I think everybody agrees our system has flaws. If you're going to have a stronger social net, I'm not convinced that taking away benefits for someone who cares for a family member is a good idea. So at least, it seems evident that those rules should be changed. I'd want to reward people for trying to take the destitute away from governmental care and into familiy care, not penalize them.
If the people who need help aren't even aware of the programs that exist, those programs are complete failures and should be abolished. They are not accomplishing what they are supposed to be, and there's no reason to continue to fund them.
That said, sure there are people that could really use these programs effectively, and who would have a hard time getting by without them. It's certainly a tradeoff. Perhaps I seem cold and heartless, but I care more about improving the lives of the intelligent and capable part of humanity far more than improving the lives of the retarded and the incompetant. I know it's a slippery slope and that I need to be careful with this sort of thinking, but it seems to me as completely evident that $X million of research into diabetes (just to pick something) is going to better serve humanity than $X million dollars supporting people who can never contribute to society.
I don't think the function of government is to play nanny to humanity. At best that's the function of religious groups. If anything, the role of government is to protect its potentially productive members. But if somebody is not potentially productive, I really have a hard time mustering up feelings for these people, as cold as that might sound.
(I do want to note that I fully respect those who have a deep empathic connection with these sorts of people. I don't understand it, but I respect those who do. Nor do I think it's necessary to believe as I do to hold libertarian type political views. It just happens to be one route which works for me.)
Libertarians are just confused. Quite a lot of them are secretly resentful of "welfare parasites" for not living up to their own libertarian ideals, and there's probably some jealousy as well in having the luxury to fail and still receive support. There will always be people who take advantage of the social support net just as there will always be people who suffer without it. So, we as a society make a value judgement: how much of a support net are we willing to provide before we become disgusted with its excesses?
There's an ebb and flow to this process. The turn of the century into the 20's, the poor and lower class were agitators and unworthy of help from the "robber barons"/captains of industry. In the 30's and 40's, a very much needed support network was formed. From the 50's to the 70's our attention largely shifted overseas, but the support network largely remained the same. In the late 70's and 80's, a new brand of Yuppie and Reaganite started to dismantle the support network, in the name of cutting government waste (while simultaneously initiating defense projects that could be labelled same). The current push to "fix"/privatize Social Security and to cut welfare is a continuation of this trend from the 80's, and with the disastrous response to hurricane Katrina and the government's horribly complex Medicare drug benefit, people are beginning to reconsider the whole safety net thing - at least in the immediate term for New Orleans.
Of course, the support net will never fully go away nor will it be drowned in a bathtub, as Grover Norquist put it. It may oscillate, but the trend over the past century has been towards more government taking direct care of its citizenry. That's heartening, at least.
To sum up: Conservatives are selfish assholes, Libertarians are confused about their ultimate goals, Anarchists are naive, and while social Liberals are naive too, they've got the right idea in trying to help their fellow man.
I will neither countenance nor reply to ad hominem attacks. If you wish to have a civil conversation without attacking me personally, I think I have displayed my willingness to do so.
Where am I confused? Am I confused in my belief that what I earn by my own blood and sweat should be mine and not taken from me by force? Am I confused that I think that the private sector is more capable of providing everything cheaper and more efficiently than the government? Maybe I am confused when I think that the government should just do the job it was intended for and stay out of my life ( even if that means that I might cause harm to myself). I realize that this may be a hard concept of your limited mental capabilities to understand, but it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of me. The ultimate goal, for Libertarians, is to allow people to make choices for themselves and not have the state or the feds force those choices on them by the threat of force. My question for you is this, If a liberal society is so wonderful, then what the hell happened in New Orleans?
Re: A second thoughtskotodesApril 24 2006, 13:25:33 UTC
Well, you think we have a "liberal society", so you're clearly confused about who holds the power in this country. Unless it's just my limited mental capacity acting up again.
Re: A second thoughtkraadaApril 24 2006, 21:10:29 UTC
first off I was no where near as insulting as the post I replied to. Yes I let myself sink down to his level and for that I apologize (never been good at takin the high road). Secondly I was responding, as a libertarian, to the statement that libertarians are confused. At no point in time have I ever been confused in any of my beliefs. Yes there are times when the party is divided on issues, but that happens in all political parties. This does not make us "confused". My last point was made in response to the statement that more direct governmental control of its citizenry is "heartening". If you understand the principles and the philosophy behind the libertarian party, then you would understand why I find that statement to be most offensive.
Re: A second thoughtkraadaApril 25 2006, 04:36:42 UTC
Maybe I'm misreading your comment here, as it was in reply to a mess of rhetoric, but are you really saying that the U.S. is not a liberal society? If so, what would it take for the U.S. to qualify as a liberal society? I'm having a hard time imagining what you mean by 'liberal' if we as a country don't qualify.
Re: A second thoughtsalmonpiApril 25 2006, 14:40:13 UTC
Ok, the problem is you're all using liberal as a defined set of ideas, as opposed to a relative term. If you want to say "the U.S. is a more liberal society than it was 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago" then I agree with you, I think almost everyone would agree. If you say U.S. society is too liberal, or not liberal enough, then that's a matter of opinion and essentially what we're arguing about. You could also argue over what liberal means; depending on what definition you use, you could argue that you are more liberal than I am..... although I believe according to current definitions you're an economic liberal and I'm a social liberal.
I think everyone in this thread is using liberal to mean left or progressive. While I don't like seeing liberal used as dirty word by politicians today, I do think "progressive" is a better term for leftists than "liberal" if for no other reason than liberal can mean many different things politically.
