americans want much less gov't intrusion in their lives. We want to be left alone. We want a smaller gov't. But a condition of that wish is that it comes with more personal responsibility...something many are not willing to support yet. We have generations of people who have been taught that more gov't is the answer to your problems.

Everytime we are told by politicians that the era of big gov't is over, the gov't grows even bigger. Doesn't matter who is in power -Dem or Rep -- the beast gets bigger.

Most of us Americans aren't very political. We're too busy living our lives. We've got things to do. Politicians know this and use our inattention to grow the gov't and thus their power. The leaders offer more and more great-sounding benefits to this group and that..until we wake up one day to find we are no longer free to live our lives as sovereign individuals.

Dat's what I'm talking about!

2/9/2006 10:59:44 PM

Quote :

"It isn't really relevant to argue about what the minimum size of gov't should be anymore. What is important is that most Americans want much less gov't intrusion in their lives. We want to be left alone. We want a smaller gov't. But a condition of that wish is that it comes with more personal responsibility...something many are not willing to support yet. We have generations of people who have been taught that more gov't is the answer to your problems."

maybe im dumb, but i dont get how all of these can be true at the same time. we're taught that big govt is good, which is bad...but we want smaller govt. so which is it? why is it that parties that actually support smaller govt do so poorly?

first of all, id love to see some credible source, but in the mean time ill just give my opinion on it as well. so who wants less govt exactly? im sure if you ask someone if they'd like lower taxes they'd gladly accept that, but faced with what would have to be cut they'd run from the idea.

but really, again, i dont get what you are saying. we're taught to like big govt, but want small govt. we want less govt, but we dont.... while i agree that many fear more personal responsibility, i doubt that is the main cause of the constant enlarging of the federal govt.


edit: though yes, the part about having lives is true...but then again, that goes against the first paragraph as well

[Edited on February 10, 2006 at 12:09 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2006 12:09:11 AM

Quote :

"so who wants less govt exactly?"

According to polls, the people do. Secondly, according to the nations voting record, they too want smaller government. Not a lot smaller, I suspect, but enough to notice a difference... you know, to try it out. We can always re-regulate everything later when bad-shit happens.

The problem is, neither party believes in smaller government. As such, those in this country that want smaller government are unrepresented.

Quote :

"im sure if you ask someone if they'd like lower taxes they'd gladly accept that, but faced with what would have to be cut they'd run from the idea."

Ok, lets try. Ignoring lower taxes, lets just ask you about programs (answer yes/no to each question by number):
#1: Do you want cheaper food? (eliminate agricultural price-supports, save $200 billion)
#2: Do you want the government to stop building "bridges to nowhere" and 11 museums in Alaska?
#3: Do you want the government to stop giving billions of dollars to the wealthy in the form of "corporate welfare"? (#1 is included here, so what)

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm pretty sure most people would agree to repeal these issues for various reasons (expensive food hurts the poor, high taxes hurt business, wasted money was wasted, the rich have plenty of money, most of the money goes to the already wealthy).

In the odd case that these programs did help the poor or simply struggling, we could save billions by simply cutting these few individuals a check rather than also giving their wealthy cousins a check too. (45% of agricultural subsidies go to the largest 7% of farmers) The rich have money, they don't need more. 7 out of 10 times, the federal government will tend to help the rich (and politically connected) far in excess of any benefits acruing to the poor. As such, once explained, I think a majority of American's would agree to change these policies. Would you?

2/10/2006 12:57:37 AM

Well said!

As author of this thread and with the powers vested in me...I dub thee Sir Snark.

2/10/2006 2:00:07 AM