[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But don’t be silly - the rise of “big government” is the creation of the Left. This isn’t new - the Left embraces socialism or at least flirts with it. There is no debate over this point.[/quote]
I feel like proponents on both sides want present (ie, big) governments, they simply want it to govern different aspects of our lives.
The Left, as you said, tends to favor a lot of economic interference from the government, generally in the form of various wealth redistribution schemes.
But the Right, while advocating economic liberty and less market tampering, wants government to legislate on social and personal liberties matters. Issues like marriage, abortion, drug consumption, alcohol restriction, sexual behavior, etc.
The Right doesn’t mind government as much as you claim they do, as long as it keeps it’s paws off their wallets. In fact, if they’re not to burdened economically, many of them don’t really seem to mind some measure of encouragement from the authorities to get everyone “in line” and acting according to some imagined “proper behavior.”
It’s as if one side is ready to pay more as long as they can do what they want, while the other doesn’t mind toeing the line, as long as they get to keep their cash. Each side is, of course, appalled by the other’s vision of what constitutes the best government.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And I think that will be the death nail of this shortlived, albeit nirvanic movement.
Once you let the genie out of the bottle (actually informing the populace of the added cost they will soon be forced to pay) you will have hell, or a revolution, to pay getting him back in the bottle. [/quote]
Unfortunately, we still have way too many people who think “the government” can simply print money and create wealth out of thin air.
We should get rid of some of the more “foo-foo” classes in high school and teach our kids basic economics. They’d probably be quite happy to be able to afford paying for their own art classes later on.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And you get all upset when someone calls you out for making stupid comments.
Yet you continue.
Who ever said anti-bush = liberal?
Muddy the waters in another thread. please. [/quote]
Cry if you want, but I know I’ve been branded as “ultra-liberal”, for example, in the past simply because I was arguing consistently against Bush.
The propensity for this to happen, as well as for the constant mischaracterizations of a viewpoint, can easily lead one to believe people have a stance that they actually do not.
Don’t be silly. I’ll muddy the waters in whatever thread I please… just as I’d expect you to.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Who do you mean by they?
Poor lixy. This is not reading class. You should have that particular skill under your belt before coming in here.
It is quite obvious who I was referring to. [/quote]
Nope. It’s not at all obvious.
If we were to walk through the political beliefs of the people you painted in your brain as “[pro] big government free ride liberals”, you’d see that you’re wrong for the most part.
So, stop weaseling and tell us whom you have in mind. We’ve already established that you were wrong about Orion.
[quote]pookie wrote:
But the Right, while advocating economic liberty and less market tampering, wants government to legislate on social and personal liberties matters. Issues like marriage, abortion, drug consumption, alcohol restriction, sexual behavior, etc.
The Right doesn’t mind government as much as you claim they do, as long as it keeps it’s paws off their wallets. In fact, if they’re not to burdened economically, many of them don’t really seem to mind some measure of encouragement from the authorities to get everyone “in line” and acting according to some imagined “proper behavior.”
It’s as if one side is ready to pay more as long as they can do what they want, while the other doesn’t mind toeing the line, as long as they get to keep their cash. Each side is, of course, appalled by the other’s vision of what constitutes the best government. [/quote]
How come have you not listed “bloated military” and “government interventionism in other countries”? Surely, you must think that it’s relevant here.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Who do you mean by they?
Poor lixy. This is not reading class. You should have that particular skill under your belt before coming in here.
It is quite obvious who I was referring to.
Nope. It’s not at all obvious.
If we were to walk through the political beliefs of the people you painted in your brain as “[pro] big government free ride liberals”, you’d see that you’re wrong for the most part.
So, stop weaseling and tell us whom you have in mind. We’ve already established that you were wrong about Orion.[/quote]
I asked if he was a socialist, or did you skip school on question mark day.
I highly doubt I will be walking anywhere with you.
Once again - let the grown ups talk politics, and you just sit over there and color.
[quote]lixy wrote:
How come have you not listed “bloated military” and “government interventionism in other countries”? Surely, you must think that it’s relevant here.[/quote]
A strong defense is one of the few express duties of the federal government listed in the constitution.
[quote]lixy wrote:
How come have you not listed “bloated military” and “government interventionism in other countries”? Surely, you must think that it’s relevant here.[/quote]
Because I didn’t think of those, and because phrasing them as you do would hold more chance of getting the thread to devolve into another Iraq war shit-lobbing contest.
I’d rather keep discussing Ron Paul, his ideas and the various other political points we were addressing.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Because I didn’t think of those, and because phrasing them as you do would hold more chance of getting the thread to devolve into another Iraq war shit-lobbing contest. [/quote]
[quote]Midwest_Man wrote:
Any theories as to why the T-Nation folks want to talk so much about Ron Paul?
[/quote]
T-Nation members should probably be supportive of, or at least interested in, the Ron Paul campaign due to a factor that doesn’t appear to have been discussed as of yet.
The government and a powerful special interest in Washington D.C., that being the pharmaceutical industry, are strongly bent upon making evermore bodybuilding supplement either illegal or cost prohibitive to produce. Dr. Paul, given his stance on libertarian ideals, would obviously attempt to prevent an individual from intaking supplements that one purchases at the Biotest store. If individuals had listened to this man from the beginning MAG-10 would in all likelihood still be on the shelves.
Tim Patterson and TC Luoma appear to be very driven independent thinkers and creators. Little doubt they’ve ruffled the feathers of many others in their pursuit of quality products against their often-times inferior competition. It could probably be argued that their completely independent mindset is libertarian in thinking.
American business is becoming evermore politicized. As this process continues so too will its centralization. This makes it significantly more difficult for those with certain entrepreneurial aspirations to compete within a given industry under such conditions. One would imagine that those interested in supplements would prefer complete and open competition as opposed to one forcibly cartelized by government’s economic regulatory policies.
Granted, this is hardly the only concern of the individual T-Nation reader, or anyone for that matter, but for this audience it certainly should be one to consider.
Ron Paul is often criticized for his anti-mainstream viewpoints, often ridiculed as “crazy”, “loony”, or perhaps “ignorant.” One must also recall that many individuals would also make identical or similar accusations at individuals such as Tim Patterson, who see little or no wrong in [responsible] steroid usage.
[quote]Midwest_Man wrote:
Has anyone else pointed out that this Ron Paul thread is far and away more active than any other thread concerning any other candidates?
Any theories as to why the T-Nation folks want to talk so much about Ron Paul?
[/quote]
Because extreme people with loony followers are more interesting than the middle of the road. It does not mean he would be a good president.
I feel like proponents on both sides want present (ie, big) governments, they simply want it to govern different aspects of our lives.[/quote]
I think now more than ever, that is as close to being right as it can. But while the Right has flirted with “big government”, I think it has no staying power in this field because conservatives are dragging it back.
To some degree, yes, just as many conservatives actually want some level of government even in the economy. However, one note of American interest - conservatives would much prefer these kinds of regulations at lower levels of government, which makes a difference (and ultimately allows a diversity of approaches).
That said, conservatives are not libertarians, and they never have been. But outside of some minority “squeaky wheels” - who want broad authoritarian control - most conservatives want some kind “social baseline” - i.e., public morality laws - but nothing more.
Actually, this misstates the case - conservatives may want people to “stay in line” to a certain degree, but most of them prefer non-governmental institutions to provide the guardrails of that.
If conservatives were half as interested in using the government to police “bad behavior” in our culture, you’d see far more legislation than you do now. Conservatives don’t think government is good at doing much on a large scale, and that goes for running people’s lives as well. The difference between conservatives and libertarians on this point is degree and, to be frank, whether cultural relativism is a good thing or not.
Conservatives generally not being relativists, there are some things that fall below what the culture should allow as a matter of social value. Libertarians are moreso relativists in that they privilege fewer values - if any - above personal autonomy and the rest is left up to the individual.
I think this shows the differences to an extent - but conservatives aren’t nearly as interested in having the government control people’s behavior to the level you have suggested. Lately, the Right is definitely guilty of overreach in some areas, and more and more there grows a distinct difference in “the Right” and conservatives, and you are seeing conservatives react to the overreach.
[quote]pookie wrote:
As an aside: Assuming a miracle occurs and he does become president, how much of his ideas could he actually implement? Wouldn’t his presidency be a long fight with Congress (assuming most elected congressman won’t want to bite the hands that feed them?)[/quote]
No, for two major reasons.