If I went into detail on all the ways I'd like the U.S. to be more liberal, I'm sure everyone would think I'm crazy... but that's what ideologies are for, and you already know I'm crazy ;)
Maybe I am confused when I think that the government should just do the job it was intended for and stay out of my life ( even if that means that I might cause harm to myself).
Ooh, here is a very ambigous sentense. What is the government suppose to do. Oh yeah, that's the debate we're having. If the defination fo government was to do X Y and Z we wouldn't be having this debate. The debate is based on our goals and values how do we want to government to act to bring those things about with a secondard debate about the effectiveness of certain ideas and programs.
The problem with a debate like this is that we jumped to the middle, how do we want governement to run, when the orginal question shoudl have been what do we want government to do.
Joel is 70% Libertarian, he doesn't agree with everything about what they say.
What do we value our own life at? What about others?
The people that RO discribed, the legitamatly unlucky. What is their worth. Should these people be helped? Who should them? We're really jumping all over the board here. We need clear opinion from people to debate over direct, which of course can always be changed over time.
People below the line of poverty: Should they be helped? If no, how do we prevent them from turning to crime or other activities that would hurt us directly. If yes, who should do it? Private: How would we make the private sector accountable? How exactly should it be done. Government: How can we get rid of government waste? How exactly should it be done. Poverty should not be where the line is draw. Then where?
Of course what to do with poor people is just one question amoung many consering how governemtn shoudl act, though it seems to have been our main concern here.
I think everybody agrees our system has flaws. If you're going to have a stronger social net, I'm not convinced that taking away benefits for someone who cares for a family member is a good idea. So at least, it seems evident that those rules should be changed. I'd want to reward people for trying to take the destitute away from governmental care and into familiy care, not penalize them.
If the people who need help aren't even aware of the programs that exist, those programs are complete failures and should be abolished. They are not accomplishing what they are supposed to be, and there's no reason to continue to fund them.
That said, sure there are people that could really use these programs effectively, and who would have a hard time getting by without them. It's certainly a tradeoff. Perhaps I seem cold and heartless, but I care more about improving the lives of the intelligent and capable part of humanity far more than improving the lives of the retarded and the incompetant. I know it's a slippery slope and that I need to be careful with this sort of thinking, but it seems to me as completely evident that $X million of research into diabetes (just to pick something) is going to better serve humanity than $X million dollars supporting people who can never contribute to society.
I don't think the function of government is to play nanny to humanity. At best that's the function of religious groups. If anything, the role of government is to protect its potentially productive members. But if somebody is not potentially productive, I really have a hard time mustering up feelings for these people, as cold as that might sound.
(I do want to note that I fully respect those who have a deep empathic connection with these sorts of people. I don't understand it, but I respect those who do. Nor do I think it's necessary to believe as I do to hold libertarian type political views. It just happens to be one route which works for me.)
Reply
There's an ebb and flow to this process. The turn of the century into the 20's, the poor and lower class were agitators and unworthy of help from the "robber barons"/captains of industry. In the 30's and 40's, a very much needed support network was formed. From the 50's to the 70's our attention largely shifted overseas, but the support network largely remained the same. In the late 70's and 80's, a new brand of Yuppie and Reaganite started to dismantle the support network, in the name of cutting government waste (while simultaneously initiating defense projects that could be labelled same). The current push to "fix"/privatize Social Security and to cut welfare is a continuation of this trend from the 80's, and with the disastrous response to hurricane Katrina and the government's horribly complex Medicare drug benefit, people are beginning to reconsider the whole safety net thing - at least in the immediate term for New Orleans.
Of course, the support net will never fully go away nor will it be drowned in a bathtub, as Grover Norquist put it. It may oscillate, but the trend over the past century has been towards more government taking direct care of its citizenry. That's heartening, at least.
To sum up: Conservatives are selfish assholes, Libertarians are confused about their ultimate goals, Anarchists are naive, and while social Liberals are naive too, they've got the right idea in trying to help their fellow man.
--Jeff
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think everyone in this thread is using liberal to mean left or progressive. While I don't like seeing liberal used as dirty word by politicians today, I do think "progressive" is a better term for leftists than "liberal" if for no other reason than liberal can mean many different things politically.
If I went into detail on all the ways I'd like the U.S. to be more liberal, I'm sure everyone would think I'm crazy... but that's what ideologies are for, and you already know I'm crazy ;)
Reply
Ooh, here is a very ambigous sentense. What is the government suppose to do. Oh yeah, that's the debate we're having. If the defination fo government was to do X Y and Z we wouldn't be having this debate. The debate is based on our goals and values how do we want to government to act to bring those things about with a secondard debate about the effectiveness of certain ideas and programs.
The problem with a debate like this is that we jumped to the middle, how do we want governement to run, when the orginal question shoudl have been what do we want government to do.
Joel is 70% Libertarian, he doesn't agree with everything about what they say.
What do we value our own life at?
What about others?
The people that RO discribed, the legitamatly unlucky. What is their worth. Should these people be helped? Who should them? We're really jumping all over the board here. We need clear opinion from people to debate over direct, which of course can always be changed over time.
People below the line of poverty: Should they be helped?
If no, how do we prevent them from turning to crime or
other activities that would hurt us directly.
If yes, who should do it?
Private: How would we make the private sector
accountable? How exactly should it be done.
Government: How can we get rid of government waste?
How exactly should it be done.
Poverty should not be where the line is draw. Then
where?
Of course what to do with poor people is just one question amoung many consering how governemtn shoudl act, though it seems to have been our main concern here.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment