LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

Do you really think that those folks made those comments to highlight those particular participants, or to paint them all with a single, broad brush?

I don't know what is in either of those groups head, but I'm sure they were generalizing, so yea that is bad. That is still a different issue to me than saying that someone is going to kill your grandma since it influences a policy discussion.

[Guinness]

You beat me to it. Theirs may or may not be up there as far, but really at this point it's merely hagglin' over price, as the story attributed to George Bernard Shaw goes. (Anybody?)

lol...I always thought this phrase came with the joke about the "promiscuous" woman offering her services, but I could be wrong. I have heard this attributed to Churchill as well, but I am pretty sure it was Shaw.

Something like that... as I've heard it told, he propositioned a respectable society woman for thousands, to which she acquiesced. He then offered her considerably less, at which point she responded, "Why, sir, what kind of a woman do you think I am!?" Shaw is said to have responded, "We've already established that, madam. Now we're just haggling over the price."

[doublem]

Constitution?

http://www.salon.com/news/acorn/index.h ... 0/23/acorn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Guinness]

Do you really think that those folks made those comments to highlight those particular participants, or to paint them all with a single, broad brush?

I don't know what is in either of those groups head, but I'm sure they were generalizing, so yea that is bad. That is still a different issue to me than saying that someone is going to kill your grandma since it influences a policy discussion.

Robert Reich essentially said just that, without edit, in support of government health care reform:

[youtube][/youtube]

Note the happy little fascists clapping and whooping after he says it! Oh, and - yahoo! - we're not going to have any money to develop new technologies and drugs to extend life! Woohoo!

To me, it is just as bad, frankly. They impugn the character of every one of those folks without prejudice. It discourages people from standing up and speaking their minds - people don't want to be thought of as racists and morons in the eyes of their neighbors.

[doublem]

Do you really think that those folks made those comments to highlight those particular participants, or to paint them all with a single, broad brush?

I don't know what is in either of those groups head, but I'm sure they were generalizing, so yea that is bad. That is still a different issue to me than saying that someone is going to kill your grandma since it influences a policy discussion.

Robert Reich essentially said just that, without edit, in support of government health care reform.

To me, it is just as bad, frankly. They impugn the character of every one of those folks without prejudice. It discourages people from standing up and speaking their minds - people don't want to be thought of as racists and morons in the eyes of their neighbors.

I like Robert Reich.I don't think so at all. If you are a reasonable person with an argument against health care or whatever, what is the problem? It seems the other person would be the one with the problem, if it's not warranted. Just tune them out.

[Guinness]

I like Robert Reich.I don't think so at all. If you are a reasonable person with an argument against health care or whatever, what is the problem? It seems the other person would be the one with the problem, if it's not warranted. Just tune them out.

I used to like the man, too, frankly... I've learned a LOT since then. I was once - VERY - much like you.

I edited in the speech he made telling us that grandma doesn't get to live to see her great-grandchild born, or to see her grandson get married, or whatever else he and his fellow bureaucrats decide is just a little bit more life than she deserves...

And while I agree - as evidenced by the fact that I do stand up regardless of what others think - most folks do care what their neighbors think of them.

[doublem]

I like Robert Reich.I don't think so at all. If you are a reasonable person with an argument against health care or whatever, what is the problem? It seems the other person would be the one with the problem, if it's not warranted. Just tune them out.

I used to like the man, too, frankly... I've learned a LOT since then. I was once - VERY - much like you.

I edited in the speech he made telling us that grandma doesn't get to live to see her great-grandchild born, or to see her grandson get married, or whatever else he and his fellow bureaucrats decide is just a little bit more life than she deserves...

And while I agree - as evidenced by the fact that I do stand up regardless of what others think - most folks do care what their neighbors think of them.

Reich jokes around a lot. I don't even know the context of what he is talking about. The strange thing is, I was very much like you now,not that long ago. I have also learned a lot

[Guinness]

Let me add that this whole thing goes back to the point I was making earlier about unintended consequences. How many jobs are lost by government acting to save jobs? How many lives will be lost by government acting to save lives?

Why do we assume that the Federal government - a behemoth which could not efficiently run a lemonade stand; which is most efficient at taking life (see: Iraq; Afghanistan) rather than preserving it; which cannot create one single job but can manage to destroy millions; which acts only in the interests of it's self-continuation - can suddenly produce an efficacious program that keeps many people alive who might otherwise not be? It's like expecting the Flyers to suddenly play actual hockey, rather than whatever it is they've been doing over there for the past 42 years.

