So you want to throw away several other rights for that one? Not to mention that some of the third parties would give back the rights that Obama, McCain, and Bush have taken as well as keeping abortion around (not that abortion laws would change much anyways since it's just a distraction issue). Also you have absolutely no say in what the government spends its money on. Would you be ok with the government suddenly taking 50% of your paycheck to then send police forces to arrest every doctor and every worker that has ever worked in an abortion clinic? What about the government spending that money on abstinence only education? You wouldn't like that and I wouldn't either. The solution is to remove the government's "charity" in favor of personal charity where you can pick and choose the cause that you want to give money to. If I had 20% more of my paycheck, I'd gladly donate money to help people in third world countries have food and clean water. I'd also donate to programs like the one laptop per child program to make sure that they have resources to empower themselves in the future as well as a free flow of information. I'd also donate more to programs that help promote liberty and freedom (not "democracy") around the world. Real charity is much better than forced charity.
Obama has called to maintain a terrorist response coalition in iraq (of about 60,000-80,000 troop), he has called for attacking Pakistan and would like to continue to police the world (there's a good article in this months Reason magazine about this). He is against a preemptive attack where nothing bad has happened which is a plus but is still fine with preemptively attacking somebody that has done something bad but has not done anything to us. Basically he wants to continue a Bill Clinton strategy for war (which btw, Bill Clinton recommended that we attack Iraq towards the end of his presidency).
Palin isn't very good. She has more pluses for me then any of the other major party candidates, but not very many. Something around 4 or 5 pluses versus 2 and 1. I'm not going to vote for her so you needn't worry.
Attacking the two party system at the local level won't achieve much. The local politics here are far from egregious (hell we don't have state income taxes which is great!). The fact is that the federal government right now is a monster and it needs to be reigned in before the entire economy collapses and before we've lost what few freedoms we have left.
You are right, government is wasteful. However, ALL public service is wasteful on some level. Without government involvement, you have no way of knowing that the money you decide to give to specific charities are actually used for what you want it to. You have no way of knowing the accounting practices of said organizations. You even don't have the expertise and budgetary knowledge of what is a worthwhile charity to give to, that does good work and needs the money, as opposed to one that sits on their asses doing nothing. One other idea you might not have thought of. You don't know about most charity organizations. Important places where money is being spent by the government would then have to start advertising their existence and thus spending more money.
Finally, of course you have say over what the government does with your money. VOTE!
If I had 20% more of my paycheck, I'd gladly donate money to help people in third world countries have food and clean water.
While I don't know you and cannot judge whether this is true for you specifically or not, I will bet you 20% of my monthly paycheck that it's not true for most people.
Here's a minor but related issue that I've been thinking about lately. At places like Trader Joe's, they give you a discount for using your own canvas grocery bags instead of plastic ones. At most other grocery stores, they don't care. At grocery stores in Europe, they charge you extra if you use their plastic bags.
So here's the thing. I use the green bags at Publix and Kroger just because I think it's a good thing to do. I don't get a discount and I don't avoid a tax. A lot of people do the same thing. So I'm not saying nobody ever does anything good unless forced to do so. But practically everybody in Europe uses green bags because there's an economic advantage to making that decision. The government has stepped in and placed a tax on something in order to incentivize doing good things. Positive results: virtually everybody uses canvas bags. Negative results: You have to pay a little bit when you forget your canvas bag. Net result: positive. The fact is that even though some people will do good things just because they're good, more people will do good things when they have to.
This is actually called Social Engineering. I'm against the government doing these kinds of things because the government gets it wrong. Right now, they try to give incentives to do things that are deemed morally right. The problem is, not everyone has the same sense of morals. For example, if a man and a woman, are married, they get a tax deduction. However, because it is deemed morally wrong by the federal government(which I disagree with btw), if two men or two women are married, they do not get this same incentive.
There is a positive thing about social engineering though and your example is perfect to illustrate it. The market can implement many of the normal and sane social engineering ideas such as the one you gave without the need for the government to do it. In fact you give a perfect example of this with the way that Trader Joe's does it. Whole Foods is also doing something similar up here in Seattle. QFC (Kroger rebranded for the northwest) always assumes you want paper bags instead of plastic which is a step.