The most grievous constitutional violations were enacted by executive order. And what was ordered by other presidents could be rescinded by the current one.
He would not dismantle the entire welfare state overnight (if that were even possible), but go about the process gradually. Social services that people have come to depend on would be the last to go, according to his own statements. In principle, he might be a radical on the issue of small government, but in practice, he would be a pragmatist. I expect we’ll hear more from him on this issue in the coming months. Stayed tuned for the next debate.
To get an idea of what a libertarian president might do on his “first day in office” (figuratively speaking), look no further than the following article, penned by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. He even addresses the exact issue which you brought up, that of the Congress potentially obstructing the President.
[quote]pookie wrote:
So basically, I can reconcile wanting the least government intervention possible with being in favor of universal health care because I believe it’s the right thing to do for a society that considers itself civilized and humane.
[/quote]
If a society truly considers itself humane and civilized, it will find a way to care for needy individuals without having to rob those who are better off to pay for that care.
The government has no magic powers, it cannot accomplish anything that the market cannot do on it’s own. The government can only redistribute the wealth produced by the market. And it necessarily does this through coercion, because otherwise, it would be unnecessary. If such a redistribution were in the best interests of all involved parties, it would happen voluntarily, within the free market.
I feel compelled to point out that you have fallen into the same trap which befalls so many other “potential libertarians”. That is, you support the notion of cutting government here and there…but not everywhere. You have one pet program, which you believe to be a justifiable burden for the government to handle.
That’s fine. But what you have to understand is that everyone else thinks exactly the same way as you do. In fact, that very practice is what led to us having our current federal government. When special interest groups compete for government influence, the end result is always more government.
Everybody has his own “pet issue”, you see. Yours is no more “justifiable” than anybody else’s, in a broad context. Why should a defense contractor support healthcare subsidies, but not military ones? He has a stake in the latter issue, not the former. You can’t expect anybody to act against their own self-interest.
People act selfishly, as a fundamental rule of economics, and that’s perfectly fine - provided you allow mutually beneficial transactions to occur within the free market. In a market transaction, all involved parties act selfishly, and each party gains from it.
A true libertarian cannot compromise on the issue of government because there IS no legitimate compromise. You can either have statism or laissez faire, with no middle ground.
So many people worry about “what would happen” if various government safety nets were removed. These people don’t understand economics, which is to say, they don’t comprehend how the world works. There are certain natural laws which can be applied to human affairs.
One of them is that, if you and everyone else you know agrees that something needs to get done, then that task will get accomplished. Government has no proper role in social issues. The bottom line about any issue is always the same:
-If something is desired by a large majority of the population, then all the people who make up that majority will find a way of getting it done, acting in own self-interest (this does not imply that no one besides the involved parties could stand to benefit, as in the case of charities). “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”.
-If something is not desired by the majority, then by what right can it be forced on them by the minority who support it?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think it is in the constitution that the gov’t is responsible for a safe money supply - ie banks.
But I could be wrong.
I do know that Alexander Hamilton was a big proponent of a national currency, and bank. [/quote]
That he was, you are correct. Hamilton probably had the strongest federalist tendencies of any of them. He did support a national bank charter, and that was renewed under the administration of his political ally, Madison, in the early part of the 19th century.
However, Andrew Jackson, who represented the anti-Federalist, Jeffersonian tradition, called the bank a “monster” and vowed to fight it at all costs. And he succeeded. The bank’s charter was not renewed.
Ron Paul definitely represents the Jeffersonian and not the Hamiltonian tradition.
Lew Rockwell’s site has a ton of commentary on this topic, if you’re interested.
[quote]Now, Alexander Hamilton can and should be admired for many things. But the one thing that Brooks says was his “greatest achievement” - his role as Treasury Secretary - should not be. Hamilton was a mercantilist. This was the corrupt system of political patronage and special privilege held into place by economic superstition in the Europe of Hamilton’s day (and before). As such, he championed protectionism, corporate welfare, central banking, excessive excise and property taxation, and government debt. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was a critique and repudiation of mercantilism and a defense of capitalism. Brooks and Chernow have it all backwards when they write that these policies were capitalistic. In fact, they were just the opposite.
