Friday, October 28, 2011
What is the role of government?
This is the essence of ALL of our blogging when you get right down to it, a distillation of our political POVs. Soapie likes local states but not the federal government, Dave sees a clear role for the feds. Beth is a charitable person but wants this to be her own decision. Saty says time and again we don't understand what socialism is, we need to do our homework but I beg to differ, we have enough of an idea. Throw this out there, would YOU eat at Soapie's Libertarian Meat Market and Deli? (this is of course a utopian place, a figment of our imaginations where the USDA rules don't apply to him). I was struck my Mal's rather agnostic position on abortion as stated in the previous blog, basically take abortion as an issue off the political table, scrape that dried crap off the plate and into the garbage bin which is interesting since pro-choicers then would no longer have any say in party platforms either. While we're at it get RACE off the table too, don't wanna offend the guests. Herman Cain, the current GOP frontrunner is pro-life among other great things. I say this, his 9-9-9 is at least better than the 666 Plan but should we not vote for him because he doesn't subscribe to Mal's wisdom which also happens to be Pam's? OK so you go into soapie's place and ask for a roast beef wedge with all the trimmings and a big pickle and a side of potato salad only his deli clerk ain't wearing any gloves, maybe you just caught him scratching his nuts as you walked in but as my instructor in a food-safety course once said latex or vinyl gloves are overrated, people somehow get a false sense of security with gloves since they get dirty too especially if you're not constantly changing 'em and then you gotta order extra gloves which runs you into some money. If I may put words into soapie's mouth since I kinda got the gist by now and I know he's on a coffee break at his law firm and is reading this and will respond shortly -- better that one person get diarrhea so his staff can learn than have the feds come in and say how it's gotta be. So the free-market has some dribbles, that's the beauty of it. I would hazard a guess Dave ain't eating there either:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Soapie likes local states but not the federal government..."
ReplyDeleteEDIT!!!
"Soapie prefers local and state government over the federal government."
EDIT, I don't think you should prefer either.
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't the option from whence my comment originated now was it?
ReplyDeleteMy comment stemmed from a discusson with Dave Miller on the difference between Federal and State government. It was not the result of a discussion of government vs. no government.
But on that point....
It should be noted that despite the existence of the USDA there continue to be a flurry of food born outbreaks.
Because our food production has become increasingly centralized by major agri-business/corporations rather than much more localized, when these issues arise the effected area is far greater than it would otherwise be.
What's more, these agri-businesses/corporations lobby congress for special legislation which is in their interest (see Monsanto whose GMO products which come to market do not require labeling identifying them as GMO).
In the instance of my utopian deli, if you see something off putting or you end up getting sick, what is the likelihood you would eat there again or encourage your friends too? Slim to none.
If however the food production is concentrated amongst a handful of multi-national corporations who are buddies with government and you end up getting sick or you want to eat non GMO food WTF ya gonna do?
Further, with regard to the discussion of the Federal government or state government being essentially government just the same, I illustrated this in the following comment:
ReplyDelete"The Federal Goverment works to fuck all the states. The states (respectively) work to fuck all the cities therein."
There are essentially two ways in which the reduction of government can occur.
Either the Federal government takes on everything, it becomes completely unsustainable, and the experiment fails miserably thus collapses in on the weight of itself; OR
The Federal government returns more of what they'd previously taken on back down to the 50 states and the states respectively can shed some things in an effort to keep their own budgets under control.
“Mal's rather agnostic position on abortion”
ReplyDeleteI am not at all agnostic. Agnostic is to be a non-believer, and that wasn’t my point at all. Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough. I do have an opinion, and I know from past experience that whenever I get into this type of discussion with people, it doe’s nothing else but cause fights, no matter which side you are on. So being the kind and gentle person that I am, I don’t want to be hypocritical to justify my position , so I’d rather not take part in the discussion or arguments. But when I said that I thought Abortion should not be on any political platform I was as serious as an Heat attack.
The issue of whether abortion is murder or not, is a personal and religious issue not a political one. And elections have been won and lost over it. And I for one don’t think that should be the deciding factor of who the president of the United States should be.
In my opinion, those who take either side have valid points.
I think whoever holds the elected office of the Presidency should represent ALL views of the people, not just the religious people. And not just the pro-choicers either.
What I meant to say is your political position strikes me as agnostic, basically don't have a position but your personal views are very much against abortion. Don't get me wrong, your political position is tempting, basically take it off the table come convention time and all that but I wonder if the pro-choicers would agree. I'm hazarding a guess they wouldn't and I think as idealistic as your position is it's not realistic as many folks with strong views on the subject want to get involved in the process. The Republican platform last I checked was pro-life, the Dems' is pro-choice. I mean what are the odds that the Repubs and the Dems would have the exact same position which would be we're not taking a position? Race, it would nice to get that off the table too but it ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteSoap understand my prism, where I'm coming from on all this. I've been socked 4X with tickets in the mail from red-light traffic cams. @50 bucks a pop hundreds of other Yonkerites have been similarly hit and the cams ain't going away anytime soon so I think all of us as a group would say gov't is or can be oppressive at times and it doesn't matter if it's local, state or federal. You make it sound like local government is so much freer when I have the bills to show otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican platform last I checked was pro-life, the Dems' is pro-choice. I mean what are the odds that the Repubs and the Dems would have the exact same position which would be we're not taking a position? Race, it would nice to get that off the table too but it ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteit would nice to get that off the table too but it ain't gonna happen
Exactly, I agree with you on that.
