Election meaningless unless we change for the better

[pmward]

the group you are talking about is a very small percentage of the total number of needy, the vast majority can learn to swim or to at least keep their head above water and float. if you do away with disincentives that discourage the givers from giving, and stop taking from them to support the bad decision makers i bet the charitable nature of the American people prevails, (it would surprise me if it didn't, even with getting double tapped Americans lead when it comes to giving)

This group is a minority yes, but that's precisely what this whole tangent in the discussion started from. How the inequality of those that are the minority is unjust. This so happens to be the most needy minority sect. And no I would disagree and say there is no evidence that the "charitable nature of the American people" prevails. I look back in U.S. history and I do not even see a shred of evidence that this would happen. Charity already exists, the American people as a whole are already choosing to not be "charitable in nature".

Now, when you discuss the sect of the population that can be taught to swim, sure investing in teaching them is much better than just giving them money and enabling them. But the government still needs to exist, and still needs capital to teach them. If they don't teach them, who will?

And let us not forget our discussion from this weekend, that still has not been refuted, that when we step further back and look at all groups of minorities as a generalization, that the opportunities cannot be equal. If the input variables for every group were equal then the outcomes would be in the realm of statistical randomness. And we don't have that now do we? The very division, consistency, and trend of outputs favoring people of one certain set of traits is far different than the outputs of people exhibiting other sets of traits. And that in a no government system, this problem not only does not go away... but it actually gets worse because the rules of a completely "free market" always tilt towards the majority. It always backs up the haves, and punishes the have nots.

more important than the answer to the bit in bold type, is asking the question... we have had problem people since the beginning of civilization and the go to solution has been .... government... and yet the problem persists.. trying more of the same is the definition of insanity...
i think the time has come to think outside that box and ask this question and come up with some non government answers..

I am thinking outside the box. Are you? I would be willing to say this is the first time in history that we actually had the ability to generate the resources needed to actually stand a chance at fixing these issues, and truly providing at least a very basic standard of life for all. It was never possible in the past. Plus, one has to look at the forms of government that existed in the past. None of the old dead forms of government could have tackled the issue even if they had the resources. I think what we have today is not perfect, but it's the first time we've actually had a fighting chance. I think to throw in the towel and admit defeat before we've even really tried to fight is silly. I also think capitalism and markets are a great thing, and that we need them to be there so we can continue to generate the resources we need to fight. What I'm really saying is there is a balance needed. Now my arguments are more towards the left here because the existing bias here is very right. I have some friends that are very left and in my debates with them I wind up sounding more on the right. There is no perfect utopian system. There are always tradeoffs. So, just like we diversify in a portfolio to diversify away the weaknesses/tradeoffs of each asset, we should also be open to diversifying our strategies in government. It's the only way to truly find some semblance of fairness and equality.

[pmward]

So, just like we diversify in a portfolio to diversify away the weaknesses/tradeoffs of each asset, we should also be open to diversifying our strategies in government. It's the only way to truly find some semblance of fairness and equality.

Reminds me of Paul Saladino (carnivore MD) who makes a counter argument against the “we need sulfurafane from broccoli sprouts as a hormetic response activator”

He argues that plants produce toxins to keep us from eating them. And others claim but hormesis is good so some low level of toxins is healthy.

And Dr Saladino counters that if hormesis from toxins in small doses is beneficial, why don’t doctors recommend everyone smoke 1/4 of a cigarette each day?

So Pmward’s argument is that should incorporate a little bit of to totalitarianism to spice up the capitalism and make it better capitalism. Even though totalitarianism is bad, a little for hermetic response works nicely. Like 1/4 cigarette per day.

I have never said anything about totalitarianism. You're putting words in my mouth. If you had a sound argument to counter my points you wouldn't have to resort to desperate tactics like this.

[Tortoise]

The idea of the centrality of individual freedom and responsibility is a core philosophical belief.

But the problem that I've mentioned multiple times and has not been refuted is that there is no clean line of demarkation where one persons rights end and others begin. There is an overlapping gray area, where one persons individual right conflicts with another persons individual right.

Agreed. When one individual's rights potentially conflict with another's, it's not always obvious how to resolve the conflict. In complicated cases, I think both individuals probably need to make their case in court and rely on its judgment to determine where the line between the two individuals' rights should be drawn in that particular situation. A disinterested third party reviews the facts and arguments and renders a judgment. It's not always ideal, but it's the best we can do in most cases.

You mentioned the right to life in an earlier post, so let's briefly consider that one. You seem to be of the opinion that if a person who is really down on his luck is not helped by others who have the ability to do so, his right to life is being violated. I strongly disagree.

I don't view the right to life as the right to force other people to maintain one's life. I view it as the right to be protected from other people who would take away your life via their individual action (such as murder).

None of this is obvious stuff. Seemingly "no-brainer" phrases like "the right to life" can be interpreted philosophically by very intelligent people in very different ways.

In general, I agree with your general sentiment that it would be more productive for people to argue about their core philosophies than about a myriad of particular political policies and parties that may only hint at the underlying core philosophies.

[pmward]

I am thinking outside the box. Are you? I would be willing to say this is the first time in history that we actually had the ability to generate the resources needed to actually stand a chance at fixing these issues, and truly providing at least a very basic standard of life for all. It was never possible in the past. Plus, one has to look at the forms of government that existed in the past. None of the old dead forms of government could have tackled the issue even if they had the resources. I think what we have today is not perfect, but it's the first time we've actually had a fighting chance. I think to throw in the towel and admit defeat before we've even really tried to fight is silly. I also think capitalism and markets are a great thing, and that we need them to be there so we can continue to generate the resources we need to fight. What I'm really saying is there is a balance needed. Now my arguments are more towards the left here because the existing bias here is very right. I have some friends that are very left and in my debates with them I wind up sounding more on the right. There is no perfect utopian system. There are always tradeoffs. So, just like we diversify in a portfolio to diversify away the weaknesses/tradeoffs of each asset, we should also be open to diversifying our strategies in government. It's the only way to truly find some semblance of fairness and equality.

i agree with pretty much all this.. especially the text in bold, we had a system of limit government and it had been getting us ahead in great ways .... so why the constant push to expand back into command and control top down tyrannical methods?
maybe limited government and government that gets smaller as progress comes is a much better idea...

This begs the question... if the system was so great, why did people demand that it change? I've already identified the problems that came from that system. Everybody here seems to be in agreement that these problems exist, nobody has even tried to deny the problems I've identified. I also have not seen anyone question the fact that back when we had this smaller government system, these problems were worse than they are today. I also have not seen anyone attempt to refute the fact that as the government has evolved that these problems have slowly been improving (though we are still a long way from home free). I've stated these things dozens of times now in different ways. So, if we can all agree on these facts, then how on earth do we bridge the gap to the conclusion that a smaller more darwinian government would fix these problems? This just seems like an uncrossable chasm to me. The evidence in hand refute that conclusion.

Now I will agree there are some parts of government that should be smaller than they are today. I'm definitely not saying our government is perfect, or that it is efficient in any way. But, in the problems I've identified, government is the only real option. Once again, the sole reason government exists is to defend the rights of its citizens. I know this is my 3rd time pasting this here, but everyone keeps overlooking it. The Declaration of Independence itself says it up front "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If we didn't have government there to enforce this, those "unalienable" rights would quickly become alienable.

[pmward]

The idea of the centrality of individual freedom and responsibility is a core philosophical belief.

But the problem that I've mentioned multiple times and has not been refuted is that there is no clean line of demarkation where one persons rights end and others begin. There is an overlapping gray area, where one persons individual right conflicts with another persons individual right.

Agreed. When one individual's rights potentially conflict with another's, it's not always obvious how to resolve the conflict. In complicated cases, I think both individuals probably need to make their case in court and rely on its judgment to determine where the line between the two individuals' rights should be drawn in that particular situation. A disinterested third party reviews the facts and arguments and renders a judgment. It's not always ideal, but it's the best we can do in most cases.

You mentioned the right to life in an earlier post, so let's briefly consider that one. You seem to be of the opinion that if a person who is really down on his luck is not helped by others who have the ability to do so, his right to life is being violated. I strongly disagree.

I don't view the right to life as the right to force other people to maintain one's life. I view it as the right to be protected from other people who would take away your life via their individual action (such as murder).

None of this is obvious stuff. Seemingly "no-brainer" phrases like "the right to life" can be interpreted philosophically by very intelligent people in very different ways.

In general, I agree with your general sentiment that it would be more productive for people to argue about their core philosophies than about a myriad of particular political policies and parties that may only hint at the underlying core philosophies.

You are right that the clear line of demarkation is also difficult, if not impossible, to identify on individual rights like "right to life". These things are incredibly complex. Way earlier in the thread we had a discussion on language and meaning itself changing over time. Since language itself evolves, meaning itself evolves, and context itself evolves it can be difficult to truly identify the "right" from the "wrong". If you go and ask 100 people each from a different background what "freedom" means you will get 100 different answers, all from their own unique context and understanding of the word. How do we say which of these 100 understandings is right or wrong? Is it even possible for any of them to be wrong, since meaning is in the eye of the beholder?

[sophie]

So here's a question for you history & philosophy authorities....

What happened to the "have-nots" before the welfare state was instituted in the 1960s? Were they all truly dying in ditches left and right? Was there a worse homeless problem, as one would naturally assume absent such things as public housing, food stamps, and various other forms of welfare?

Here's one statistic that you may find to be of interest: the percentage of black families headed by a single parent. It was lower than the percentage for white families prior to 1960. Once the sweeping legislation & court decisions in the 1960s that instituted welfare support and made it harder to prosecute criminals was passed, this percentage took off like a bullet, to the astronomical levels you see today. And, crime skyrocketed as well, greatly impacting the ability of black men to lead productive lives.

So what exactly was the problem here? Are you saying that there is a genetic predisposition of certain races to lead irresponsible and unproductive lives, so that they must be rescued by the state? That sounds racist to me. And might one have the sneaking suspicion that government actually CAUSED this problem?

[vnatale]

Why does it seem like the difference between "basic rights" as defined by leftists always involve taking something from me, to give to someone else.

And here is the root if the issue right here. Go back and reread everything I've said, as I've already identified this self centered world view, and the belief that "I deserve more than them" as the only real roadblock to truly helping others that need it. Generosity and care for others is the scarcest resource in our society.

what is missing is that anyone who has gotten ahead by either a little or a lot has gotten there by making good choices and taking responsibility, it is a little confusing how it is so poorly understood that the idea of taking by force, and eliminating the responsibility for decision making on both the victim of theft (taxes inflation) along with the choice of who to help and how, and on the recipient who gets there needs met with no responsibility, might rankle the people who are putting in the effort... and seems complete contrary to everything we know about how success works.

I have always made the assumption that an extreme high percentage of Trump supporters believe all of this.

I believe much of it, which is why I can understand why so many voted for him.

[pmward]

So what exactly was the problem here? Are you saying that there is a genetic predisposition of certain races to lead irresponsible and unproductive lives, so that they must be rescued by the state? That sounds racist to me. And might one have the sneaking suspicion that government actually CAUSED this problem?

As far as I can see, you're the only person in this entire thread that has attributed "irresponsible and unproductive lives" to a persons skin color.

[vnatale]

That's what happens when you remove skin in the game. You incentivize irresponsible decisions.

So what about the people that are not capable of having "skin in the game"? Do you just write them off? I'm not disagreeing with any of the arguments you made there on the sect of society that is capable of being "productive". But there is a point where this falls apart. There is a point where you eventually wind up culling everyone that doesn't have "skin in the game" and/or makes "irresponsible decisions" and setting the rules up for to favor the people that (in many ways through pure random luck) are capable of having "skin in the game" and making "responsible decisions". If this is the line you support, to incentivize those with traits you see as most favorable and disincentivize those with traits you see as less favorable... well you just described discrimination, inequality, oppression, and tyranny to a T.

There are, as you oftentimes point out, the "gray" areas.

I'm all for the ones providing for those who are indisputably clear cut unable to provide for themselves. But there are some who do make their own choices to not be able to provide for themselves. It can be through laziness. Not wanting to be disciplined or a myriad of other reasons. We can have two people who are clones. Except that they have complete free will and do think differently. One chooses enough of the right choices while the other not enough.

I am within myself am an example (as I am sure everyone else reading this). Some days I chose to make the best choices for me. Other days, I chose the easy way out and don't make the right choices. At this point I've certainly not made enough of the right choices to be my best choice. But I've made enough of the right choices to have achieved a comfortable lifestyle.

One of the my life motivators for making the right choices is that I always want to be in control of my life and to not ever put myself in a position whereby I become dependent upon others. And, don't get my way!

Vinny

[pmward]

Why does it seem like the difference between "basic rights" as defined by leftists always involve taking something from me, to give to someone else.

And here is the root if the issue right here. Go back and reread everything I've said, as I've already identified this self centered world view, and the belief that "I deserve more than them" as the only real roadblock to truly helping others that need it. Generosity and care for others is the scarcest resource in our society.

what is missing is that anyone who has gotten ahead by either a little or a lot has gotten there by making good choices and taking responsibility, it is a little confusing how it is so poorly understood that the idea of taking by force, and eliminating the responsibility for decision making on both the victim of theft (taxes inflation) along with the choice of who to help and how, and on the recipient who gets there needs met with no responsibility, might rankle the people who are putting in the effort... and seems complete contrary to everything we know about how success works.

I have always made the assumption that an extreme high percentage of Trump supporters believe all of this.

I believe much of it, which is why I can understand why so many voted for him.

Vinny

The question this begs though... is what defines "success" and "responsibility"? And are these accurate metrics for how to value one person vs another? Does someone that is more successful or more responsible have more intrinsic value than someone who does not? And if you say this is true, how do you justify that against the backdrop of "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"?? Also, the Declaration does not state that the right of the "pursuit of money" is an inalienable right, it states the right of the "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right. This is important wording they chose here. Money is not equal to happiness. The government issues the money, they are the one and only true owner of the money, and as such they have the right to tax their money and to disperse their money however they see fit. Now I don't want to see them get crazy with that right, but the government does have that right. One of the main qualms I have with right wing politics, and what I keep seeing here, is the fact that everything always boils down to money and nothing else. There are more important things in this world than money. And as far as I'm concerned, all the issues I've brought up are those things that are more important than money. I would agree with everything everyone states in this thread about 70 percent of the time. It's the other 30% that are the important exceptional cases that need to be addressed.

[vnatale]

So here's a question for you history & philosophy authorities....

What happened to the "have-nots" before the welfare state was instituted in the 1960s? Were they all truly dying in ditches left and right? Was there a worse homeless problem, as one would naturally assume absent such things as public housing, food stamps, and various other forms of welfare?

Here's one statistic that you may find to be of interest: the percentage of black families headed by a single parent. It was lower than the percentage for white families prior to 1960. Once the sweeping legislation & court decisions in the 1960s that instituted welfare support and made it harder to prosecute criminals was passed, this percentage took off like a bullet, to the astronomical levels you see today. And, crime skyrocketed as well, greatly impacting the ability of black men to lead productive lives.

So what exactly was the problem here? Are you saying that there is a genetic predisposition of certain races to lead irresponsible and unproductive lives, so that they must be rescued by the state? That sounds racist to me. And might one have the sneaking suspicion that government actually CAUSED this problem?

Slavery!

You expect a group/race of people who underwent hundreds of years of institutionalized slavery to somehow become prosperous?

To somehow have this group of former slaves encourage education and the unified family unit and magically become prosperous after several generations?

In spite of people hating them just for their genetics? In spite of governments trying to round them up and restrict them from business and restrict them from schools and control where they are allowed to live?

Look folks, the blacks have no chance unless we have affirmative action and Black Lives Matter and reparations and discounted mortgages to black families, and easier admission into college for blacks.

Blacks had hundreds of years of slavery and hatred and discrimination directed at them. They’re not bootstrapping their way out of that. No minority group could possibly do so. Ever.

Many of us by now know you well enough to know that you mean this all to be satirical. But I don't know if you know how many elements of the truth you have actually stated! Actually, did a way better job than if I'd attempted to do the same!

Vinny

[vnatale]

Why does it seem like the difference between "basic rights" as defined by leftists always involve taking something from me, to give to someone else.

And here is the root if the issue right here. Go back and reread everything I've said, as I've already identified this self centered world view, and the belief that "I deserve more than them" as the only real roadblock to truly helping others that need it. Generosity and care for others is the scarcest resource in our society.

what is missing is that anyone who has gotten ahead by either a little or a lot has gotten there by making good choices and taking responsibility, it is a little confusing how it is so poorly understood that the idea of taking by force, and eliminating the responsibility for decision making on both the victim of theft (taxes inflation) along with the choice of who to help and how, and on the recipient who gets there needs met with no responsibility, might rankle the people who are putting in the effort... and seems complete contrary to everything we know about how success works.

I have always made the assumption that an extreme high percentage of Trump supporters believe all of this.

I believe much of it, which is why I can understand why so many voted for him.

Vinny

The question this begs though... is what defines "success" and "responsibility"? And are these accurate metrics for how to value one person vs another? Does someone that is more successful or more responsible have more intrinsic value than someone who does not? And if you say this is true, how do you justify that against the backdrop of "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"?? Also, the Declaration does not state that the right of the "pursuit of money" is an inalienable right, it states the right of the "pursuit of happiness" is an inalienable right. This is important wording they chose here. Money is not equal to happiness. The government issues the money, they are the one and only true owner of the money, and as such they have the right to tax their money and to disperse their money however they see fit. Now I don't want to see them get crazy with that right, but the government does have that right. One of the main qualms I have with right wing politics, and what I keep seeing here, is the fact that everything always boils down to money and nothing else. There are more important things in this world than money. And as far as I'm concerned, all the issues I've brought up are those things that are more important than money. I would agree with everything everyone states in this thread about 70 percent of the time. It's the other 30% that are the important exceptional cases that need to be addressed.

That is because no matter what anyone says..."Money IS the MOST important thing." ALWAYS!

I was only 19 years old when I took my only U.S. Foreign policy course way back in 1971 but the one and only thing that I got from it (and which I still remember to this day) is that....our ENTIRE U.S. foreign policy was ALWAYS based upon what was good for the United States dollar.

Our own Civil War was ultimately fought over money. The South's right to continue to use free slavery to earn untold riches. The sad thing was that this only described just a tiny portion of the people who at the time lived in the south at this time. Anyone have any statistics of those who fought for the South actually owed even one slave?

I've read this next one many times. We all espouse certain values. These are always our ideal values. But our true values are revealed by looking at our checkbooks and seeing on what we spend our money.

If the United States population was truly interested in helping the down and out, the poor, they could all live in much smaller houses and less expensive cars. There would then be far more than enough money to support all these people.

But they don't want to give up their large, expensive houses and expensive cars.

The government generates no income on its own. It only takes other people's money to spend and redistribute. How can it spend money in ways that do not match the TRUE values of the people living under that government?

[Tortoise]

The government issues the money, they are the one and only true owner of the money, and as such they have the right to tax their money and to disperse their money however they see fit. Now I don't want to see them get crazy with that right, but the government does have that right.

1. The government issues all money.

2. All wealth (real goods and services) are denominated in terms of that money.

3. The government has the right to tax and disperse their money as they see fit.

4. Therefore, the government has the right to tax and disperse all real goods and services as they see fit.

Did I reach the right conclusion there, or is my logic flawed?

[vnatale]

If the United States population was truly interested in helping the down and out, the poor, they could all live in much smaller houses and less expensive cars. There would then be far more than enough money to support all these people.

But they don't want to give up their large, expensive houses and expensive cars.

Vinny

I’d love a small 1200 sq foot single family house but government regulations and economic policy preclude builders from building them that size. So it’s not up to the people to decide they want smaller house, it’s Up to the government to get out of housing economic policies and allow the free market of people to get those Houses built.

Can you further explain? I seem to be completely ignorant regarding this.

My only personal experience is being the accountant for someone who built houses on spec. He built him according to what he thought would sell.

My only other experience was buying, at the time, my 900 square foot used house that was about 35 years old at the time.

Are there NO used houses that are small enough for you?

Vinny

[pmward]

This begs the question... if the system was so great, why did people demand that it change? I've already identified the problems that came from that system. Everybody here seems to be in agreement that these problems exist, nobody has even tried to deny the problems I've identified. I also have not seen anyone question the fact that back when we had this smaller government system, these problems were worse than they are today. I also have not seen anyone attempt to refute the fact that as the government has evolved that these problems have slowly been improving (though we are still a long way from home free). I've stated these things dozens of times now in different ways. So, if we can all agree on these facts, then how on earth do we bridge the gap to the conclusion that a smaller more darwinian government would fix these problems? This just seems like an uncrossable chasm to me. The evidence in hand refute that conclusion.

I am not sure it does beg the question. the temptation to obtain power and control is a powerful lure to some people, have we ever really given limited government a fair shake? or (as Sofie mentioned ) have we just had government programs that are causing or at least compounding these problems and then jumping into more government to solve them... all the while blaming the successful as the scapegoat?

Are you sure that the "the temptation to obtain power and control" is only for the government? Doesn't this also hold true in a no government situation? Where at that point, the strongest and fittest of the majority assume that power and control and the rest suffer?

And you only answered the first question. What about the logic behind the rest of it? I've still yet to see any arguments against any of those points. And if nobody can refute those points, then the chasm to small government being the answer is impossible to cross and any further discussion is moot.

as to the second part of you post i think this posted by tortoise " I don't view the right to life as the right to force other people to maintain one's life. I view it as the right to be protected from other people who would take away your life via their individual action (such as murder).
is pretty right on...

[pmward]

The government issues the money, they are the one and only true owner of the money, and as such they have the right to tax their money and to disperse their money however they see fit. Now I don't want to see them get crazy with that right, but the government does have that right.

1. The government issues all money.

2. All wealth (real goods and services) are denominated in terms of that money.

3. The government has the right to tax and disperse their money as they see fit.

4. Therefore, the government has the right to tax and disperse all real goods and services as they see fit.

Did I reach the right conclusion there, or is my logic flawed?

Pretty much. I'm not making ideological arguments here. I'm simply stating how the system works. If the government issues the money, and if goods and services are denominated in those dollars, the government can effectively buy anything it wants, give money to whoever it wants, etc. They don't play by the same rules you or I do. It simply is the rules of the game we all are playing, and we don't really have a choice in the matter. Love it or hate it, it makes no difference, that's just the way it is.

[pmward]

Money and value are arbitrary concepts. They are human conceptual constructs and nothing more. They only exist because we agree to agree that they exist. Since they are arbitrary in nature, they will inherently be ever changing, and thus there is no perfect static monetary system. You cannot make something static that by nature is ever changing. Trying make an ever changing arbitrary thing become a static unchanging thing is the path to insanity. Money/value only exist within the rule framework that we give them. Someone has to set those rules. And whoever sets those rules is at an advantage. The other people cannot change those rules, and have to play within their bounds. What sense does it make that this arbitrary concept that doesn't actually exist is the single thing that we use to value our lives, other people, etc? There are very few things I can think of that have real non-arbitrary value... life, time, happiness, love, etc (and time itself is actually another arbitrary fallacy like money, for all intents and purposes it's really just a proxy for life).

[Tortoise]

The government issues the money, they are the one and only true owner of the money, and as such they have the right to tax their money and to disperse their money however they see fit. Now I don't want to see them get crazy with that right, but the government does have that right.

1. The government issues all money.

2. All wealth (real goods and services) are denominated in terms of that money.

3. The government has the right to tax and disperse their money as they see fit.

4. Therefore, the government has the right to tax and disperse all real goods and services as they see fit.

Did I reach the right conclusion there, or is my logic flawed?

Pretty much. I'm not making ideological arguments here. I'm simply stating how the system works. If the government issues the money, and if goods and services are denominated in those dollars, the government can effectively buy anything it wants, give money to whoever it wants, etc. They don't play by the same rules you or I do. It simply is the rules of the game we all are playing, and we don't really have a choice in the matter. Love it or hate it, it makes no difference, that's just the way it is.

Well, keep in mind you said the government doesn't merely have the power to tax and disperse their money (and thus all goods and services) however they see fit. You said they have the right to. I would argue that using the phrase "right to" instead of merely "power to" makes it an ideological argument.

[pmward]

This begs the question... if the system was so great, why did people demand that it change? I've already identified the problems that came from that system. Everybody here seems to be in agreement that these problems exist, nobody has even tried to deny the problems I've identified. I also have not seen anyone question the fact that back when we had this smaller government system, these problems were worse than they are today. I also have not seen anyone attempt to refute the fact that as the government has evolved that these problems have slowly been improving (though we are still a long way from home free). I've stated these things dozens of times now in different ways. So, if we can all agree on these facts, then how on earth do we bridge the gap to the conclusion that a smaller more darwinian government would fix these problems? This just seems like an uncrossable chasm to me. The evidence in hand refute that conclusion.

I am not sure it does beg the question. the temptation to obtain power and control is a powerful lure to some people, have we ever really given limited government a fair shake? or (as Sofie mentioned ) have we just had government programs that are causing or at least compounding these problems and then jumping into more government to solve them... all the while blaming the successful as the scapegoat?

Are you sure that the "the temptation to obtain power and control" is only for the government? Doesn't this also hold true in a no government situation? Where at that point, the strongest and fittest of the majority assume that power and control and the rest suffer?

And you only answered the first question. What about the logic behind the rest of it? I've still yet to see any arguments against any of those points. And if nobody can refute those points, then the chasm to small government being the answer is impossible to cross and any further discussion is moot.

no it is not only applicable to government not by a long shot.. but that isn't an argument against letting people take or giving them power over others as a government. The idea is that power should reside with the individual, "government of the people by the people for the people", is the ideal, the further away (in anybodies hands but my own for the anarchists) that rule is, the worse off things are for those being ruled. replacing government with tyranny of the strongest and fittest is not the direction limited government enthusiasts want to go, they want self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government.

So you say "the idea is that power should reside with the individual". Let's take a step back here and look at power. Fitting since we are already on the concept of arbitrary words. If all there is is an individual, can there be power? Does not power absolutely require more than one? There has to be a person in power, and a person that is under power. So if all you have is people and no government, does power go away? No. It just winds up being transferred from one pocket to the next. The minute the government steps aside, whoever is the strongest and fittest will step up and take the reins. I know idealistically on paper is sounds great to think that removing government would lead to a "self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government." But where is the actual evidence that this would happen in practice? It goes against human nature itself. There is no choice but to devolve into a darwinistic nightmare. The strongest and fittest would assume the same power government had. They would effectively set up a "government", even if they didn't use the name, and one that would specifically biased towards their needs, wants, and desires over the rest. I know what you want and hope for, but it's not realistic. It's a pipe dream.

[pmward]

The government issues the money, they are the one and only true owner of the money, and as such they have the right to tax their money and to disperse their money however they see fit. Now I don't want to see them get crazy with that right, but the government does have that right.

1. The government issues all money.

2. All wealth (real goods and services) are denominated in terms of that money.

3. The government has the right to tax and disperse their money as they see fit.

4. Therefore, the government has the right to tax and disperse all real goods and services as they see fit.

Did I reach the right conclusion there, or is my logic flawed?

Pretty much. I'm not making ideological arguments here. I'm simply stating how the system works. If the government issues the money, and if goods and services are denominated in those dollars, the government can effectively buy anything it wants, give money to whoever it wants, etc. They don't play by the same rules you or I do. It simply is the rules of the game we all are playing, and we don't really have a choice in the matter. Love it or hate it, it makes no difference, that's just the way it is.

Well, keep in mind you said the government doesn't merely have the power to tax and disperse their money (and thus all goods and services) however they see fit. You said they have the right to. I would argue that using the phrase "right to" instead of merely "power to" makes it an ideological argument.

Fair point.

[pmward]

This begs the question... if the system was so great, why did people demand that it change? I've already identified the problems that came from that system. Everybody here seems to be in agreement that these problems exist, nobody has even tried to deny the problems I've identified. I also have not seen anyone question the fact that back when we had this smaller government system, these problems were worse than they are today. I also have not seen anyone attempt to refute the fact that as the government has evolved that these problems have slowly been improving (though we are still a long way from home free). I've stated these things dozens of times now in different ways. So, if we can all agree on these facts, then how on earth do we bridge the gap to the conclusion that a smaller more darwinian government would fix these problems? This just seems like an uncrossable chasm to me. The evidence in hand refute that conclusion.

I am not sure it does beg the question. the temptation to obtain power and control is a powerful lure to some people, have we ever really given limited government a fair shake? or (as Sofie mentioned ) have we just had government programs that are causing or at least compounding these problems and then jumping into more government to solve them... all the while blaming the successful as the scapegoat?

Are you sure that the "the temptation to obtain power and control" is only for the government? Doesn't this also hold true in a no government situation? Where at that point, the strongest and fittest of the majority assume that power and control and the rest suffer?

And you only answered the first question. What about the logic behind the rest of it? I've still yet to see any arguments against any of those points. And if nobody can refute those points, then the chasm to small government being the answer is impossible to cross and any further discussion is moot.

no it is not only applicable to government not by a long shot.. but that isn't an argument against letting people take or giving them power over others as a government. The idea is that power should reside with the individual, "government of the people by the people for the people", is the ideal, the further away (in anybodies hands but my own for the anarchists) that rule is, the worse off things are for those being ruled. replacing government with tyranny of the strongest and fittest is not the direction limited government enthusiasts want to go, they want self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government.

So you say "the idea is that power should reside with the individual". Let's take a step back here and look at power. Fitting since we are already on the concept of arbitrary words. If all there is is an individual, can there be power? Does not power absolutely require more than one? There has to be a person in power, and a person that is under power. So if all you have is people and no government, does power go away? No. It just winds up being transferred from one pocket to the next. The minute the government steps aside, whoever is the strongest and fittest will step up and take the reins. I know idealistically on paper is sounds great to think that removing government would lead to a "self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government." But where is the actual evidence that this would happen in practice? It goes against human nature itself. There is no choice but to devolve into a darwinistic nightmare. The strongest and fittest would assume the same power government had. They would effectively set up a "government", even if they didn't use the name, and one that would specifically biased towards their needs, wants, and desires over the rest. I know what you want and hope for, but it's not realistic. It's a pipe dream.

I should say I do believe some day we can evolve to this point. But we are not there yet, as is clearly evidenced by the populist divide in our country that the OP of this thread was originally about.

[pmward]

no it is not only applicable to government not by a long shot.. but that isn't an argument against letting people take or giving them power over others as a government. The idea is that power should reside with the individual, "government of the people by the people for the people", is the ideal, the further away (in anybodies hands but my own for the anarchists) that rule is, the worse off things are for those being ruled. replacing government with tyranny of the strongest and fittest is not the direction limited government enthusiasts want to go, they want self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government.

So you say "the idea is that power should reside with the individual". Let's take a step back here and look at power. Fitting since we are already on the concept of arbitrary words. If all there is is an individual, can there be power? Does not power absolutely require more than one? There has to be a person in power, and a person that is under power. So if all you have is people and no government, does power go away? No. It just winds up being transferred from one pocket to the next. The minute the government steps aside, whoever is the strongest and fittest will step up and take the reins. I know idealistically on paper is sounds great to think that removing government would lead to a "self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government." But where is the actual evidence that this would happen in practice? It goes against human nature itself. There is no choice but to devolve into a darwinistic nightmare. The strongest and fittest would assume the same power government had. They would effectively set up a "government", even if they didn't use the name, and one that would specifically biased towards their needs, wants, and desires over the rest. I know what you want and hope for, but it's not realistic. It's a pipe dream.

that is a somewhat sad view of humanity... i think you have argued that caring for each other is the enlightened ideal that you wanted to achieve and yet you believe it is against human nature? i don't think even us anarchists are pushing to eliminate government and create a void that strong men can fill, IMHO the path forward is to replace as much government as you can with non government (and non violent) means as best we can. nobody is asking for no government overnight, only that successful government is limited by the best checks and balances we can come up with, and that the relentless push to get government involved in every aspect of human lives by the power corrupted is turned on its head and we start viewing shrinking of government and its replacement with "a self governing people, a society that encourages the necessary intelligence, morality, and wisdom to conduct themselves in a way that generates no need for government." as the only option that works.. all the rest is repeating the same insanity..


on a funny note - i was at a stop light today next to a truck with a sign on the door, it said "use three points of contact when entering" and it had a picture of a stick figure demonstrating how to clime through the door in emergency warning sign yellow..

that is government. how much money time and effort went into the law/regulation, the making of stickers and their posting just to accomplish what exactly? who can't enter a truck without government oversight ? ? ? everyone apparently...

Not going to argue that our current government fully makes sense, or that it is ideal in any way. And yeah I "argued that caring for each other is the enlightened ideal" and the fact that I had to argue that stance precisely proves my point. Not everybody sees this "self-evident" truth. Look at our society and what do you see? People that would rather fight each other than work together. People damn near ready to go to war with each other, all in a battle for power. I just don't see the removal of government removing that underlying battle for power. But like my last post said, I do think we can evolve there someday. It won't be in our lifetime. But perhaps someday. And yes, if we could live in a society without government that could be truly free and equal, that would be the gold standard ideal. But for the moment we have to be realists. We can place the desired destination on the map, but we also have to be honest in assessing where we currently are, and how far we have to travel to reach that destination. And we still have to address the issues I've brought up in the present. We can never each that "enlightened ideal" without equality. That is the first great mountain we have to conquer on that journey. That's the mountain we've been struggling to conquer since before the U.S.A. was even a country. So, how do we conquer that mountain given the tools and rules we currently have?

[Kriegsspiel]

I'm not arguing for public land ownership. I acknowledge those are issues with commonly held property. Check out Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine....it's a short treatise on this topic. He argues that poverty and wealth are not natural states of man, they are the product of civilization....therefore a construct of man. Compared to kings and queens the American indians were very poor, yet compared to the poor of Europe they were very well off. We have created these conditions through engineering a certain social structure that is built upon land ownership. Paine makes a much more convincing argument than I could hope to here so probably best to direct you there.

I haven't read that yet, but on the face of it, I think Steven Pinker's formulation is a stronger argument (paraphrasing); WEALTH is not a natural state of man, poverty is. Nobody was wealthy until extremely recently. And only a few of them are. It's incredibly rare to be wealthy. But people were impoverished from the dawn of humanity up to and including now. The lack of wealth is by far the more natural of the two conditions. It's like it's related to the law of entropy.

If these people that are EQUAL to you in every way are out there suffering, and unable to attain that "unalienable right" to life, liberty, and happiness... and if nobody is willing to step up and help them on their own.... THAT IS THE WHOLE ENTIRE REASON GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO BEGIN WITH. There is no purpose for government other than to ensure the rights of it's people are taken care of and provided for.
. . .

Once again, the sole reason government exists is to defend the rights of its citizens. I know this is my 3rd time pasting this here, but everyone keeps overlooking it. The Declaration of Independence itself says it up front "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If we didn't have government there to enforce this, those "unalienable" rights would quickly become alienable.

As I understand it (Tortoise and Simonjester have already mentioned it as well), the founders were talking about the government securing those rights as in, preventing people/our government/other governments from infringing on them. So to simplify, your right to life means that the government can't kill you, right to liberty means they can't imprison you, and right to happiness means they can't fuck with you doing things you enjoy. But it can do all of those things if you violate the society; the founders were ok with the government killing, imprisoning, and fucking with the life-enjoyment of criminals. They weren't saying that the government's duty was to keep you alive, or help you take advantage of every freedom you could, or make sure you were doing things that made you happy and fulfilled.

[doodle]

I'm not arguing for public land ownership. I acknowledge those are issues with commonly held property. Check out Agrarian Justice by Thomas Paine....it's a short treatise on this topic. He argues that poverty and wealth are not natural states of man, they are the product of civilization....therefore a construct of man. Compared to kings and queens the American indians were very poor, yet compared to the poor of Europe they were very well off. We have created these conditions through engineering a certain social structure that is built upon land ownership. Paine makes a much more convincing argument than I could hope to here so probably best to direct you there.

I haven't read that yet, but on the face of it, I think Steven Pinker's formulation is a stronger argument (paraphrasing); WEALTH is not a natural state of man, poverty is. Nobody was wealthy until extremely recently. And only a few of them are. It's incredibly rare to be wealthy. But people were impoverished from the dawn of humanity up to and including now. The lack of wealth is by far the more natural of the two conditions. It's like it's related to the law of entropy.

Yes, the switch from hunter gather to landed agriculture has enabled the creation of wealth that was up until that point not possible. However, it came at the expense of dispossessing people of their natural rights to inhabit this planet which is the collective inheritance of all humans. I'd argue that our civilization has created enormous wealth but more abject poverty than that of a hunter gatherer society. The condition of the lowest is much worse than it would have been had they lived amongst a tribe of stone age peoples.

Besides, wealth is a philosophical topic in and of itself. Judging by the general poor health, depression, purposelessness of much of our population I'd say it's debatable how much good all this "wealth" has really done us.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]