This is also similar to the concept of libertarian paternalism (which is an oxymoron btw). The problem with the government nudging us into doing something good even with an ability to opt-out is that eventually people will say, why does there need to be an opt-out and they would remove our choice (aka the government banning plastic bags even though they can have their uses). There is an article on this in this months Reason magazine. (w00t got to say that twice on this LJ entry :p)
It's just that I'm over the whole GOVERNMENT ALWAYS BAD, PEOPLE ALWAYS GOOD argument. Because it's not, and they're not.
I'm not saying the government should get to decide whether I am required to murder children; I'm saying I don't have a problem with the government putting in place things that The Market is apparently "allowed" to do. The slippery slope "But then they'll stop letting you use plastic bags!" is, by definition, a fallacy. The Market does some fucked-up shit too, but because it's The Market you guys don't freak out about it. So what if people like to buy stuff from Wal-Mart because their terrible employee rights and labor ethics make their crap cheaper? Thank goodness the government didn't step in to protect their workers; it saved me $2 on this t-shirt!
I can assure you that you will not convince me that the libertarian point of view is a good one just as I'm never going to convince you it's a bad one, so it is probably advisable to stop now.
Obama has called to maintain a terrorist response coalition in iraq (of about 60,000-80,000 troop), he has called for attacking Pakistan and would like to continue to police the world (there's a good article in this months Reason magazine about this). He is against a preemptive attack where nothing bad has happened which is a plus but is still fine with preemptively attacking somebody that has done something bad but has not done anything to us. Basically he wants to continue a Bill Clinton strategy for war (which btw, Bill Clinton recommended that we attack Iraq towards the end of his presidency).
Palin isn't very good. She has more pluses for me then any of the other major party candidates, but not very many. Something around 4 or 5 pluses versus 2 and 1. I'm not going to vote for her so you needn't worry.
Attacking the two party system at the local level won't achieve much. The local politics here are far from egregious (hell we don't have state income taxes which is great!). The fact is that the federal government right now is a monster and it needs to be reigned in before the entire economy collapses and before we've lost what few freedoms we have left.
Reply
Finally, of course you have say over what the government does with your money. VOTE!
Reply
While I don't know you and cannot judge whether this is true for you specifically or not, I will bet you 20% of my monthly paycheck that it's not true for most people.
Here's a minor but related issue that I've been thinking about lately. At places like Trader Joe's, they give you a discount for using your own canvas grocery bags instead of plastic ones. At most other grocery stores, they don't care. At grocery stores in Europe, they charge you extra if you use their plastic bags.
So here's the thing. I use the green bags at Publix and Kroger just because I think it's a good thing to do. I don't get a discount and I don't avoid a tax. A lot of people do the same thing. So I'm not saying nobody ever does anything good unless forced to do so. But practically everybody in Europe uses green bags because there's an economic advantage to making that decision. The government has stepped in and placed a tax on something in order to incentivize doing good things. Positive results: virtually everybody uses canvas bags. Negative results: You have to pay a little bit when you forget your canvas bag. Net result: positive. The fact is that even though some people will do good things just because they're good, more people will do good things when they have to.
Reply
There is a positive thing about social engineering though and your example is perfect to illustrate it. The market can implement many of the normal and sane social engineering ideas such as the one you gave without the need for the government to do it. In fact you give a perfect example of this with the way that Trader Joe's does it. Whole Foods is also doing something similar up here in Seattle. QFC (Kroger rebranded for the northwest) always assumes you want paper bags instead of plastic which is a step.
This is also similar to the concept of libertarian paternalism (which is an oxymoron btw). The problem with the government nudging us into doing something good even with an ability to opt-out is that eventually people will say, why does there need to be an opt-out and they would remove our choice (aka the government banning plastic bags even though they can have their uses). There is an article on this in this months Reason magazine. (w00t got to say that twice on this LJ entry :p)
Reply
I'm not saying the government should get to decide whether I am required to murder children; I'm saying I don't have a problem with the government putting in place things that The Market is apparently "allowed" to do. The slippery slope "But then they'll stop letting you use plastic bags!" is, by definition, a fallacy. The Market does some fucked-up shit too, but because it's The Market you guys don't freak out about it. So what if people like to buy stuff from Wal-Mart because their terrible employee rights and labor ethics make their crap cheaper? Thank goodness the government didn't step in to protect their workers; it saved me $2 on this t-shirt!
I can assure you that you will not convince me that the libertarian point of view is a good one just as I'm never going to convince you it's a bad one, so it is probably advisable to stop now.
Reply
Also I was just trying to say my thoughts on things and was not trying to sound harsh or anything. If it came across that way, then I apologize.
I'll end with that.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment