The Problem With Libertarians
Posted by
tgirsch
It should come as no surprise that we here at Lean Left reserve a special sort of contempt for libertarians. Hell, we’ve even reserved an entire category for mocking them. Kevin and I have often joked that Libertarianism is like Communism: It looks good on paper, but one only needs to spend about five minutes around other human beings to figure out why it can never work. And SayUncle (himself either a small-l libertarian or a South Park Republican, depending on when you ask him) likes to say that to see why Libertarianism can’t work, you need only watch an episode of Cops. (I’m pretty sure he’s quoting somebody else when he says that.)
But what is it about libertarians that drives us batty? I can’t speak for the Kevins, but I know a big part of what bugs me about them: It’s that they’re the ultimate naysayers. They’re really good at bitching about stuff, and telling you all about what they oppose and why they oppose it, but when it comes time to suggest a better idea, they’re nowhere to be found. If they respond at all, which isn’t often, it’s with the most vacuous rhetoric imaginable: “Let The Markettm decide,” they’ll say, or “We don’t need new laws, let’s enforce the existing ones.” Don’t look to them for anything helpful or useful. They’ve got nothing.
Nearly 50 million Americans without health care? “Get a better job!” Yep, just put your lousy job’s pay stub under your pillow, and the Better Job Fairy (aka, “The Invisible Hand of the Markettm“) will handle everything. (And if you’re a single parent without health care, be sure to leave a note asking the Better Job Fairy to call her friend, the Day Care Fairy. Maybe she can even hook you up with the Time Fairy and the Money Fairy so you can get job training or a better education in between working two jobs and raising your kids. But I digress…)
That’s but one example. Name any problem society faces, and libertarians have vacuous, untenable explanations as to why we don’t need to do anything about it. Say what you will about liberals and conservatives, but at least they’re trying to address society’s problems. You may disagree with how they’re going about it, but they’re trying to go about it. Not so, the libertarians. All they want to do is tell you all about why what you want to do won’t work, and why your idea is a bad one.
Don’t get me wrong, though. I’ve got nothing against informed dissent. In fact, it’s critical if this whole “government of, by, and for the people” thing is going to work. Look no further than Kennedy/Vietnam or Cheney/Iraq to see why lack of dissent is bad. But that dissent can’t take the form of that guy in the meeting (you know the guy, every meeting has one) who shoots down everyone else’s ideas without ever offering a better idea. (As an old boss of mine used to say, if you’re complaining about one idea without offering a better one, you’re just whining.)
And indeed, there are parts of Libertarianism that are actually good and make sense, if kept within reason. There really are a lot of cases where we (and, by extension, the state) ought to err on the side of leaving people alone. Behaviors that don’t hurt anybody shouldn’t be criminalized. Even self-destructive behaviors needn’t be criminalized or regulated. (Now, encouraging people to engage in self-destructive behavior, and actively striving to profit from self-destructive behavior, are other matters). No, it’s not so much Libertarianism that’s the problem. It’s self-described libertarians. And in this regard, I find that the small-l variety to be even more annoying than the ones that go all out and embrace the big-L. (At least those in the latter category have the balls to commit.)
You know what libertarians are? They’re that friend you had growing up (and everybody had this friend) who, whenever anyone suggested “Let’s do X,” no matter what X is, they didn’t want to do it, but when asked what they want to do, they say “I don’t know.” They’re the ultimate hedge-betters. They never have to take any blame when things don’t work, because nothing was ever their idea, and they opposed all of everyone else’s idea. They can avoid accountability for any and all problems.
So until self-described libertarians start putting forward a positive agenda; until they start giving us viable ideas for what they are willing to do to address society’s problems; until they start taking ownership of something, anything, apart from their own selfish asses, I not-so-humbly submit that there’s simply no reason to take them seriously.
Related posts, yet-to-be-written: The Markettm Doesn’t Give A Shit, and Libertarians Deny Global Warming Because Libertarianism Has No Solution To Global Warming
I am not sure you all even know what a liberal is. I am a liberal. My guess is Uncle is close to those ideals. Do you even know what the words you use mean?
When you use the term “Lean Left”, how far left do you mean? Don’t you mean Social Democrat as in the failures of Western Europe. Anyone can call people names. The real question is how you value responsibility. Perhaps instead of telling us so much about your theories about small L-Libertarians or what ever name calling you chose to use, tell us what you believe about responsibility.
How seriously can you been taken? You give book reviews after reading five chapters of a book. How responsible is that?
Comment 1/11/2007
Wow, the post is barely an hour old, and already we have our first poor sport.
Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re a “liberal” in the classical sense of the word, as opposed to the sense everybody who uses it today means. And of course, I’m sure I should pay no attention to those bold disclaimers at the top of the Wiki page…
(As to the book review jab, I have no idea what you’re talking about…)
Comment 1/11/2007
Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re a “liberal” in the classical sense of the word, as opposed to the sense everybody who uses it today means.
Do words have meaning? Or do they only have meaning when certain people use them? There are only a few hundred other links that match the Wiki link. Several hundred books. A couple dozen movies. But you know that.
Not a poor sport. I like sport. Let’s play. Your move.
Comment 1/11/2007
Libertarians, big or small ‘l’, don’t have to offer solutions for society’s problems, because that involves a bit of government, and government is a waste, right?
I’m sleepy, and all I know is ‘let me smoke pot’ and ‘let the companies exploit workers’.
Comment 1/12/2007
The problem with liberals (and the reason they have a problem with libertarians) is that liberals tend to believe that, in order to solve problems something must be “done” and it is the government that needs to do the doing.
The reality is that many (more like most, could even be all) of the problems with the health care system today have been CAUSED by the government “doing” something. To fix it, then, would require the government to STOP doing what it is doing to cause the problems.
That is the Libertarian standpoint and that bugs the liberals because to them, NOT doing something is not a viable solution. Only DOING something is.
Let me ask you a question: If someone is twisting your arm and it hurts, would you prefer that they stop twisting, or just twist from a different direction, with a different amount of pressure, or twist a different limb?
Sometimes the best solution to a problem is to just…stop.
Comment 1/12/2007
[…] Every once in a while, Tom gets it in his head to make the assertion that a criticism of something is invalid unless the person doing the criticizing offers a better plan. Sorry, but that’s horseshit. I can tell you that something sucks and not have a better solution. For example, abortion sucks. Making abortion illegal sucks. They both suck. I have no solution for that problem but when someone says we should make it illegal, I point out all the problems that will create. And I do so without offering a solution to make everyone happy. […]
Pingback 1/12/2007
I’m with you on the premise that criticism is lame if you can’t offer anything better than what you are criticizing. I’m NOT with you on your categorical rejection of “let the market decide” or “we don’t need new laws, let’s enforce the existing ones.” As not, those are better solutions than the stuff liberals propose. Doing something isn’t always better than doing nothing.
Comment 1/12/2007
(As to the book review jab, I have no idea what you’re talking about…)
On the book review:
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2006/11/30/5813/
Comment 11.
Comment 1/12/2007
Number9
Yeah, see, that wasn’t a book review. It was a discussion of the path Card’s writing has taken over the last few years, using two texts as examples. Why is that so hard to understand?
Sailorcurt
yeah, sometimes the best solution is to stop — but that is the only solutions libertarians ever seem to suggest to any problem, ever, despite the evidence that other solutions do, in fact, result in better outcomes.
Comment 1/12/2007
“It’s that they’re the ultimate naysayers. They’re really good at bitching about stuff, and telling you all about what they oppose and why they oppose it, but when it comes time to suggest a better idea, they’re nowhere to be found.”
Sounds like Leanleft.com (and most liberals) to me.
Comment 1/12/2007
Number9:
Yes, words can have multiple meanings. However, most words (including “liberal”) also have commonly understood meanings. Your preferred definition of “liberal” is indeed a valid one in some circles, it’s just a minority view. So yes, we’ll establish into evidence that you’re a “classical liberal,” the kind who believes that all white, male landowners have certain inalienable property rights.
And as to the book review, I didn’t realize you weren’t talking to me.
Sailorcurt:
See, sometimes government is the problem, it’s true. But a lot of times it’s not (and really is helping). And if many liberals are guilty of often failing to acknowledge the former, most libertarians are guilty of never acknowledging the latter. Otherwise, what Kevin said.
Xrlq:
I’m not “categorically rejecting” those expressions. There are times (many, actually), when they are, in fact, the right thing to do. It’s just that those types of answers are the only ones that libertarians ever offer, no matter what the problem. And they seemingly never get any more specific than that. On this, unlike most things, I think we agree more than we disagree.
Comment 1/12/2007
Well, maybe . . . just. maybe. . . we should try it some time and see if it works? As far as i can tell, the collective we never tries it.
Comment 1/12/2007
” As far as i can tell, the collective we never tries it. ”
First, Russia tried it, as did Chile. That worked out pretty well, huh? And our own Gilded Age was a shining example of the power of laisze fair government.
Second, even in this country there are plenty of places where the government has pared back to the point of non-existence: it doesn’t regulate mines anymore, for all intents and purposes; it hardly inspects food processing plants, it doesn’t regulate claims by “natural” remedy makers etc, etc, etc. And in all those areas, the market has failed in some fashion to protect the public.
Comment 1/12/2007
yeah, sometimes the best solution is to stop — but that is the only solutions libertarians ever seem to suggest to any problem, ever,
most libertarians are guilty of never acknowledging the latter.
Absolute terms like “ever”, “never”, “always”, etc are dangerous because they make it easy to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument. Libertarians are not anarchists.