[Guinness]

Reich jokes around a lot. I don't even know the context of what he is talking about. The strange thing is, I was very much like you now,not that long ago. I have also learned a lot

I think it's very clear that he wasn't joking around in this speech. He specifically said he was delivering a speech he'd wish a presidential candidate would deliver.

I was a "Republican" when I was a kid, too. Or are you saying that you saw the light of the truth and yet turned away from it? Because it seems to me that you're now an advocate of force - and I don't mean that in an offensive way... just an honest observation.

[doublem]

Reich jokes around a lot. I don't even know the context of what he is talking about. The strange thing is, I was very much like you now,not that long ago. I have also learned a lot

I think it's very clear that he wasn't joking around in this speech. He specifically said he was delivering a speech he'd wish a presidential candidate would deliver.

I was a "Republican" when I was a kid, too. Or are you saying that you saw the light of the truth and yet turned away from it? Because it seems to me that you're now an advocate of force - and I don't mean that in an offensive way... just an honest observation.

I can't tell that. I need to see the entire thing. I was a Libertarian at one point. I realized that things are a lot more complicated than that belief system makes the world out to be, and I also realized that government doesn't have to be evil, just how you use it. The economic system(AE and the Chicago school) is flawed and absolute. It is also a narrow view of what humans need(basically just boils us down to a few things).(Positive Liberty vs Negative Liberty, Berlin) I also think it can lead to a very greedy and selfish system were the individual(you) is more important than your fellow man, the self is worshiped to a unhealthy level. Plus, I don't see any empirical or scientific evidence that it would work, or even tried in a country with 300 million people. It is a very idealized system, almost so that it could never work. Also, I soured on the idea of the market as a self correcting mechanism.

[Guinness]

I can't tell that. I need to see the entire thing. I was a Libertarian at one point. I realized that things are a lot more complicated than that belief system makes the world out to be, and I also realized that government doesn't have to be evil, just how you use it. The economic system(AE and the Chicago school) is flawed and absolute. It is also a narrow view of what humans need(basically just boils us down to a few things).(Positive Liberty vs Negative Liberty, Berlin) I also think it can lead to a very greedy and selfish system were the individual(you) is more important than your fellow man, the self is worshiped to a unhealthy level. Plus, I don't see any empirical or scientific evidence that it would work, or even tried in a country with 300 million people. It is a very idealized system, almost so that it could never work. Also, I soured on the idea of the market as a self correcting mechanism.

I think it's pretty evident...

Yeah, we know. We've been through it all before...

What's flawed about the Austrian school? Is the boom-bust cycle of the regulated market preferable? Who, in your years of experience ( ), did you read? Who converted you?

It's funny, because I see your system of government action as flawed and absolutist. The idea that a federal government can even understand, let alone act on behalf of, the needs of a nation of 300 million people is, to me, a 'very idealized system, almost so that it could never work'. In fact it's idealism in practice. I guess the question that begs to be asked is, "what do we mean by, 'work'"? To me, 'work' means that which allows the greatest amount of liberty to the greatest number of people. Notice how there's no mention of ease, nor of comfort, nor of the ambiguous term, "happiness". These are left to either a domineering government or to our own devices. Let me ask you this: who is better suited to determine and seek to achieve your notion of ease, comfort or happiness - you, or me and the rest of us?

There are consequences to liberty, to be sure. But I'd rather fail upon my own shortcomings than succeed upon someone else's merits. They're mine, at the end of the day.

I would haltingly agree with you if you said that Rand's Objectivist philosophy, as I understand it, worships the self to an unhealthy degree - I think a lot can be said for recognizing the good things about communities. But you don't seem to recognize the destructive forces of the things you advocate here. You do a lot of talking about reason and logic, but you seem to ignore the facts that underlie your positions... case-in-point: government-run health care. There is simply no way that this is an economically feasible proposition, even if it were a morally feasible position. A simple understanding of money (an Austrian understanding of money, I might say ) proves this to be fiscally unsustainable. The implementation of force - which is absolutely necessary to government-run health care - proves it to be morally unsustainable. On a philosophical level, government-run health care is just as immoral as the war in Iraq, or any war that isn't fought in self-defense. At the end of the day, they're essentially the same thing.

You say that there is no empirical evidence that a libertarian system works, but what empirical evidence can you provide that shows a system of government intervention works? None. That leaves us at a stalemate. Put me down, then, on the side that lets ME decide how I should live MY life, and lets YOU decide how you should live YOUR life. After all, what, if anything, do we own but our lives?

Edit to add: I can't overstate the fact that yours is a position that advocates the implementation of the only socially-sanctioned entity of force, and the unspoken assumption here is that you (and those who agree with your philosophy) know what's best for me and the rest of us. That is a - no offense - powerfully, strikingly arrogant assumption; and that is probably the primary reason I stand in opposition to it. We aren't percentages. We aren't averages. Of course I stand in strict opposition to force or fraud - both private AND public. But the bottom-line is we're entitled to live our lives as we see fit.

[doublem]

What's flawed about the Austrian school? Is the boom-bust cycle of the regulated market preferable? Who, in your years of experience ( ), did you read? Who converted you?

Adam Curtis. Yes, I would say that the regulated market is preferable becasue the idea of freedom under AS is that lower taxes and less regulation makes you more free, but it doesn't mention how it could also have an impact on equality, and the impact and democracy- sovereign on a nation. The market can undermine democracy. The AS school also doesn't provide any solutions just that government is basically bad and must be kept in check. I've read a book called Consumed, looked at some of Noami Klein work, but haven't got the Shock Doctrine yet. Robert Reich talks a lot about it as well. He has a book called supercapitalism.

It's funny, because I see your system of government action as flawed and absolutist. The idea that a federal government can even understand, let alone act on behalf of, the needs of a nation of 300 million people is, to me, a 'very idealized system, almost so that it could never work'. In fact it's idealism in practice.

But in "my system" I won't stop the debate by saying that the government is "force". We can't go anywhere on the regulated vs unregulated market. In a country that has elections that is how you determine what to do. The people elected Obama, for example, now that he is elected he has the power.I also think L don't like leadership and power becasue it might led to tyranny. Does that mean that people will be left out because they lost? Sure, but that is how the system was set up. Now, the market on the other hand is much more favorable to voting in that aspect because the market can respond to people's instant desires, like shopping or how someone spends money, but the democratic process is more than just about monetary value. That is why I say that it is very narrow.

I guess the question that begs to be asked is, "what do we mean by, 'work'"? To me, 'work' means that which allows the greatest amount of liberty to the greatest number of people. Notice how there's no mention of ease, nor of comfort, nor of the ambiguous term, "happiness". These are left to either a domineering government or to our own devices. Let me ask you this: who is better suited to determine and seek to achieve your notion of ease, comfort or happiness - you, or me and the rest of us?

What does that mean? Greatest amount of liberty? I guess this argument is basically the way in which you view freedom. I don't view freedom to mean have the government leave me alone(no taxes, unregulated markets). That is an economic system, I think that should only be part of how you view freedom. What about other things? It just seems meaningless. I view freedom as people having the ability to have decent jobs, affordable health care, education. The government can have a role in that? Improve the current system, that is what I mean work?

There are consequences to liberty, to be sure. But I'd rather fail upon my own shortcomings than succeed upon someone else's merits. They're mine, at the end of the day.

Who is stopping you in a regulated market? How so?

I think a lot can be said for recognizing the good things about communities. But you don't seem to recognize the destructive forces of the things you advocate here. You do a lot of talking about reason and logic, but you seem to ignore the facts that underlie your positions... case-in-point: government-run health care. There is simply no way that this is an economically feasible proposition, even if it were a morally feasible position. A simple understanding of money (an Austrian understanding of money, I might say ) proves this to be fiscally unsustainable

Why? How have other countries figured it out? Government run programs have worked( S.S., medicare) at some values, you have to admit that? Even if you will say that they failed later.

The implementation of force - which is absolutely necessary to government-run health care - proves it to be morally unsustainable. On a philosophical level, government-run health care is just as immoral as the war in Iraq, or any war that isn't fought in self-defense. At the end of the day, they're essentially the same thing.

This is where I have a problem. You are equating someone taxing you; to someone murdering you. Even if you want to say that it is theft, okay whatever, I disagree, but murder and theft aren't on the same level. A human life and money shouldn't even be compared, that is why I have a problem with that thinking becasue everything goes back to profit and money, and eventually greed.

You say that there is no empirical evidence that a libertarian system works, but what empirical evidence can you provide that shows a system of government intervention works?

The American System around the Civil War. America passed the U.K as the worlds largest economy, during WW2 era. Gov't intervention?

That is a - no offense - powerfully, strikingly arrogant assumption; and that is probably the primary reason I stand in opposition to it. We aren't percentages. We aren't averages. Of course I stand in strict opposition to force or fraud - both private AND public. But the bottom-line is we're entitled to live our lives as we see fit.

Its the same thing, as you saying you, know better than everyone else, and MY way of life is better. It's the same thing. I still don't see how that is telling you how to live your life. Your life isn't just how much you pay in taxes, you can still do whatever you like, no one would be undoing any constitutional rights. It's all relative based on a feeling.

Edit: What happens to people that can't take care of themselves? Or just have bad luck? Doesn't a society that can't take care of its sick fail in the morals department? What if they don't have family or friends that want to take care of them or can? How do you judge a society? The L system doesn't seem to have any answers to that?

[HomerPenguin]

Let me add that this whole thing goes back to the point I was making earlier about unintended consequences. How many jobs are lost by government acting to save jobs? How many lives will be lost by government acting to save lives?

How many are lost by doing nothing? Every action or inaction has consequences.

Why do we assume that the Federal government - a behemoth which could not efficiently run a lemonade stand; which is most efficient at taking life (see: Iraq; Afghanistan) rather than preserving it; which cannot create one single job but can manage to destroy millions; which acts only in the interests of it's self-continuation - can suddenly produce an efficacious program that keeps many people alive who might otherwise not be?

What's your best guess as to the net death toll of Medicare and Medicaid?

[Guinness]

Adam Curtis. Yes, I would say that the regulated market is preferable becasue the idea of freedom under AS is that lower taxes and less regulation makes you more free, but it doesn't mention how it could also have an impact on equality, and the impact and democracy- sovereign on a nation. The market can undermine democracy. The AS school also doesn't provide any solutions just that government is basically bad and must be kept in check. I've read a book called Consumed, looked at some of Noami Klein work, but haven't got the Shock Doctrine yet. Robert Reich talks a lot about it as well. He has a book called supercapitalism.

Government action in the market more often than not creates inequalities. Agents of the government use the inherent power (force) of the government to create these inequalities. See the Federal Reserve, for but one example. See no-bid contracts in Iraq for another.

But in "my system" I won't stop the debate by saying that the government is "force".

But that is what it is, by definition. You know of course that I don't argue there should be no government at all.

In a country that has elections that is how you determine what to do. The people elected Obama, for example, now that he is elected he has the power.I also think L don't like leadership and power becasue it might led to tyranny. Does that mean that people will be left out because they lost? Sure, but that is how the system was set up.

The system was also set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because a politician wins an election, he does not have a mandate to do as he wishes. The threat of democracy was well recognized and checked against.

The system was also set up with a governing document, that clearly delineated what role it was to have.

The system was also set up with 3 additional levels of government (for most people) beneath the Federal government. Not to mention the government of community and the government of family, and finally, the government of self... and the further away from the self government gets, the more tyrannical it necessarily gets. Why? Well, who knows you better than you? For whom is it more just to make decisions that impact your life, you or someone who doesn't know anything about you at all? Again, this isn't to say that there isn't a role, only that it's role should be limited, and the higher the level of government, the more limited it's role should be.

What does that mean? Greatest amount of liberty? I guess this argument is basically the way in which you view freedom. I don't view freedom to mean have the government leave me alone(no taxes, unregulated markets). That is an economic system, I think that should only be part of how you view freedom. What about other things? It just seems meaningless. I view freedom as people having the ability to have decent jobs, affordable health care, education. The government can have a role in that? Improve the current system, that is what I mean work?

I believe government's role in the market is to prosecute violations of individuals by other individuals through force or fraud. I don't believe government should be using its power of force to manipulate society according to some perceived notion, such as 'inequity'. If individuals are left to their own abilities, and are ensured prosecution of violations of their liberty through force or fraud, then we have a just society. Government deciding to act on behalf of individuals within one segment of society without violations of their liberty is in itself a violation of the liberty of other individuals, and a more gross one, at that, because government alone is socially-sanctioned to use force. It is by definition brute force.

There are consequences to liberty, to be sure. But I'd rather fail upon my own shortcomings than succeed upon someone else's merits. They're mine, at the end of the day.

Who is stopping you in a regulated market? How so?

The fruits of my labor at confiscated. I have no recourse against this. If I do not pay income taxes, I am prosecuted, and potentially imprisoned.

If I wanted to smoke a joint, I must go to the unregulated underground (black) market to purchase it. If I am caught, I am potentially imprisoned.

I can't buy lawn darts, because bureaucrats decided that I'm not capable of divining the hazards, weighing them against my intended enjoyment and making the decision for myself, like a big boy . There's a long list of similar products.

Our behavior is regularly coerced by government through their actions in the market. Look at the role of the Federal Reserve in the current economic situation. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether this has been a free market or government failure, but the entity bankrolling the entire thing, and which only could have made it happen, is the Fed. And all in an attempt to create 'prosperity' without effort. There is no such thing, and yet for a time, government did create it, or at least the illusion of it.