…
Hamilton championed and did more than anyone to create the national debt, arguing successfully that it should be created as a means of taking over the state debts that were incurred to finance the Revolution. (Brooks praises this has having “bound the states together” and centralized more power in the nationâ¿¿s capital). The reason Hamilton gave for the national debt, however, was that making property-owning taxpayers “reliant on the federal government for redemption of the debts they held would generate greater future support for federal taxation and centralization of financial policy. . . he wanted to make the wealthy dependent on the government so that in the future he could take more of their wealth!” (Schweikart, p. 61). He was a scheming plunderer, in other words, and the public debt was an integral part of his statist scheming. [/quote]
At one point in time, monetary policy was at the forefront of the national discourse. Imagine that.
I think now more than ever, that is as close to being right as it can. But while the Right has flirted with “big government”, I think it has no staying power in this field because conservatives are dragging it back.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
If a society truly considers itself humane and civilized, it will find a way to care for needy individuals without having to rob those who are better off to pay for that care. [/quote]
Unfortunately, I don’t think that could work. At least, it could not reproduce the universal health care model.
As the richest citizens removed themselves from willingly participating in whatever citizen program has been set, the funding would be less and less. The only way to provide care would then to be able to pay doctor or nurses or equipment a lesser amount. Doctors and nurse would eventually look for greener pastures and equipment manufacturer would sell elsewhere.
The whole thing would crumble down into something not unlike the system in the US, where private groups and/or individuals insure themselves, but include only those who have the means to pay.
I agree in principle. The one “magic” power the government has is to make it mandatory for everyone to participate in a program. Yes, it’s at gun point, and yes, it’s an intrusion on my personal liberty, but I think that, in some rare cases, it can produce better results than the alternatives.
I can not like it as a matter of principles, but I’m also pragmatic enough to see the end benefits. If the benefits outweigh the costs, I can live with the imposition. I’m also profiting, even indirectly, from the benefits, so it’s important to not judge only on the negative aspects of the question.
It’s not so much that it’s my pet program, but rather that I do not see a workable alternative that would allow everyone adequate health coverage.
You don’t have to look very far, if you take the US model for example, to find people that are uninsurable because of their age, pre-existing conditions, etc. They find themselves nearly unable to receive adequate health care.
Health, I believe, is an important basic aspect to be able to lead a full life. What use is freedom and liberty if you’re to sick to do anything with it?
Maybe. I doubt though that you could get the same level of support from as large a majority as you would for the health issue.
Military subsidies do not affect your ability to live your life and to work, play and “pursue happiness” in general.
I think the case can be made that everyone profits from universal health care, even if they don’t directly use the services. Less sickness and disease means less workdays missed, less chance of catching something, etc. A healthy society is better than a diseased one.
Yet, there is no example in the world of a true libertarian society. The “pure extremes,” for some reason, never seem to materialize. Middle ground, as imperfect as it may be, seems to be the compromise you must live with in a democratic society.
Imposing libertarianism through a dictatorship would be the ultimate irony, and yet I don’t see how you’d ever reach that goal otherwise.
I’m a pragmatic libertarian; I’m willing to compromise on some issues where I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.
I’m quite comfortable with a world with much less safety nets. I’m not a big user and pride myself on that fact.
I differ on the issue of health because, again, health is a prerequisite to being able to take care of ourselves.
If welfare is not available and you fall on hard times, you can get bit jobs, you can beg, hell, you can even steal to feed your family. You can’t do any of that if you’re curled up on the floor in pain from an acute appendicitis.
What if the majority agrees that it should be done via laws and the government?
In the same way that people agree that laws and enforcement are necessary, and submit to them at the cost of some degree of liberty, can’t they also apply the principle to other areas if they consider them “basic necessities?”
Can you think of a single non-government program that’s the creation of private citizens and offers universal benefits to all? I can’t.
I understand the idea and I admire it. I simply don’t believe it can work in the real world. As long as something is voluntary, you’ll get people who won’t participate. At that point, the ball is already rolling and you’ll get more and more exclusions as the program needs to cut costs to remain solvent.
That shouldn’t happen. If it does, then it is an error in the democratic process and it should be corrected shortly by the majority voting it away.