There are certain things that the government does well. Coincidentally, many of those things are spelled out as specific powers of the government in the Constitution. Please note that health care is not one of them.
Libertarians do not advocate complete dismantling of the government, only getting the Federal government out of the areas it has no business in. The free market works, in most cases, when it is allowed to. The things that create the imbalances that cause shortages, surpluses and the atmosphere conducive to abuse are, typcially, government intervention in areas that needed no such intervention. Then, once the government meddling creates chaos, what is advocated to alleviate the mess? More government intervention, which creates greater chaos, etc etc etc.
The straw man argument that Libertarians “don’t ever” think the government has a role is simply specious. By the way, for the record, I don’t consider myself to be Libertarian because there are a couple of major party planks with which I strongly disagree; I also am not really Conservative for the same reason. I feel no real need to “defend” libertarians, but the particular aspect of their platform with which this thread takes exception is one of the points they are right on.
despite the evidence that other solutions do, in fact, result in better outcomes.
I’d like to see that evidence in terms of the subject at hand…health care (or, more correctly, health insurance). Better outcomes from who’s perspective? Better in what way?
And in all those areas, the market has failed in some fashion to protect the public.
And the Government doesn’t fail in some fashion to protect the public in the areas in which it assumes responsibility? I distinctly remember an e-coli outbreak as a result of FDA approved spinach a few months ago. Wasn’t there something about FDA approved drugs killing people and the pharma companies having to take them off the market recently? Anyone remember Three Mile Island? Heck, it seems to me that it’s the same government that “lied” us into Iraq that you now want to entrust with our health care. WTFO?
No one (yes, I’m using an absolute here) has ever claimed that the free market is an INFALLIBLE solution, only that it is a better solution than government regulation and manipulation in MOST cases.
I know this is probably going to crush you but someone’s gotta clue you in eventually:
Utopia is an IMAGINARY place.
Sorry to break it to you like that. I’m sure there’s a therapist that can help you come to terms with it.
So, our choices are:
An imperfect system that embraces liberty and fosters personal responsibility and independence.
Or
An imperfect system that restricts liberty and assumes responsibility for us (and control over us).
I choose liberty every time.
Comment 1/12/2007
How many libertarians does it take to stop a Nazi Panzer division?
None. The market will sort it out.
Comment 1/12/2007
Sailorcurt:
Libertarians are not anarchists.
That’s what they keep telling me.
There are certain things that the government does well.
Yes, and get a room with ten libertarians in it, and ask them to identify what those things are, and you’ll get ten different answers.
Libertarianism isn’t, in my experience, anarchy. Instead, it seems to boil down to “the government shouldn’t do things that I don’t want it to do.” (Which, by the way, is how everybody feels about it — some of us just don’t try to attach a fancy name to that sentiment.)
And by the way, health care is not the “subject at hand.” It’s a ferinstance, one among many. But if you really want evidence that the government can do better than the private sector on health care, start here. The more I’ve learned about the issue, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that health care is one of those areas where government can do better. Well, let me rephrase: if your objective is to have quality health care reasonably accessible to everyone rather than just the middle- and upper-classes, this is something that government can do better than the market alone, provided you manage to kill all the corporate protectionist riders that wind up getting tacked on. But we’re getting off-topic. Feel free to e-mail if you want to discuss that further.
only that it is a better solution than government regulation and manipulation in MOST cases
I’d argue with “most.” For issues involving health, safety, fairness, etc., the market sucks ass. No, government isn’t perfect there, either, but the market is far worse. The market cares only about faster/cheaper/more. If that means shifting production to sweatshops in Viet Nam, the market LOVES that idea. If it means dumping sludge in the river rather than properly disposing of it, the market loves that idea, too. And the market loves the hell out of illegal immigrant labor.
Finally, in response to your false dilemma, I choose neither. (And, at the same time, both.) To grossly oversimplify, with respect to matters involving individual choices, I support erring on the side of freedom; but when it comes to matters involving commerce, corporations, group interests, or actions which impact others, etc., I err on the side of regulation. “Self-policing” almost never works. A polite society requires rules.
I think what libertarians tend to forget is that most of the regulation that’s out there right now wasn’t passed because the legislature was bored one day. It was passed in response to some perceived problem, one that the all-powerful market wasn’t solving (or in many cases, was exacerbating). If drug companies always played nice, you’re right, we probably wouldn’t need an FDA. But that ain’t how things work in the real world. Does that regulation always worked as advertised? Of course not. But I’d still rather live in a country with an FDA than in one without it.
Comment 1/12/2007
Barton:
Bwah!
Comment 1/12/2007
So yes, we’ll establish into evidence that you’re a “classical liberal,” the kind who believes that all white, male landowners have certain inalienable property rights
On no you didn’t.
Comment 1/12/2007
Libertarianism isn’t, in my experience, anarchy. Instead, it seems to boil down to “the government shouldn’t do things that I don’t want it to do.” (Which, by the way, is how everybody feels about it — some of us just don’t try to attach a fancy name to that sentiment.)
Actually, it’s more like “The government shouldn’t do things that the Constitution says it’s not supposed to do”.
You want a list of things that Libertarians agree on are the responsibility of the Federal Government? Read the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 entitled “Powers of Congress”. It’s actually a pretty short list. Elsewhere in the Constitution, you will find many places where it is spelled out what Congress may NOT do. One of those is the 10th Amendment which basically says “If it isn’t a power specifically granted to Congress, hands off”.
And by the way, health care is not the “subject at hand.” It’s a ferinstance, one among many.
Got me there.
But if you really want evidence that the government can do better than the private sector on health care, start here.
A couple of mitigating circumstances that make the VA easier to administer than a general health care system: The VA only covers treatment for those disabilities that are deemed to be “service connected”. Guess who gets to make that determination: If you guessed “The VA” you just won a cigar.
Basically, what that means is that the VA can pick and choose what things it is going to cover. I am a 40% disabled vet but the only things I go to the VA for are those items that are service connected. Everything else is covered by my private health insurance.
If the VA had to cover all ailments, emergencies, etc etc etc…and were forced to care for whomever showed up at their doors, your point would be more valid.
For a more realistic comparison, how about evaluating the active duty medical system “Tricare”. This system is responsible for the complete medical care of all active duty military members and their families. It is still plagued with problems, but up until 15 years or so ago it was completely run by the government and it was a mess. What do you think they did to alleviate the problems? They went to the private sector. Tricare is now run by civilian contractors. No, it is still not perfect (the contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder after all) but it is much better and more efficient than it was before.
Under very controlled conditions, and limited circumstances, yes, certain things CAN be run efficiently and well by the government…but that doesn’t mean that the same techniques will translate well into general use by everyone.
I’d argue with “most.” For issues involving health, safety, fairness, etc., the market sucks ass. No, government isn’t perfect there, either, but the market is far worse.
I would beg to differ. It is not in the best interests of most businesses to kill off their customers. In regard to “fairness” you may have a point, but what is fair? Is it fair that an employer is forced to pay an employee more than their production is worth? Is it fair that a highly productive employee cannot negotiate their own terms of employment but have to settle for what the Union negotiates in consideration of less productive employees? Fairness is a pretty tenuous proposition depending upon who you are talking to and can be some pretty shaky ground for regulation.
The market cares only about faster/cheaper/more.
And there is something wrong with that because……?
Companies respond to their Customer’s desires. Consumers demand faster/cheaper/more. Are you saying that poor people don’t “deserve” to be able to own things? Personal property should be reserved to the higher income people who can afford “slower/more expensive/less”?
Oh yeah, you are a lefty…I assume you think there should be no such thing as personal property and we should all have the same incomes (read “none”).
If that means shifting production to sweatshops in Viet Nam, the market LOVES that idea.
The Vietnamese are pretty happy about it too. Working in a sweatshop is better than starving. We get cheap goods, they get to survive…sounds like a win-win to me.
If it means dumping sludge in the river rather than properly disposing of it, the market loves that idea, too. And the market loves the hell out of illegal immigrant labor.
Those two areas I will agree with you wholeheartedly on with one caveat: Government controls on pollution and waste must not only be effective, but REALISTIC. Some environmentalists consider as their ultimate goal the return of humankind to the stone age. I want clean air and clean water as much as the next guy, but I’m quite fond of electricity, central heat and indoor plumbing as well. As soon as the rabid environmentalists start taking lessons from the Amish I’ll start to think about taking them seriously.
with respect to matters involving individual choices, I support erring on the side of freedom; but when it comes to matters involving commerce, corporations, group interests, or actions which impact others
But how do these things not involve individual choices? Does anyone force you to purchase a particular product or service? Take a particular job under particular circumstances? Live in a particular area or associate with a particular group? Then why are you not responsible for the ramifications and/or consequences of doing so?
A polite society requires rules.
I agree completely. But those rules should be limited to preventing fraud, theft, physical abuse etc, not simply to allow us to escape the consequences of our own freely made choices…or to enact “fairness” or equality of outcomes.
I think what libertarians tend to forget is that most of the regulation that’s out there right now wasn’t passed because the legislature was bored one day.
You’re right, it was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to some specific high-profile incident so that politicians could be seen to be “doing something”. It was passed in response to some perceived problem that came about because no (human) system is perfect and unfortunate things sometimes happen, but politicians promise utopia and too many citizens buy into it.
In most cases, things would have self-corrected in response to the “event of concern” and the problem would have gone away on its own. More often than not the “solution” enacted by government prolongs or exacerbates the problem or creates other, even worse ones.
But I’d still rather live in a country with an FDA than in one without it.
I’d rather live in a country where I can make my own decisions about what food to eat or drugs to take…and where I am held responsible for the consequences of those decisions.
When I was a child I needed a nanny. Now I just need to be left to my own devices.
Comment 1/12/2007
“Nearly 50 million Americans without health care?”
I must have missed the part where it was my responsibility to see that someone else has health care.
Comment 1/12/2007
“I must have missed the part where it was my responsibility to see that someone else has health care.”
My health would be enhanced if I had a month long vacation. Can I get one of you good liberals to pay for it? Oh, I forgot. Liberals want to force others to pay for their good deals.
Comment 1/12/2007
“until they start taking ownership of something, anything, apart from their own selfish asses,”
Sorry, but my own is the only selfish ass I have ownership of.
We outlawed owning other people’s selfish asses some time ago in this fair land.
Comment 1/12/2007
The reason I hate modern liberalism is as follows:
Government is a disease, that mascarades as its own cure.
Why is health care so expensive? Government funded health care assures payment, no matter how high the cost. Government mandated care (Doctors and emergency rooms are mandated to care for people who can’t pay, upon pain of loss of license).
Fixing that with more government is like solving thirst by drinking sea water.
The cure, for nearly anything problem: Find the most recent law passed on the subject before that particular problem reared its ugly head, and repeal it. Find the legislators who voted for it, and the executive who enforced it, and impeach them, or, in the immortal words of Ben Frankin in the Constitutional Convention, “if he can’t be impeached, he can always be assassinated.”
To decrease health care costs, increase the supply. Permit doctors from India/Mexico/Canada etc. to practice. Allow apothecaries to sell older medicine, or continue prescriptions (like my blood pressure medicine: my doctory wants me to pay them every three months for a new prescription.) without the doctor getting his cut again, again, and again.
Medicine is subsidized, which increases demand. Caretakers are restricted in the amount and kind of service they are allowed to provide, which restricts supply. Both actions increase cost.
Doesn’t anyone make it through high school anymore? Sheesh!
Comment 1/12/2007
#9:
On no you didn’t.
I’m afraid I did.
To steal a phrase from conservative comedy icon Larry the Cable Guy, “That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are!”
Sailorcurt:
“The government shouldn’t do things that the Constitution says it’s not supposed to do”
Aww, crap. So much for the air force!
I’m pretty sure a standing army is out the window, too. But at least progressive income taxes are okay.
Seriously, though, that’s a crock of bullshit. Why, you ask? Because libertarians who oppose this stuff at the federal level on “constitutional” grounds are just as likely to oppose it at the local level, where it’s perfectly allowable. The constitution is a convenient thing to hide behind, but you’d oppose it even if it were 100% constitutional.
Under very controlled conditions, and limited circumstances, yes, certain things CAN be run efficiently and well by the government…but that doesn’t mean that the same techniques will translate well into general use by everyone.
Fair enough. But let’s generalize what I’m after. “The market will provide” is a common libertarian mantra. But what happens when it doesn’t? That’s where I’m concerned. In those cases, government has to step in, because if it doesn’t, who or what will? Health care is an area where the market is badly failing a large section of the public. Indeed, for something like health care (or education is another example), there’s just not very much money to be made catering to people who don’t have any money. Where’s the profit incentive in providing health care to the poor (or even to the lower-middle class)? There isn’t any, and there will never BE any. Now maybe you’re okay with that, but I’m not.
No, Utopia doesn’t exist. The world will never be perfect. That doesn’t mean we should give up trying to make it better.
It is not in the best interests of most businesses to kill off their customers.
Tell that to the tobacco companies. What companies have learned is that as long as you don’t kill them too quickly, or only kill a few here and there, you can budget for it, put some PR people to put some spin on it, and viola! Public safety is no longer a pressing concern.
But how do these things not involve individual choices?
Think of it like entrapment. It’s one thing when an individual makes a bad choice. It’s quite another when “the market” decides we can make a lot of money by enticing people to make bad choices, even encouraging it. And hey, we can spend millions of dollars (we have ‘em, after all) learning how best to convince people to make those bad choices. Not only that, but we can spend even more working on PR to obfuscate the fact that the choice is even bad in the first place. This happens all the time, but again, cigarettes are the most obvious example. The food industry is another one. Again, maybe you’re okay with that — certainly, the market loves the hell out of the idea — but I’m not.
No, I don’t want to take away your smokes or your Big Macs. If you want to shovel crap into your system, that absolutely is your business. But when companies profiteer on such bad judgment, to the point that they actually work to encourage it and to suppress information about how bad it really is, that crosses a line.
it was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to some specific high-profile incident
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The problem you face is that the vast, vast majority of it is extremely popular. It gets enacted into law because, in large measure, it’s the public will. You know, that whole “democracy” thing. Try to disband the FAA, as Stossel wants to do, and see how loud the public screams.
I’d rather live in a country where I can make my own decisions about what food to eat or drugs to take…and where I am held responsible for the consequences of those decisions.
The problem with this, to put it quite frankly, is that it simply doesn’t work. Now it’s time to tell you that Utopia doesn’t exist. If we lived in a perfect world, where everyone truly was born equal, with equal resources, and an equal chance to succeed — or even close to that — then maybe that could work, for a generation or two, anyway. But in the real world there are people — a lot of them — who through no fault of their own are starting behind the proverbial 8-ball. By far and away the best indicator of your economic standing is your parents’ economic standing. The most likely reason why you’re poor is because you were born to a poor family. And feel-good rhetoric about “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” aside, it’s exceptionally difficult to break the cycle of poverty. If you were born into the middle- or upper-class, you’ve won life’s lottery. And if you worked your way out of poverty into an upper class, you’ve hit life’s Powerball.
Now I’m not suggesting that we forcibly level the playing field completely. But any societal system that’s going to work for any length of time has to take that reality into account. Pure welfare (in the form of hand-outs) does not and cannot work. But there are certain basics — not luxuries, but basics — that I think it’s incumbent on us to help provide. And we’re a wealthy enough nation that we can afford to do so. Education should not be a privilege of wealth, for example. Neither should health care. Nor should food, or housing. As it turns out, the market does a decent job on its own on the food and housing fronts (there’s room for improvement, of course, but that’s a discussion for another time). Education and health care, not so much. The government has to step in, because no one else will.
Don’t get me wrong: I really am open to market-based solutions to these problems. But I want assurances that such solutions will actually work, and contingencies for what happens if they don’t.
And I guess that’s a big part of my problem with libertarianism: it assumes that we live in a perfect world where everyone really can make it, if only they work hard enough, and where there aren’t people who have the deck seriously stacked against them. That might be a nice world, but it ain’t the one we live in. My experience with libertarians is that their attitude toward such people (as expressed so eloquently by Tam) is, “Not my problem.”
Tam:
I must have missed the part where it was my responsibility to see that someone else has health care.
Well, there’s responsibility, and there’s best interests. If you’re “lucky” enough to live in isolation in a compound, then yeah, the health care issue probably doesn’t concern you very much. But I do have to give you credit (seriously). Unlike a lot of libertarian-leaning types, you’re at least honest and up-front about being an “every (wo)man for his/herself” type. I may not agree with it, but at least you’re not wishy-washy about it. Believe it or not, I mean that.
We outlawed owning other people’s selfish asses some time ago in this fair land.
Heh. But of course you knew I was talking about problems and not people.
Fred:
Liberals want to force others to pay for their good deals.
If liberals wanted to exempt themselves from paying and make only others do so, you might have a point. But I don’t think I’ve seen any proposals that they’d exclude themselves from funding.
Donmeaker:
Why is health care so expensive? Government funded health care assures payment, no matter how high the cost.
If only that were true, or that simple. In truth, the private sector has been every bit as guilty as the government in this respect. Health insurance providers have probably done more to drive up costs than any other single source. (The HMO debacle plays into this, but is only part of it.) Meanwhile, in eeevil socialist Canada (whose health care system has its flaws, I’ll grant), they spend less per-capita in tax dollars on healthcare than the US does today, even though they cover everyone, and we only cover seniors, the disabled, and the abjectly poor. So if government necessarily makes things more expensive, how come they spend lfar less on it than we do?
Medicine is subsidized, which increases demand.
Maybe, but most of that subsidization still comes from the private sector. You can repeal all the laws you want, and that won’t change. If, on the other hand, you stripped the corporate profit protection code from Medicare, now the government would be able to use its position of one of the largest single buyers to negotiate lower prices — which is precisely what Canada does, and why it’s cheaper to re-import exactly the same drugs from Canada than it is to buy them here. (And notice: the drug companies are still making a profit selling to Canada, or they wouldn’t do so.)
Doesn’t anyone make it through high school anymore?
If libertarians had their way, only those whose parents could afford to pay for it would even have a chance to go…
Comment 1/12/2007
About the wonderful Canadian health care system: you are aware that rationing and wait times got so bad that a Quebec judge ruled that a man could go outside the single-payer government-controlled health system because the time he would have had to wait was a threat to his health and dignity as a citizen?
Part of this is because that, I will grant, government disbursements to the medical system have been steadily cut. That in itself points out the problem of government *controlled* health care, as exemplified by out single-payer system. Make funding health care subject to the popular vote, and it can be fed or starved at the popular will. There’s also the problem that our health care costs are “controlled” by government fiat. Nurses and doctors have actually gone on strike and regularly leave Canada to work in more profitable markets.
I think provision of certain medical services by the government isn’t such a bad idea. Neighbourhood clinics like our CLSC’s that do basic operations and vaccinations? Nifty. Public hospitals that can accomodate poorer patients? I can get behind that. But “controlling costs” by making the government insurance policy the only on available? Incredibly bad idea that creates rationing lists.
I would like to note that the market has, in fact, created equivalents to the publically-funded examples I held up here. The CLSC in America is being replicated by the growth of private sector “strip mall clinics” that provide inexpensive, basic medical services.
Comment 1/13/2007
If liberals wanted to exempt themselves from paying and make only others do so, you might have a point. But I don’t think I’ve seen any proposals that they’d exclude themselves from funding.
Have you read the tax code? Why do you think those obscure deductions exist.
Comment 1/13/2007
“Liberals want to force others to pay for their good deals.
If liberals wanted to exempt themselves from paying and make only others do so, you might have a point. But I don’t think I’ve seen any proposals that they’d exclude themselves from funding.”
If you will exempt me from paying for your good deeds, you may have a point. Pay for your own good deeds. Don’t force me to pay.
Comment 1/13/2007
Andrew:
I never said the Canadian health care system was perfect, or that I would model ours directly after it. I only used it as a counterexample to the idea that government-funded health care necessarily means considerably more expensive health care.
Doug:
Why do you think those obscure deductions exist.
That’s not a left-right issue, friend. That’s an issue of lobbyists and fat cats from all across the spectrum having too much access. If it’s lobbying reform you want, I can absolutely get behind that.
Fred:
Let’s make a deal: Stop forcing me to pay for your ill-advised war, and then we can talk about not having to pay for government expenditures we oppose.
Comment 1/13/2007
Actually, it’s just more expensive in other ways. Instead of money, you’re paying in time. Like multi-month waiting lists for complicated medical and diagnostic procedures. The social-leveling aspects of this situation–that the middle and upper classes wait the same amount of time as a poor person–are circumvented because the richer folks just go to the US or foreign countries where they can spend their own money.
In fact, libertarians and other cautious-of-government-interference types follow a medical principle: “do no harm”. Government use of power in any sphere of life is considered dangerous because it is coercive in nature. “Of you don’t do this, we’ll ultimately shoot you for resisting.” A reaonably-free market doesn’t make you do anything against your will. It may not always provide the most palatable *choices*, but the choice is still there.
BTW–on the entire “eeeeevil corporations enticing you to do self-destructive things” meme… You do realize that thinking is precisely the same logically as “eeeeeeeevil drug pushers enticing our youth to take drugs”.
Comment 1/13/2007
Andrew:
Instead of money, you’re paying in time.
And? There are plenty of people who have more of the latter than the former. So in Canada, people may have to wait, but everyone can get service. In the US, those who can afford it have shorter waits, but those who can’t are shit out of luck. But again, Canada’s not a perfect example. Maybe you’re pessimistic enough to think that there’s no way to meet in the middle, but I don’t share that pessimism.
A reaonably-free market doesn’t make you do anything against your will.
No, it just spends shitloads of time, money and effort working to manipulate your will, usually in highly dishonest and/or disingenuous ways.
And I’m glad you’re willing to so openly admit that the typical corporation is no better than a neighborhood thug drug pusher.
Comment 1/13/2007
“Let’s make a deal: Stop forcing me to pay for your ill-advised war, and then we can talk about not having to pay for government expenditures we oppose.”
You are so predictable.
Move to another country and we won’t have to pay for your defense.
Comment 1/13/2007
Health insurance companies make money twice: Once when they collect from healthy people, because they are afraid of ludicrously health care costs, and a second time when they collect from good doctors who are afraid of Shyster lawyers (John Edwards, call your office) who sue them for legitmate care based on real world best possible outcomes.
The good news: Insurance companies run education problems that teach people to move into one of the above categories, which are preferable to the sick or bad doctor categories. The marketing expression is you never talk about death, you just back up the hearse, and let them smell the flowers. (Hat tip to Kim du Toit)
Without the government requirement for licensing, liability lawyers earnings would be limited to legitimate losses, and doctors could declare bankruptcy, and escape them. Without government interference in wages, companies would not have engaged in a bidding war. Most folks don’t know this: During WWII, defense companies needed to hire, but weren’t allowed to raise wages. They provided benefits to make the fixed government controlled salary they could offer, more competitive. Without ludicrous tax rates, there wouldn’t be so much advantage to paying with pretax income.
Currently, benefits are usually taken out of “pretax” earnings, providing the illusion of a 30 percent more value, but at the cost of what ever inefficiency is associated with the health insurance companies.
Comment 1/13/2007
No, it just spends shitloads of time, money and effort working to manipulate your will, usually in highly dishonest and/or disingenuous ways.
And that differs from politics…how?
As for the corporation and drug pusher comment, that’s because both are ultimately businessmen selling a product people partake of due to their own free will. There is enough information out there that a person who eats Whoppers or huffs a crackpipe knows that either habit isn’t exactly life-prolonging.
Left-liberals of many stripes manage to demonize Whopper eating while saying that cocaine use should be decriminalized to end the effects of the prohibitionist War on Drugs. Libertarians consider both activities morally neutral, and up to the individual indulge in as he pleases as long as he doesn’t directly harm others.
As for health care, I think there is room for both public and private solutions. Each compensating for the other’s weaknesses. I just think that government control of health care is a very bad idea.
Comment 1/13/2007
Tgirsch,
Instead of posting a very long comment I took the liberty (cause libertarians do that ya know, even whenthe state doesn’t approve) of doing a post on my site. In other words: Fisked.
Comment 1/13/2007
Andrew:
And that differs from politics…how?Left-liberals of many stripes manage to demonize Whopper eating while saying that cocaine use should be decriminalized to end the effects of the prohibitionist War on Drugs.
This might be the type of hypocritical position you’re trying to paint it as, if only anyone were arguing that we criminalize the Whopper. To my knowledge, nobody is making that argument. I suspect if even the most left-left-lefty liberals had their way with junk food, it would be regulated something like cigarettes: not criminalized, but warnings required and restrictions on advertising. And contributing behind the scenes, there’s a huge farm subsidy problem that neither major party is willing to confront.
Libertarians consider both activities morally neutral, and up to the individual indulge in as he pleases as long as he doesn’t directly harm others.
I actually agree with you. The question is this: When you go to great lengths to convince others to engage in such known-harmful actions, doesn’t that constitute “harming others” in some sense. The problem is not with the drug/burger user, it’s with the drug/burger pusher. I don’t pretend to know how to solve the problem, however.
I think there is room for both public and private solutions. Each compensating for the other’s weaknesses.
We agree more than we disagree, actually. Rather than a single-payer, universal care system (like, say, Canada’s), I’d prefer a mixed system, in which state-provided-and-paid-for health care is available to anyone, irrespective of income, who needs it; but where those who can afford to do so may opt to pay out-of-pocket to go to a private practitioner. In this system, every taxpayer would still share some responsibility for financing the state-run system, even if they choose not to use it (just like not driving on the interstate doesn’t exempt you from helping to pay for the interstate), but it seems you’d have the best of both worlds. The “free” state-paid option would exert downward price pressure on the private care practitioners (except for the highest-end ones), in theory driving down health care costs across the spectrum.
I just think that government control of health care is a very bad idea.
Ten years ago I felt more strongly that way than I do now. Back when Hillary was touting universal health care then, there were all these doom-and-gloom predictions about how costs would skyrocket and choice would suffer. Problem is, both of those things happened anyway. Health care costs have consistently gone up at over triple the rate of inflation, and your “choice” usually consists of whatever provider your employer decides to sign a contract with.
Publicola:
Oooh, goodie! Has anyone set the over-under for ampersands yet? I might want to get in on that action!
Comment 1/13/2007
“Say what you will about liberals and conservatives, but at least they’re trying to address society’s problems.” When will you people learn that throwing money (other people’s money) at a problem and hoping that will somehow help is not a viable solution to every freaking shortcoming and problem people have?
Comment 1/14/2007
@tgirsch
Actually, if you were to pull your head out of your UScentric worldview, you would know that in the majority of the world the ‘classical’ sense is the only way the term is used. Hell, go across the northern border. Just because the Dems bastardized the term for their own use is largely irrelevant.
Comment 1/14/2007
I actually agree with you. The question is this: When you go to great lengths to convince others to engage in such known-harmful actions, doesn’t that constitute “harming others” in some sense. The problem is not with the drug/burger user, it’s with the drug/burger pusher. I don’t pretend to know how to solve the problem, however.
The solution to the problem is simple: publically available information about the bad aspects of the product and laws meant to punish misuse of that product. As long as the Whopper eater can find out these things are heart cloggers and doesn’t litter with the wrappings, none of my business interfering with a legal business selling a legal product.
A liberal sees obesity and heart attacks caused by overconsumption by fast food and says “we must solve this problem!” A libertarian looks at what this solution might entail–government intrusion into a consensual commercial transaction, restriction of a businesses free speech rights, etc.–and decides the solution is worse than the problem. People getting fat and having cardiac arrests is, shall we say, a problem that is self-correcting by methods revealed by a Messr. Darwin. Government intrusion into a citizen’s freedoms to “an it harm none, do what ye will” is usually only correctable by a concerted political campaign. Or high explosives.
Comment 1/14/2007
You know, what always worries me slightly about libertarians is their attitude to violence and bloodshed. They always seem to be obsessed about guns and everyone having the right to start a bloody revolution. I mean, everyone jokes about rising up against the government, but they seem determined that people be ready and prepared to do so if and when necessary…
tgirsch, I’ve got to say that I’m with the libertarians on this, just as a matter of semantics. It’s not that they have *no* solutions, it’s just that they have bad ones. More specifically, what liberals and conservatives see as problems to be solved, they see in different terms as ‘not problems’ or more specifically ‘not my problems’. Do you remember the Someone Else’s Problem field from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy? Imagine putting that around yourself and inverting the effect…and you have the libertarian world view in a nutshell!
Comment 1/14/2007
Michael:
Nice straw man. Did you build it all by yourself?
Jordan:
I didn’t realize we were talking about world politics.
Andrew:
A liberal sees obesity and heart attacks caused by overconsumption by fast food and says “we must solve this problem!”
Well, take a step back. A liberal sees obesity and heart attacks on the rise, and says “we must solve this problem,” no matter what the cause. When that liberal then sees multi-billion-dollar corporations spending literally billions trying to entice people to engage in ever more of the types of actions that cause the problem, they figure that looking the other way probably isn’t the best possible course of action. Watch Super-Size Me, and tell me that fast food companies are just good corporate citizens trying to make an honest buck.
Look, it’s clear that we’re not going to agree on that particular issue, and that’s okay. But the disagreement seems to be about whether or not moneyed interests encouraging unhealthy habits is a problem. If it’s “no problem,” as you seem to think, then there’s nothing to do. But if you believe as I do, that it is a problem, and a potentially serious one at that, then this is where libertarianism falls on its face. It simply has no viable solution for such problems.
Again, the problem isn’t individuals choosing to make unhealthy choices. It’s people, companies, etc., building large businesses whose profit model is predicated on encouraging people to make those unhealthy choices, and to do so ever more often. I don’t know what the solution is, but occasionally reminding people “hey, fast food is bad for you,” while those same people are bombarded day-in and day-out with advertisements saying “Mmm, double whopper,” doesn’t seem to be a viable one to me.
Pejar:
Libertarians only even have bad solutions if you count “repeal all the laws” and/or “do nothing” as “solutions.” But you hit the nail right on the head with the “not my problem” angle. That’s precisely what’s at the heart of libertarianism. To a libertarian, your only responsibility is to yourself — to look out for #1 — and as long as you do that, and don’t directly, immediately, and recognizably harm someone in the process of doing that, do what you want. (If, however, you can harm people slowly, and obfuscate the fact that you’re doing so, well then that’s okay…)
Comment 1/14/2007
I’m late to the party, so I’ll just toss this one out and go back to my hole.
Don’t get me wrong: I really am open to market-based solutions to these problems. But I want assurances that such solutions will actually work, and contingencies for what happens if they don’t.
What a fabulous idea! Can we get the same assurances and contingencies from you and your ilk about the government programs constantly being pushed as solutions to the problem du jour?
Comment 1/15/2007
Way upthread, Sailorcurt asks:
“Let me ask you a question: If someone is twisting your arm and it hurts, would you prefer that they stop twisting, or just twist from a different direction, with a different amount of pressure, or twist a different limb?”
This is a great summation of two aspects of Libertarian thinking.
First, Sailorcurt doesn’t bother to ask why my arm is being twisted. Is it because I have a deep wound and it’s being twisted to keep me from bleeding to death? Is it to prevent me from starting a fight I can’t win? If so, twist away.
Second, Sailorcurt assumes bad faith on the part of the arm-twister. It may not be the optimal way to keep me from bleeding to death or out of a fight, but that doesn’t mean the person doing the arm-twisting is only doing it to hurt me.
Libertarians assume that a less-than perfect government solution to a problem is inherently worse than the problem itself. They also assume that government solutions to problems are mostly designed in bad faith by people who are only involved to further their own interests.
So, if the solution is always worse than the problem and the person creating the solution is always acting in bad faith, there is no need for any further analysis of a problem.
Comment 1/16/2007
In fairness, I assume that Sailorcurt assumes bad faith on the part of the arm-twister. The comment in question doesn’t actually say anything about the motivation.
My assumption comes from my interactions with my Libertarian friends, who generally ascribe bad motives to government employees.
My apologies.
Comment 1/16/2007
Aww, crap. So much for the air force!
I’m pretty sure a standing army is out the window, too. But at least progressive income taxes are okay.
Income taxes are “okay” because the proper Constitutional Amendment was enacted. Libertarians (and I, for that matter) argue that the amendment should be repealed, not that the taxes are illegal (OK, some argue that the amendment was never properly ratified, I don’t know about that, I’ve never seen a compelling argument one way or the other…let’s assume that the amendment was successfully and legally enacted). The “progressive” part is a point of contention. How “progressive” taxes can be considered “equal protection of the laws” (Amendment 14) is a bit beyond me.
As far as the Air Force, I would see that as a primarily defensive force and would entertain an Amendment placing it in the same category as the Navy Constitutionally…but as it stands I would agree with you. Standing armies as well are definitely unconstitutional. The founders were very clear on that point during the Constitutional debates and their other writings. Congress currently gets around the spirit of the Constitutional prohibition by adhering to the letter of the law and only financing the Army two years at a time…even though they do it EVERY two years in perpetuity.
Seriously, though, that’s a crock of bullshit. Why, you ask? Because libertarians who oppose this stuff at the federal level on “constitutional” grounds are just as likely to oppose it at the local level, where it’s perfectly allowable. The constitution is a convenient thing to hide behind, but you’d oppose it even if it were 100% constitutional.
That all depends upon the Constitutional grounds. Some areas of the Constitution DO apply to the States. Libertarians arguing that the States SHOULDN’T do something is not tantamount to arguing that it is ILLEGAL for them to do so unless there is Constitutional grounds for the argument. For example: the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right just like freedom of the Press and freedom of Religion and cannot legally be infringed (court rulings to the contrary notwithstanding) by the States any more than by the Federal Government.
“The market will provide” is a common libertarian mantra. But what happens when it doesn’t? That’s where I’m concerned.
I’ll leave that one up to the experts. According to the economists that I read (Friedman, Sowell, Williams et al.) the only time that the market doesn’t provide is when a) there is no demand for the product or service or b) when artificial constraints in the form of governmental regulation or illegal activity interfere with the normal functioning of the market.
In those cases, government has to step in, because if it doesn’t, who or what will?
And that’s where I have to call BS on you. With a few narrow exceptional cases, if it weren’t for the government insinuating itself into the situation, the problems probably wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Health care is an area where the market is badly failing a large section of the public. Indeed, for something like health care (or education is another example), there’s just not very much money to be made catering to people who don’t have any money.
But, if that were true, there wouldn’t be any incentive for ANY business to cater to the poor. Remember that whole “faster/cheaper/more” rant of a couple posts ago?
What makes things available for lower income people is vigorous competition which stimulates innovation and economies of scale. That vigorous competition is discouraged by governmental controls and regulation.
Would everyone be able to afford the same LEVEL of health care? No, but where there is a demand, the market will provide the supply.
Where’s the profit incentive in providing health care to the poor (or even to the lower-middle class)? There isn’t any, and there will never BE any. Now maybe you’re okay with that, but I’m not.
You are just flat out wrong about that. Was there any shortage of health care for poor people before the advent of Insurance and government intervention? The answer is no. Health care wasn’t as good back then but that was a function of technology and availability (couldn’t just jump on a chopper and go to the hospital in the big city back then), not willingness.
People tend to spend their money on the things that are important to them. My son is 19 years old, married and has a child. He has health insurance for his child through his employer. He made the conscious decision to eschew such coverage for himself because he is young and healthy and he is willing to assume the risk in the hopes that he won’t need it. He just puchased a family car. The difference in insurance alone between the beater he used to drive and the two year old car he just bought would have paid for his medical insurance. That was HIS decision to make. Because he chose reliable transportation over health care does that mean that YOU should be forced to finance his health care? That was HIS decision. Now if he has a medical crisis, HE is the one who is going to have to face the consequences of his decision.
There also Charity to consider. As illogical as it may sound to liberals, the proper provider of Charity is…charitable organizations.
No, Utopia doesn’t exist. The world will never be perfect. That doesn’t mean we should give up trying to make it better.
And making it better is what getting the government out of our lives is all about. It doesn’t make it better for EVERYONE because some people are flat out going to make bad decisions. We cannot control the decisions that other people make and, therefore, cannot control the consequences they must face as a result of those decision. The problem is that, by passing off the responsibility for consequences to the government (or any other entity for that matter) we also pass off control over our decisions. This affects not only people who make poor decisions, but those who make good decisions as well. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I don’t need a nanny.
Tell that to the tobacco companies. What companies have learned is that as long as you don’t kill them too quickly, or only kill a few here and there, you can budget for it, put some PR people to put some spin on it, and viola! Public safety is no longer a pressing concern.
I smoked for ten years. My parents didn’t smoke. My parents didn’t smoke because their parents told them it was bad for them. My parents also told me it was bad for me but I chose not to pay heed to their advice.
Funny, I quit before the advent of all these “quit smoking” products like patches and gums (in all fairness, some of them existed, but only by prescription and I didn’t use them) and right at the height of the time when the cigarette companies were supposedly spiking the nicotene levels to make cigarettes more addictive. I quit because I CHOSE to do so. I went from a two pack a day habit to nothing cold turkey. It actually took me a couple of tries, but I did it.
I’m not saying that to toot my horn but to illustrate that smoking, regardless of how habit forming and how much PR spin they put on it and how “enticing” the advertising is, is still a personal choice. Tobacco companies that DIDN’T do everything (legally) in their power to increase sales and market share would be doing a disservice to their shareholders.
The tobacco companies don’t force anyone to consume their products. There are false advertising laws to prevent them from lying in their ads. There are plenty of products out there that are bad for you, that can kill you, that can damage your health. To expect them to not REALLY try to sell their products because they feel really bad about people doing unhealthy things is…stupid. Sorry, I’m not trying to “name-call”, but that’s just what it is.
Think of it like entrapment. It’s one thing when an individual makes a bad choice. It’s quite another when “the market” decides we can make a lot of money by enticing people to make bad choices, even encouraging it.
You compromised your own point in that statement. “Bad choice” or not, it is still a choice. You seem to assume that everyone else out there is just too stupid to see through the hyperbole and marketing and make decisions on their own, therefore it is up to you…through the force of government, to make everyone’s decisions for them. You are probably smarter than I am. I can admit that without angst. But that still doesn’t qualify you to make my decisions for me. Ever.
But when companies profiteer on such bad judgment, to the point that they actually work to encourage it and to suppress information about how bad it really is, that crosses a line.
And it is my understanding that the suppression of information (which was miraculously available to me and my parents and their parents before them) was why the tobacco companies recently got hit by a multi-hundred-billion dollar lawsuit.
The problem you face is that the vast, vast majority of it is extremely popular.
And being popular somehow makes it the right thing to do? Discrimination and Jim Crowe laws were very popular from the end of the Civil war up until the ’60’s. I guess that means that they were good laws because they were popular. Speaking specifically of entitlement programs like health care: Of course laws that take money away from one group of individuals (villified by a certain segment of society as “rich” and characterized as undeserving by being said to have “won life’s lottery”) and use it to provide services for a group that has been taught to feel a sense of “entitlement” is going to be popular…at least with the majority in the group of receivers.
I believe it was Tocqueville that said democracy can only last until the majority realizes it can pick the pocket of the minority through the ballot box. That would explain why the Founding Fathers never described our form of Government as a Democracy and many of them were very plain about the contempt in which they held such form of government.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the issue!”
— Benjamin Franklin 1759
I will agree that the popularity of government subsidized theft is a substantial problem that we face, but face it we must if we are to survive and not go the way of the USSR (or the socialist countries of Europe with their stagnant economies and double digit unemployment rates for that matter).
Now it’s time to tell you that Utopia doesn’t exist. If we lived in a perfect world, where everyone truly was born equal, with equal resources, and an equal chance to succeed — or even close to that — then maybe that could work, for a generation or two, anyway. But in the real world there are people — a lot of them — who through no fault of their own are starting behind the proverbial 8-ball.
When have I ever even hinted that I thought small government and market solutions would create the utopian society? Please point out to me the section of your birth certificate that guarantees life will be fair? The only difference between the American system and the systems before it are that under the American system, everyone has the OPPORTUNITY to change their station in life. It is not required that they do so and most Americans are either satisfied with where they are (as in my case) are too short sighted, too incompetent or too lazy to change it. Life is not and is never going to be fair. Some are going to be born with more access to the means of success, some are going to be born with more innate talent, some are going to be born with more physical strength, some are going to be born with more intelligence etc. etc. etc. That’s life. That’s never going to change no matter the good intentions of the left.
Granted, it’s just a movie, but sometimes eternal truths are legitimate regardless of where you hear them. You are right that a lot of people start behind the 8-ball through no fault of their own…but the fact that they stay there decidedly IS their fault and no one elses. The vast majority of people are nothing more than Sheep. They want nothing more than to be fed and watered and live in comfort and they’ll gladly stand still and be shorn in return. Those people will NOT be lifted up out of their circumstances no matter how hard anyone tries. Like the addict that can only be helped when THEY decide they want it, the only way that people like this will attain an equal outcomes (which is what you propose) is if someone else does it for them.
That is the reality of life. We CANNOT guarantee an equal starting point and we CANNOT guarantee equal outcomes. All we can guarantee is some modicum of equal opportunity for people to take advantage of or not at their discretion.
“The office of government is not to confer happiness, but to give men opportunity to work out happiness for themselves.”
–William Channing
If you were born into the middle- or upper-class, you’ve won life’s lottery.
So people who are born with athletic ability, or high intelligence, or unusually good looks, or acting ability haven’t “won life’s lottery”…people who’s parents worked hard and attained success have?
And if you worked your way out of poverty into an upper class, you’ve hit life’s Powerball.
That’s ridiculous on it’s face. You say that the odds of breaking the cycle of poverty are extremely slim but then you say that people who have done so are just lucky? How about showing a little respect for the hard work and determination it takes to do so? Some people, regardless of their humble beginnings, choose not to stay where they are and they do what it takes to succeed. They work hard, they take risks, they shrug off failure and they keep trying until they succeed. And they DON’T sit around and cry about how poorly life has treated them and expect someone else to lift them up.
And we’re a wealthy enough nation that we can afford to do so. Education should not be a privilege of wealth, for example. Neither should health care. Nor should food, or housing. As it turns out, the market does a decent job on its own on the food and housing fronts (there’s room for improvement, of course, but that’s a discussion for another time). Education and health care, not so much. The government has to step in, because no one else will.
I agree with everything up to the last two sentences. Education was almost universally available before the “government stepped in” and, in my humble opinion, would have become so without government interference. The last sentence is pure BS. Perhaps in YOUR world there is no charitable spirit, but in the world I inhabit, Americans are the most charitable people on the planet. The primary difference between you and I is not that we believe that the poor should get help, it is in what entity is the most qualified and efficient at providing that help. You propose that the government is the only entity capable of helping and I MUST throw the BS flag. Just because YOU (and I’m assuming here based on the documented fact that liberal participate in charitable giving MUCH less often than conservatives or libertarians) don’t support charities doesn’t mean that most Americans don’t or won’t. The government is demonstrably the least effective at properly distributing charity. For evidence you need look no further than Katrina. Remember the FEMA fiasco? Remember the empty trailers? Remember the debit cards that were used for strip clubs and booze? Yes, I know, it’s all Bush’s fault right? Bush went to LA and did all those things personally right? That is THE GOVERNMENT AT WORK. Bush didn’t fire every bureacrat at FEMA when he took office and install his own people. The bureacracy was well in place long before Bush took office.
No, charities are not foolproof. Nothing human is. But charitable organizations are MUCH better at doing their job than the government is. I don’t have the numbers at my fingertips but before I give to any charity, I look at the numbers that they are required by law to publish. Those numbers tell me what percentage of every dollar I donate actually gets to the intended recipient. I don’t even consider giving to a charity unless it is 75% or more. I prefer to reserve my money for organizations that operate at 85% efficiency or better. If I remember correctly, the Government charitable programs get approximately 30 cents of every dollar to its intended recipients. The other 70% goes to maintaining the bureacracy, administering the program, fraud and waste. And you want to FORCE me to give to a charitable organization with that poor of performance? I’d rather give my money to organizations that actually use it to help people.
Don’t get me wrong: I really am open to market-based solutions to these problems. But I want assurances that such solutions will actually work, and contingencies for what happens if they don’t.
That’s easy…the contingency is that the government takes over if it doesn’t work. What are your contingencies if the system you advocate doesn’t work? Is the government going to give up control once it has proven beyond doubt that it is incapable of effectively managing the program? Please point out ONE time in history that that has occured.
What actually happens is that, when the government regulations and policies prove ineffective, people like you start screaming that the government has got to DO something and we are back to the arm twisting metaphor. Our arms get twisted harder and harder and guess what? It just hurts more.
Education and Health care are prime examples. Many of the problems with both were CAUSED by government intervention and now people like you swear that what we need to fix them is…more government intervention.
Someone mentioned my arm twisting metaphor and asked whether the intentions of the arm twister were good or bad. IT DOESN’T MATTER. If I were a dumb animal, that might have some relevance. I’m not a dumb animal, I am an intelligent human being capable of making my own decisions. That attitude demonstrates perfectly the problem with liberalism. Liberals ASSUME that we common folk just aren’t capable of making decisions on our own so the government must twist our arms “for our own good”. And then they wonder why we call them “elitists”. I don’t give a darn how good your intentions are. If you are twisting my arm you are twisting my arm. I am not an animal that is incapable of making my own decisions so you have NO RIGHT to twist my arm regardless of your High Holy intentions.
And I guess that’s a big part of my problem with libertarianism: it assumes that we live in a perfect world where everyone really can make it, if only they work hard enough, and where there aren’t people who have the deck seriously stacked against them. That might be a nice world, but it ain’t the one we live in. My experience with libertarians is that their attitude toward such people (as expressed so eloquently by Tam) is, “Not my problem.”
And my problem with liberalism is that it assumes that it is the government’s role to unstack the deck.
Libertarians and conservatives don’t say “Not my problem” so much as “not the Government’s problem.” That’s why Libertarians and Conservatives give so much to charity. It IS society’s problem and it is society’s role, in the form of charitable organizations, to help when needed. It is NOT the government’s problem and it is NOT the government’s role.
That’s the difference. To liberals, the government IS society. To the rest of us, the government is just a part of society that has its place. Charity is not it. Controlling markets is not it. Social engineering is not it. What IS The function of the Government? I can only refer you back to the US Constitution. That spells it out pretty plainly.
This thread is getting a bit dated so I’ll leave it at this point. I’m sorry I got so verbose in my arguments but these are complicated issues. I would like to thank tgirsch for hosting such a civil and open discussion. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Comment 1/17/2007
I’m still looking for an answer to why YOUR education and health care are MY responsibility. Any more than your food or housing. Or your cable television, car, trip to Paris…
Even if we get past the moral problem of forcing one person to pay for specific personal benefits to another, we are still stuck behind “how much”. How much health care is it my responsibility to provide you? How nice a house?
What if you don’t want the benefit? Even if we decide how much education I have to buy a stranger’s child, that child may decide he prefers to work. Oops, can’t have that- he is REQUIRED to accept the education, and will be punished if he doesn’t.