Why? How have other countries figured it out? Government run programs have worked( S.S., medicare) at some values, you have to admit that? Even if you will say that they failed later.

As you know I try to stick to the moral side of the argument rather than the efficiency line. On the moral side of the argument, I would say that you have to ask what has been destroyed by government programs before you determine whether or not they've worked. What could people have done with the money that has been confiscated to fund these programs? How might people have behaved if these programs weren't there in the first place? As these programs inevitably to insolvent, what of the people who'd planned on them being there?

On the efficiency side, other countries are figuring it out - that the costs inevitably begin to outweigh the so-called benefits. What all has been destroyed in order to create the unsustainable program? The spending that government will have to do in order to sustain these programs and the ones they have planned will either bankrupt the country, or force the government to socialize the entire system, thereby effectively bankrupting the people, and taking their liberty. There's really no way around that. The spending is simply unsustainable. If the past few years have taught us anything, it's that. The curtain has been pulled back on the Fed.

The implementation of force - which is absolutely necessary to government-run health care - proves it to be morally unsustainable. On a philosophical level, government-run health care is just as immoral as the war in Iraq, or any war that isn't fought in self-defense. At the end of the day, they're essentially the same thing.

This is where I have a problem. You are equating someone taxing you; to someone murdering you. Even if you want to say that it is theft, okay whatever, I disagree, but murder and theft aren't on the same level. A human life and money shouldn't even be compared, that is why I have a problem with that thinking becasue everything goes back to profit and money, and eventually greed.

I'm saying that they're both examples of government run-amok. They're examples of the coercive force of government.

You say that there is no empirical evidence that a libertarian system works, but what empirical evidence can you provide that shows a system of government intervention works?

The American System around the Civil War. America passed the U.K as the worlds largest economy, during WW2 era. Gov't intervention?

I'm sorry, I don't understand this...

Its the same thing, as you saying you, know better than everyone else, and MY way of life is better. It's the same thing. I still don't see how that is telling you how to live your life. Your life isn't just how much you pay in taxes, you can still do whatever you like, no one would be undoing any constitutional rights. It's all relative based on a feeling.

Your way involves stealing from me and coercing me. My way just lets you act as you see fit.

You say that even though I'm taxed, I can still do whatever I like. 1/3 of my income is taken from us. We've made an honest exchange with our employers of labor for money. We're entitled to the fruits of that labor. I can do whatever I want, I guess, except whatever that additional 1/3 might have allowed me to do. I can do whatever I want, I guess, so long as I don't want to smoke a joint, or to buy lawn darts, or to travel to Cuba, or be able to afford to buy a pack of cigarettes, or be able to buy a product that might be a 1/3 more expensive, or be able to make certain investments, or build stairway to my porch without a handrail, etc...

Edit: What happens to people that can't take care of themselves? Or just have bad luck? Doesn't a society that can't take care of its sick fail in the morals department? What if they don't have family or friends that want to take care of them or can? How do you judge a society? The L system doesn't seem to have any answers to that?

Yes it does. First, the Federal government is limited in what it can do. There is a procedure for changing that, however. Second, as I mentioned earlier, there are many layers of government between Federal and self. There are many ways to solve a problem that don't involve coercion and force.

Edit to add: I think your study of Austrian economics and liberty is incomplete, in all sincerity.

[Guinness]

How many are lost by doing nothing? Every action or inaction has consequences.

How does government save jobs by taking from one group of private entities (present and/or future) and giving to some other?

Why do we assume that the Federal government - a behemoth which could not efficiently run a lemonade stand; which is most efficient at taking life (see: Iraq; Afghanistan) rather than preserving it; which cannot create one single job but can manage to destroy millions; which acts only in the interests of it's self-continuation - can suddenly produce an efficacious program that keeps many people alive who might otherwise not be?

What's your best guess as to the net death toll of Medicare and Medicaid?

What is the opportunity cost of these programs?

[HomerPenguin]

Why do we assume that the Federal government - a behemoth which could not efficiently run a lemonade stand; which is most efficient at taking life (see: Iraq; Afghanistan) rather than preserving it; which cannot create one single job but can manage to destroy millions; which acts only in the interests of it's self-continuation - can suddenly produce an efficacious program that keeps many people alive who might otherwise not be?

What's your best guess as to the net death toll of Medicare and Medicaid?

What is the opportunity cost of these programs?

Are we talking about how that money might be better spent or about whether or not those programs save lives that would otherwise be lost? I thought it was the latter.

[doublem]

The system was also set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because a politician wins an election, he does not have a mandate to do as he wishes. The threat of democracy was well recognized and checked against.

I guess it depends on what you mean. Should an elected official have to ask the minority party for permission? No. That also doesn't give them the right to break the law, if that is what we mean. Ideally, a candidate would say I'm for so and so, vote for me or not, then the people have to trust that the elected official can carry that out. Clearly, that isn't always the case, but the people have to wait another few years to vote again if they don't like it.

The system was also set up with 3 additional levels of government (for most people) beneath the Federal government. Not to mention the government of community and the government of family, and finally, the government of self... and the further away from the self government gets, the more tyrannical it necessarily gets. Why? Well, who knows you better than you?

Isn't this still force though? I guess you can make a case that local government serves the people better but that isn't always true. Local government or state government mess up just as bad as the fed gov't., No?

The fruits of my labor at confiscated. I have no recourse against this. If I do not pay income taxes, I am prosecuted, and potentially imprisoned.

And if the government wasn't doing this, would you not have a problem? Don't private companies tell you when you are allowed to work and how long? They can also fire and hire you as they wish? Isn't this stopping you from the fruits of your labor. I'm sure you will say you make a choice to work for a company, but you don't get to set the amount or when you work. Shouldn't you be against all authority telling you how you spend your time and money?

If I wanted to smoke a joint, I must go to the unregulated underground (black) market to purchase it. If I am caught, I am potentially imprisoned.

I can't buy lawn darts, because bureaucrats decided that I'm not capable of divining the hazards, weighing them against my intended enjoyment and making the decision for myself, like a big boy . There's a long list of similar products.

Okay, these are clearly stupid, and I agree with you,but I also don't think it's a right to be stupid. Getting drunk and throwing a dart into someones head isn't a right or freedom, its just stupidity. It's the same thing as someone moaning about not being able to text and drive when you have a 25% greater chance of dying, I'm not really in favor of a law, but its stupid.

Look at the role of the Federal Reserve in the current economic situation

I'm not a fan of the FED but you would be against any central bank.

What could people have done with the money that has been confiscated to fund these programs?

Would they have funded roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, military , etc? If you think people are driven by self- interest, what makes you think we would do anything, but keep it in our pockets.I'm sure that is what I would do. Sure, we as individuals might have more money, but it might suck to get to work, if you have to take dirt roads. Are you against the fed highway act in the 50s?

How might people have behaved if these programs weren't there in the first place?

Are you talking about entailment's? You can solve everything be will power, and do you really think people earn everything they get in life?. People get, what they get, it doesn't always have to do with deserve, I think a lot of things just come down to chance. You are in the right place, at the right time. Anyways, people on S.S.(disability), if they didn't have it, I'm pretty sure they would suffer.

On the efficiency side, other countries are figuring it out - that the costs inevitably begin to outweigh the so-called benefits

Who? Other countries that have UHealthcare are passing us up in numbers, same with education.

The spending is simply unsustainable.

I guess it depends on what we are spending on, and how it is used. I agree with that, the gov't misuses a lot of money.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_S ... ic_plan%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h278.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We're entitled to the fruits of that labor. I can do whatever I want, I guess, except whatever that additional 1/3 might have allowed me to do.

Right, and you are still talking about freedom in only economic terms.

[Guinness]

What is the opportunity cost of these programs?

Are we talking about how that money might be better spent or about whether or not those programs save lives that would otherwise be lost? I thought it was the latter.

I assumed you were suggesting that without Medicaid/Medicare, lives would have in fact been lost. I'm asking that if those programs didn't exist, how might people otherwise behaved? What private-sector opportunities have we missed out on because of the spending on these programs?

[Guinness]

I guess it depends on what you mean. Should an elected official have to ask the minority party for permission? No. That also doesn't give them the right to break the law, if that is what we mean. Ideally, a candidate would say I'm for so and so, vote for me or not, then the people have to trust that the elected official can carry that out. Clearly, that isn't always the case, but the people have to wait another few years to vote again if they don't like it.

Elected officials must follow the governing document. Just because 50%+1 voted for him doesn't give him the right to do whatever he wants.

Isn't this still force though? I guess you can make a case that local government serves the people better but that isn't always true. Local government or state government mess up just as bad as the fed gov't., No?

Absolutely! That's why self-government is the best form of government.

Your voice is necessarily louder, and your vote necessarily more significant, the closer government gets to you. You have a greater say in local government than you do in national, via simple mathematics.

And if the government wasn't doing this, would you not have a problem?

Well, I wouldn't have THAT problem, anyway.

Don't private companies tell you when you are allowed to work and how long? They can also fire and hire you as they wish? Isn't this stopping you from the fruits of your labor. I'm sure you will say you make a choice to work for a company, but you don't get to set the amount or when you work. Shouldn't you be against all authority telling you how you spend your time and money?

This is what I meant when I said that your study of liberty is incomplete (and I really didn't mean that to be offensive). As you said, I will say that you have a choice to work for a company. More precisely, however, is that I do NOT have a choice when it comes to taxation. Oh, it's true I can refuse to pay it or I can petition to have the law changed, however the fact remains that the consequence of not paying taxes is potentially imprisonment. My boss can say, "I'm only going to pay you X." But if I don't like X, I can go somewhere else. My boss may not imprison me. Of course, I may work under the delusion that I'm worth 20X, but that doesn't make it so. Not being able to find a wage that I consider fair is not the same as having a portion of my labor forcibly confiscated under penalty of imprisonment.

If I wanted to smoke a joint, I must go to the unregulated underground (black) market to purchase it. If I am caught, I am potentially imprisoned.

I can't buy lawn darts, because bureaucrats decided that I'm not capable of divining the hazards, weighing them against my intended enjoyment and making the decision for myself, like a big boy . There's a long list of similar products.

Okay, these are clearly stupid, and I agree with you,but I also don't think it's a right to be stupid. Getting drunk and throwing a dart into someones head isn't a right or freedom, its just stupidity. It's the same thing as someone moaning about not being able to text and drive when you have a 25% greater chance of dying, I'm not really in favor of a law, but its stupid.

People absolutely have a right to be stupid. They don't, however, have a right to impose upon other people because of their stupidity. Penalizing people BEFORE they do something harmful is something you and I are both very much against, I think.

Look at the role of the Federal Reserve in the current economic situation

I'm not a fan of the FED but you would be against any central bank.

This is the meat of it, here.

I would be against any central bank, vigorously. Since 1913, the dollar has lost it's commodity backing, has lost 95% (NINETY-FIVE PERCENT) of it's value, and is about to become worth less than the paper it's printed on. With a commodity backed currency, a central bank is completely unnecessary. Centrally controlled fiat currency has allowed government to wage war without end almost from the day the Fed came into existence, has allowed government to manipulate foreign governments and markets, and has utterly destroyed the value of the money that people hold through inflation. It has too much influence on policy-making. It is an outlet for graft. Paulsen, Bernanke, Geithner, et al, used it to fleece us for 700 billion last fall to protect their friends from the financial ruin we're all likely facing. You may like some of the programs that government has established on account of an increased money supply, but this is what I mean when I say that it is unsustainable - eventually, the fiat currency fails and the government behind it goes bankrupt. Meanwhile, since 1913, Americans have been steadily working harder for less money because of government's currency inflation policy. This really is what is at the heart of our current dilemma and, as much as I hope it isn't - it will be our downfall.

I don't profess to be an expert on this issue, but I'm learning a ton about it and I'm quickly finding that this issue is at the heart of every debate we have in this country about spending, war, freedom... you name it.

What could people have done with the money that has been confiscated to fund these programs?

Would they have funded roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, military , etc? If you think people are driven by self- interest, what makes you think we would do anything, but keep it in our pockets.I'm sure that is what I would do.

Really!? What would be the point of having the money, then? I mean, certainly a portion of it would be saved. That's also a consequence of government (through the Federal Reserve) policy - low interest rates discourage savings.

Sure, we as individuals might have more money, but it might suck to get to work, if you have to take dirt roads. Are you against the fed highway act in the 50s?

Eisenhower built the highways to facilitate the movement of the military within the borders of the country, on account of the Cold War.

I don't believe in government schools, particularly the way they're structured now. The Constitution gives the federal government the responsibility of national defense. However our military is not a defensive instrument - the amount we spend on the military is obscene, and is fit for the Empire we are, not the Republic we're meant to be.

The federal government could provide the services it's required to provide without an income tax.

you are still talking about freedom in only economic terms.

Personal freedom is intrinsically tied to economic freedom - money is power. Beyond that, I've spoken about several issues that aren't related to money.

[Guinness]

Change? Warrants are so 'yesterday':

At first glance, one might think the bills are a slippery slope toward requiring telcos to release such information during any criminal investigation, even when there is no pending emergency. But the Obama administration has jumped feet first into that slippery slope, and is seeking such information, without a court warrant, in a pending drug case.

The rest of the story.

[HomerPenguin]

What is the opportunity cost of these programs?