David Crockett was right. The provision of charity is not the business of government, and it should not be. It always astonishes me that lefties claim that “universal health care will enhance the general welfare”, yet seem unable to accept that “universal health care will degrade the specific personal welfare of millions of people.”
Comment 1/17/2007
Sailorcurt, I am shocked, shocked, that you look at those numbers that charities are required by law to publish. Government has no business regulating charities and I would expect you to boycott that information
Comment 1/17/2007
Sailorcurt:
Sheesh! Who died and made you Kevin Baker?
I’ll try to get to your comments later tonight.
Staghounds:
I’m still looking for an answer to why YOUR education and health care are MY responsibility.
For the same reason why YOURS are MINE: Society cannot function without a reasonably well-educated, reasonably healthy populace. The private sector in particular is dependent upon, and benefits from, and educated populace. Any person or company who employs people is, in all likelihood, depending on the government to educate their potential workforce.
Of course, if you’re such a big opponent of public education, you’re more than free to go move somewhere without it. I’m sure there are plenty of Latin American and African nations that would be happy to welcome you without saddling you with the burden of paying for other kids’ education.
Oops, can’t have that- he is REQUIRED to accept the education, and will be punished if he doesn’t.
Patently false. There’s no requirement that any child attend public schools. They can attend private schools or even be home schooled in most places. So yes, they CAN reject the education, and the only punishment that might come would come from the “free market,” whose employers tend to frown on the uneducated. Especially the more we ship our unskilled jobs overseas.
Ted:
Bwah!
Comment 1/17/2007
Sailorcurt:
How “progressive” taxes can be considered “equal protection of the laws” (Amendment 14) is a bit beyond me.
That’s an easy one. Everyone who has income in the US is subject to the same income tax code with the same progressive scale. It doesn’t matter what gender you are, what race you are, what creed you are: you’re still subject to the same code. If you hit the lottery tomorrow and suddenly had tens of millions in income, you’d start paying the same as anyone else with that sort of income. Likewise, if Bill Gates somehow suddenly only made $19,000 next year, he wouldn’t pay any more that year than some guy who’s only been making that every year. About the only place where an equal protection complaint might have some merit (and I still think it’s pretty thin) is in offering a separate scale to married couples.
Libertarians arguing that the States SHOULDN’T do something is not tantamount to arguing that it is ILLEGAL for them to do so
No, but it still belies the argument that the libertarian position is summed up as ““The government shouldn’t do things that the Constitution says it’s not supposed to do,” as you did way up there. And that’s what I was criticizing. I think a bit of introspection would yield an obvious result: whether or not you support the government doing X or not doing Y has little if anything to do with what the constitution says. Sometimes the constitution is on your side, and sometimes it isn’t, but to pretend, as libertarians often do, that their positions are somehow because of what the constitution says, is silly.
According to the economists that I read (Friedman, Sowell, Williams et al.) the only time that the market doesn’t provide is when a) there is no demand for the product or service or b) when artificial constraints in the form of governmental regulation or illegal activity interfere with the normal functioning of the market.
You need to read some different economists.
Seriously, though, here’s an example: revoke the minimum wage, and see what happens. Without that artificial control, wages in certain sectors of the economy (especially service-related jobs) would plummet. The problem is that the market only works well when there is competition, and in all competitions, someone eventually wins. Once a winner emerges, that winner can do just about whatever it wants, market be damned. This is also true of wages. The market only “provides” when there’s rough equilibrium between the number of available jobs and the number of available workers. If there are more of the latter than the former, which is virtually always the case, then employers can pay as little as they want.
With a few narrow exceptional cases, if it weren’t for the government insinuating itself into the situation, the problems probably wouldn’t exist in the first place.
We’re not going to agree on that. I could list literally dozens of instances where government intervention was absolutely necessary, most of them off the top of my head. Hell, I could probably list half a dozen general categories of such things where the market has no solution. You might believe that industrial pollution would have been done away with by the Market Fairy, but history is not on your side.
But, if that were true, there wouldn’t be any incentive for ANY business to cater to the poor.
Wrong again. Marketing very-low-cost (i.e., cheap) items to the poor can be quite lucrative. Just ask Wal-Mart. But there’s no amount of market pressure in the world that could ever make quality education and quality health care “very-low-cost.” Period.
That vigorous competition is discouraged by governmental controls and regulation.
Yes, because without anti-trust regulation, there’d be less corporate consolidation and therefore more competition. I’m sure that logic works somehow, I just can’t for the life of me follow it. (In libertarian fantasyland, you’re a big corporation and some new small competitor shows up: Why beat ‘em when you can just buy ‘em? It happens too much now, and you’re going to tell me with a straight face that removing anti-trust controls would actually make this happen less often? Somebody’s been drinking too much Kool-Aid…)
No, but where there is a demand, the market will provide the supply.
Not necessarily. In all sorts of industries, businesses figure out that it’s more profitable to ignore the low end of the spectrum and just go after the high-margin stuff. This is why basketball teams still charge $250 a seat for floor seats even when the team sucks and the arena is half-empty. They’d rather not sell at all than sell for cheap, and they’ll more than make their money back anyway on those who do pay the premium dollar.
Was there any shortage of health care for poor people before the advent of Insurance and government intervention? The answer is no.
You’re on crack! People simply didn’t go to the doctor. And, historically speaking, they died a lot younger. In addition to improved quality of and access to health care, increased life spans are due in very large measure to the types of regulations you’d do away with. (Who needs pollution control, anyway? Let the market decide what 3M dumps in the river…)
Now if he has a medical crisis, HE is the one who is going to have to face the consequences of his decision.
Except that if he lives in any sort of major city, there probably already is a hospital he can go to and get care pro bono, and the taxpayers of that city WILL have to pay for it anyway. But the problem with this logic, frankly, is that it individualizes everything. There’s a big difference between asking YOU to pay for MY health care, and asking EVERYONE to pay for EVERYBODY’s health care. There are some things it makes sense to handle individually, and some that it makes sense to handle collectively. On that, we probably agree. We just disagree whether things like health care and education are among them.
As illogical as it may sound to liberals, the proper provider of Charity is…charitable organizations.
I’m not suggesting that the government engage in charity. I don’t know anyone who is.
And making it better is what getting the government out of our lives is all about.
Better for whom? The answer is “better for those with means.” This really needs to be a follow-up post in its own right, but this is one of the biggest flaws with libertarianism in general: it assumes that when bad things happen to people, it’s their own fault. It’s their own bad decisions, or their own lack of preparation. Externalities are never to blame. Now if one views the world through such a childishly simplistic lens, one might think that libertarianism could be fair and could work. But the real world isn’t anywhere near that simple. The overwhelming majority of poor people aren’t poor because they’re lazy or because they made bad decisions. It’s because their parents were poor. (And in many, many cases, that’s because those parents, or their parents, were somehow systematically exploited or discriminated against, or both.) Similarly, the overwhelming majority of well-to-do people come from well-to-do families. As I said over at Publicola’s place, in Libertarian Fantasy Land even more so than in our current world, the single best thing you can to do ensure your success and prosperity is to pick the right parents. Except that nobody actually gets to make that choice.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: I don’t need a nanny.
Not today, perhaps, but never? Suppose a Katrina-caliber disaster strikes your area, and bankrupts your insurance company. Sure, you stayed on top of your premiums, and you had the cat’s ass policy that covered everything, including this. Only your insurer won’t pay, because it can’t pay. Now I suppose you could argue that not carrying redundant policies with different carriers was your bad decision, or choosing to live someplace where tornadoes, earthquakes, or hurricanes hit (which is pretty much anywhere), or simply choosing the wrong insurer, but most reasonable people would say that you’re capital-F Fucked through no fault of your own. And most reasonable people would say that in these circumstances, society ought to take care of its own. And a whole lot of reasonable people would argue that since we know such things are going to happen, even if we don’t know when and where, it would behoove us to be proactive and have a system in place for dealing with such things.
But not libertarians. They’re not reasonable people. They say “every man for himself,” and if life screws a guy, he can always hope (but with no assurance) that some charity will come along and help.
I’m not saying that to toot my horn but to illustrate that smoking, regardless of how habit forming and how much PR spin they put on it and how “enticing” the advertising is, is still a personal choice. Tobacco companies that DIDN’T do everything (legally) in their power to increase sales and market share would be doing a disservice to their shareholders.
Precisely. The market couldn’t give two squirts of piss about people’s health. If giving you emphysema is good for the corporate bottom line, then it’s their duty to their shareholders to encourage you to give yourself emphysema, health be damned. This raises another problem with libertarianism: it seems to assume that what’s profitable and what’s good are usually the same thing. As often as not, however, these are in direct opposition. Libertarians say they don’t want to allow people to harm others, but on what planet is spending billions to encourage someone to harm themseleves NOT the same thing in principle as harming them? If I spend millions trying to encourage someone to kill himself, and he does kill himself, do I bear no responsibility for this? That’s the type of thing that can’t be addressed by the market. It can only be addressed by the law.
There are false advertising laws to prevent them from lying in their ads.
#1, Such laws are so weak that only a clearly-demonstrable outright lie has any chance of ever being prosecuted. Companies can be and usually are incredibly misleading in their advertising, but as long as they’ve got plausible deniability (”Saddam Hussein could give WMDs to terrorists, who may be be tangentially related to al-Qaeda”), they can do whatever they want.
#2, Most libertarians would do away with such laws as “excessive government regulation.” Then what?