Are we talking about how that money might be better spent or about whether or not those programs save lives that would otherwise be lost? I thought it was the latter.

I assumed you were suggesting that without Medicaid/Medicare, lives would have in fact been lost. I'm asking that if those programs didn't exist, how might people otherwise behaved?

Don't we have a pretty solid sense of this, based on how people were behaving before those programs existed?

What private-sector opportunities have we missed out on because of the spending on these programs?

The same ones we were missing out on before there was a Medicare or a Medicaid, when we as a society weren't doing much of anything about elder or indigent health care?

And, at any rate, a statement like this:

Why do we assume that the Federal government - a behemoth which could not efficiently run a lemonade stand; which is most efficient at taking life (see: Iraq; Afghanistan) rather than preserving it; which cannot create one single job but can manage to destroy millions; which acts only in the interests of it's self-continuation - can suddenly produce an efficacious program that keeps many people alive who might otherwise not be?

is not about opportunity cost, at least not by my reading. It's an absolute comment on the ability of government to develop a program that saves lives. Not whether or not it can develop a program that saves more lives than the private sector could.

[HomerPenguin]

Would they have funded roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, military , etc? If you think people are driven by self- interest, what makes you think we would do anything, but keep it in our pockets.I'm sure that is what I would do.

Really!? What would be the point of having the money, then?

Are you suggesting that eliminating the income tax would stimulate some societal outpouring of goodwill charity that would pay for community schools, infrastructure, hospitals, and the like with no government involvement? I ask because one of the arguments in favor of cutting spending and taxes always seems to be that private charity will fill the void and probably do it better. What I don't understand is at what point we should expect all this charitable largess to kick in. Throughout WWII and the 1950s, the top rate fluctuated from the high 80s to the low 90s. It fluctuated in the 70s until 1971, when it was cut to 70%. No charitable outpouring. Cut to 50% in 1981. Still nothing. 28% by 1988. Nothing there either. Through it all we managed to develop a $2.2 trillion infrastructure problem in this country, and it sure would be nice if people with means would start adopting bridges or pieces of the power grid or something. What rate would stimulate all the giving? 15%? 10%? 0%? I know you're opposed to any income tax on principle, but this seems to be a practical argument you're making. Am I reading it wrong?

[doublem]

Eisenhower built the highways to facilitate the movement of the military within the borders of the country, on account of the Cold War.

Okay, but it served a practical purpose as well like after WW2 getting a lot more people from the burbs to the city, right? I thought you were against on a tax issue? Anyways, you haven't answered how the U.S. passed Great Britain in the 1800S with a system of high tariffs, road building, and a national bank?

Henry Clay's "American System," devised in the burst of nationalism that followed the War of 1812, remains one of the most historically significant examples of a government-sponsored program to harmonize and balance the nation's agriculture, commerce, and industry. This "System" consisted of three mutually reenforcing parts: a tariff to protect and promote American industry; a national bank to foster commerce; and federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other "internal improvements" to develop profitable markets for agriculture. Funds for these subsidies would be obtained from tariffs and sales of public lands. Clay argued that a vigorously maintained system of sectional economic interdependence would eliminate the chance of renewed subservience to the free-trade, laissez-faire "British System."

[Sarcastic]

Guinness already explained why you're wrong on torture and spying, and as for the other four, when did this become about you?

Guinness and I respectfully disagree on those two points. As for the other four, I was making the point that you can't just assume everyone that is on the right shares all of the views you listed there.

But torture doesn't work. You put a bag on my head and clamps on my nipples for electrocution, and I'll admit to planning to rape the president. Geez. It doesn't work. They can lie and make stuff up. Even many in the military say it doesn't work. Worst of all, it makes us look like an ass.

As far as the spying, I have to disagree. You can be sure some in the Bush administration were making lists of dissidents. I don't know if you've watched any of those documentaries on HBO or LinkTV, where people admit to being watched and eventually interrogated by the cops. Peaceful group meetings were infiltrated with a police mole on the inside. Lists with thousands of names were created. For now, they probably wouldn't do anything with those, but with time and with more power to the Bush cabal, who knows. I kind of seemed like the beginnings of what they had under Communism.

[Sarcastic]

I do think that the Obama Administration has made an error in going after Fox in such a hostile manner. It just serves to draw further attention and viewers to the network and makes the Administration look petty and vindictive.

Well, Fox is clearly the mouthpiece of the far-right. Has been for 9 years. I guess someone was going to say it. But they (Obama people) should still treat it as just a news outlet and continue to appear on their shows. Try to win the argument. But get dirty. They often appear weak, something that Republicans do not respect.