“Bad choice” or not, it is still a choice. You seem to assume that everyone else out there is just too stupid to see through the hyperbole and marketing and make decisions on their own
Not at all. I assume (correctly) that the vast majority of people out there are not well informed (and, indeed, simply cannot stay on top of everything). And in any case, I wouldn’t outlaw the bad choice, as I have stated repeatedly and as virtually every libertarian who addresses the point seems to ignore. I would merely put strict restrictions on profiteering from and actively encouraging the bad choices of others.
But that still doesn’t qualify you to make my decisions for me. Ever.
For the most part, you’re right. Good thing I haven’t suggested any such thing, eh? You want to smoke? It’s your funeral. You want to make lots of money by encouraging others to smoke while obfuscating the health risks? I’ve got something to say about that, and I think society at large does, too.
And being popular somehow makes it the right thing to do?
No, but in this quaint little “democracy” thing we have going on, popularity is a good portion of the picture. You can disparage democracy all you want, but as long as the public will isn’t infringing on basic human rights, then it ought to be heeded. Apart from clear infringements upon basic civil liberties, we can whine all we want about the public will, but unless we can get a majority to agree with us and change things, then it’s just that: whining. Discrimination infringes upon basic human rights. Taxation does not. Regulation of commerce does not. See the difference?
And by the way, I never, ever made the argument that popular = right. Not sure where you invented that little straw man. The popularity of such programs is a practical problem for you, not a philosophical one.
subsidized theft
Translation: Waaaah! I don’t like taxes! Waaaah!
Please point out to me the section of your birth certificate that guarantees life will be fair?
There’s no such place, but then I never argued that there was. In fact, I was arguing from quite the opposite position: We know that life isn’t fair, and we also know that life will be at least a little bit better for most if we as a society work together to counteract at least some of that unfairness. That whole “working together” thing seems to be like Kryptonite to libertarians, however. We must never expect people to work together, and certainly never require them to do so. No, instead we must allow people to work together only when it benefits them immediately and directly, and just sort of hope the whole thing works out.
And by the way, what is it with libertarians quoting long-dead philosophers at length, and usually out of context? Congratulations. You read a book (or an excerpt of a book) that affirms your ideas. Have a cookie.
You are right that a lot of people start behind the 8-ball through no fault of their own…but the fact that they stay there decidedly IS their fault and no one elses.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit. The disadvantages of poverty, for example, are so pervasive that only a very, very few people overcome it. Is this strictly because of the bad decisions of the poor? Hardly. By the time an impoverished child is twelve, they’re probably already so far behind in terms of education, access, etc. And then when they get to adulthood, they’re supposed to be able to magically overcome all of that? They can be the most disciplined, hardest worker in the world, they can stay clean and sober, they can work multiple jobs, and still never get out from under it all. But it’s their fault that they stay there? That’s the type of stupid bullshit that makes libertarians impossible to take seriously.
We CANNOT guarantee an equal starting point and we CANNOT guarantee equal outcomes. All we can guarantee is some modicum of equal opportunity for people to take advantage of or not at their discretion.
On this, at least, we mostly agree. But guess what? The market by itself will simply never provide that modicum. In fact, it will resist it.
So people who are born with athletic ability, or high intelligence, or unusually good looks, or acting ability haven’t “won life’s lottery”
Err, where did I ever say that? In fact, this simply underscores my point. Getting ahead in life is at least 95% luck, and probably less than 5% skill and perseverance. And indeed, winning the “athletic ability” is about the only way many people who lost the “family class” lottery can get out of the rut. Of course, hard work and perseverance do improve your chances, but they can only do so much, and the externalities far outweigh them.
How about showing a little respect for the hard work and determination it takes to do so?
I never intended to disparage that, and in fact it deserves all the respect in the world. The problem is, as great as that is, by itself it’s nowhere near enough. I never said that the hard work and the luck were mutually exclusive, you know. But the latter has a whole hell of a lot more to do with it than you give credit for.
The rest later.
Comment 1/17/2007
“According to the economists that I read (Friedman, Sowell, Williams et al.) the only time that the market doesn’t provide is when a) there is no demand for the product or service or b) when artificial constraints in the form of governmental regulation or illegal activity interfere with the normal functioning of the market.”
I am not aware of any serious economist who would agree with that statement. A partial list of circumstances that prevent “the market” from providing:
markets that afford providers continuing decreases in marginal costs (ie natural monopolies) result in a far from optimal steady state
markets that have very high initial costs can remain unexploited unless society foots the initial bill
markets that rely on accessible but limited natural resources (petroleum for example) do not reflect the true cost of said resources, resulting in a distorted supply curve
markets that are dominated by low probability, high impact futures, such as pandemic vaccine manufacturing.
markets where social costs (example: pollution) are not reflected in supply curves
markets characterized by high fixed costs and negligible marginal costs (for example airlines) are highly unstable and inefficient
markets where aggregate social benefits (example: a well educated populace) are not reflected in demand curve
markets that are at odds with the security of society (example: selling arms to enemies of the state)
I could go on at length. I am a strong proponent of a free market, but I understand that free markets are not perfect and in certain instances prevention, aid, or regulation are desirable.
Comment 1/18/2007
[…] In the comments for this post, in response to my question of what happens when the market doesn’t provide, commenter Sailorcurt made the following claim: According to the economists that I read (Friedman, Sowell, Williams et al.) the only time that the market doesn’t provide is when a) there is no demand for the product or service or b) when artificial constraints in the form of governmental regulation or illegal activity interfere with the normal functioning of the market. […]
Pingback 1/18/2007
Continuing my above rebuttal to Sailorcurt:
Education was almost universally available before the “government stepped in” and, in my humble opinion, would have become so without government interference.
Baloney. Make a claim like that, and I sure hope you’ve got evidence to back it up. Dollars to donuts you don’t. Formal education was most certainly not “almost universally available,” and what little education many did get was just the bare minimum to get them into the factory or the fields.
The primary difference between you and I is not that we believe that the poor should get help, it is in what entity is the most qualified and efficient at providing that help.
It depends what kind of “help” you’re talking about. Nobody’s suggesting that we shake the etch-a-sketch and evenly distribute the wealth among everyone. What some of us (me included) suggest, instead, is that we guarantee that everyone, irrespective of social/financial background, has access to the basics that allow them to become productive members of society. If they don’t take that next step, then that is their problem, but we’ve got to ensure that the tools are there for them. Given that a health, well-educated populace is a productive populace (a statement I doubt even YOU would contest), it behooves us to do a little more than leave either “healthy” or “well-educated” entirely to chance.
And all this bogus rhetoric about “charity” is just a red-herring anyway. If welfare were the topic at hand, you might have a small fraction of a point. But educating people and ensuring their basic health isn’t charity; it’s an investment. Healthy, well-educated people are orders of magnatude more likely to get decent-to-good jobs, which actually makes those people part of the tax base rather than a drain on society.
To that extent, we don’t suggest these things for humanitarian reasons, but for practical ones. Self-serving (collectively), really. We don’t educate people strictly because it benefits those being educated. We do so because it benefits society as a whole. The same is true of health care, except that even though the whole of society depends on some level of basic health within its populace, we don’t really do enough to ensure that.
You propose that the government is the only entity capable of helping and I MUST throw the BS flag.
No, I propose no such thing. There are plenty of other individuals and entities who can and do help, to some extent or another, but the government is the entity best suited for the job in these cases (i.e., where the needs are universal, and the benefits extend beyond the individuals being helped).
But charitable organizations are MUCH better at doing their job than the government is.
It depends, quite frankly, on the job you’re talking about. Charities sure aren’t doing a very good job of caring for the sick on a macro scale. They help some, but they haven’t come close to solving the problem. And I seriously doubt they would magically get better at it if only the eeeevil government would get out of their way.
Many of the problems with both were CAUSED by government intervention
It’s a nice “just so” statement, but saying it doesn’t make it true…
And my problem with liberalism is that it assumes that it is the government’s role to unstack the deck.
Not completely unstack it. It’s not the government’s job to guarantee equal results. It is the government’s job to guarantee at least some degree of equal opportunity. It has to be the government’s job, because nobody else will do it. The market hates equal opportunity, just like it loves monopolies and unfair advantages. Equality of opportunity has to be crammed down the market’s throat, by force.
Libertarians and conservatives don’t say “Not my problem” so much as “not the Government’s problem.” That’s why Libertarians and Conservatives give so much to charity. It IS society’s problem and it is society’s role, in the form of charitable organizations, to help when needed. It is NOT the government’s problem and it is NOT the government’s role.
#1, I hope you can demonstrate, through unbiased sources, that conservatives and libertarians consistently give more to various charities than their liberal counterparts. If you can demonstrate this (and, especially if you can demonstrate that it’s true even after you factor out donations to various churches for “ministry” type operations), I’ll be impressed.
To liberals, the government IS society.
Well, to a certain extent, yeah. What part of “government of, by, and for the people” do you not understand?
Actually, sarcasm aside, many of the problems we have today are exacerbated by the fact that too many people (liberals included) tend to view the government as some sort of “them” contrasted against our “us.” I’m not entirely sure why that is. Maybe it’s a sort of congitive dissonance that people use to disassociate themselves from the actions of their government that they don’t like. But for all our complaints about the government, we are the government. Pretending that this isn’t true doesn’t make it any less true.
I would like to thank tgirsch for hosting such a civil and open discussion. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
You’re welcome.
Comment 1/19/2007
Development Emergency Medical Service in America has received the second wave, improvement of quality of service and speed of reaction WBR LeoP
Comment 1/24/2007
Win Lottery…
Winning Lottery with the help of Baby Spirits ……
Trackback 9/14/2007