As to the central question... I'd eat there in a minute. And if I got sick, I would not return.
ReplyDeleteYou wanna serve alongside me in Mexico? We are gonna eat at a lot of places you might normally pass up. And you'd be missing some great food.
I think common sense comes in here... go in, look around, get to know the owners, etc...
As for Mal, without wanting to get into the abortion issue, let's apply you philosophy to any other issue.
Can every position, on every issue, be right, depending on one's perspective? Is there ever an absolute right, and wrong position on an issue?
And if there is, by what objective standard can we know that?
"You make it sound like local government is so much freer when I have the bills to show otherwise."
ReplyDeleteLocal government is freer because not every locale is operating on the same premise.
If you want to get into a discussion about whether or not local and/or state government is oppressive we can surely have that discussion (though it isn't going to last long because I agree with you that it is) but that wasn't the initial subject we were debating.
Every position or opinion has two sides, there is usually no right or wrong on a issue that is dependent on one's perspective, or opinion, or in this case ones religious beliefs. Is there a right, or a wrong on an issue that is formed on any of the above? Most likely not. The abortion debate is one that will never change anyone’s mind. The "Pro-Life" argument is a good one to people that believe that way as is the “Pro-Choice” argument.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the political platforms , I think that the issue of abortion has no business being there at all. Abortion it is not a political matter. It’s a issue of the religious vs. the non-religious. As long as it’s legal, it's an personal issue.
"Can every position, on every issue, be right, depending on one's perspective?"
ReplyDeleteNo. The position which is predicated on reason and logic is the only one which is "right". If we are both walking along the train tracks and suddenly a train is barreling down on us, there is only one perspective that prevails. It is the one which effectively recognizes, through cognitive ability and sensory perception that if we do not get out of the way the train will crush us.
"Is there ever an absolute right, and wrong position on an issue?"
Yes. See above.
I've often heard it uttered "Well that may be your opinion but that doesn't mean others can't have theirs."
Indeed others may have various opinions about any number of things. But, simply having an opinion or having the existence of numerious opinions does not negate that indeed one opinion is the correct or "right" one.
It goes back to Aristotle's law of identity. A is A.
A tree is a tree. A house is a house.
Back in my youth I took LSD a number of times and although I perceived many things that led me to believe otherwise, the law of identity still existed.
Mal, the abortion issue absolutely should be political, a whole group of people are not even being given the right to life (which is one of our basic rights, not given by government but endowed by our Creator)! It is not simply a religious opinion, and shame on you for thinking that way.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the government is not the giver of rights, but should be the protector of our God-given rights. The more localize the government, the more easily accountable the government can be held.
Oh, and about Soap's Restaurant (cue Alice's restaurant in my head). I'd take a look at the menu and then see what I think. I've eaten in some really bizarre places, including a basement restaurant somewhere in Chinatown (years and years ago) where no one spoke English, there was sawdust on the floor and there was no menu. They just brought you stuff and you either ate it or didn't, and at the end they counted the empties and wrote your bill that way. Plus, I'll shop in little ethnic groceries, and if you've never been in them you really have no clue of why we need inspectors in the first place. Caveat emptor: if you don't have a VERY good idea of what you're buying and how to judge it, you're better off not. Especially if it's something like produce or something fresh-made and prepared there. And if the label has no English on it....
ReplyDeleteIn fairness there are also really great and gigantic ethnic stores that are cleaner and better than most ordinary stores. Li Ming in Durham was built in a previous Circuit City so you can tell how huge it is. I don't think I heard one word of English in the 2 hours I was there. They have an entire AISLE devoted to nothing but types of tofu!! They also have a bakery and a hot food counter that has totally awesome steamed buns (the kind everyone eats in HK martial arts movies) and (this grossed me out) dead cooked waterfowl hanging by the head in the hot box. (They also have a whole wall full of tanks of sea animals waiting for your order of execution.) Anyway, apart from those things it's an amazing store. A place like that is probably safer than my local Food Lion and I have no issues with the non-translated-labels thing (though most were, but in Engrish...)
And I will say this, Soap: Monsanto and ConAgra and both expansions of Satan. "RoundUp Ready" is an abomination, and we see it a lot around here. Worst of all is the way they go after the farmers who aren't growing their shit.
ReplyDeleteWell my whole question to Dave would he eat at Soapie's Place is this -- in our fictitious example soap's establishment is exempt from any gov't health inspection whatsoever so with that in mind I take it you and him would eat there?
ReplyDelete"The role of the government is not the giver of rights, but should be the protector of our God-given rights."--Beth
ReplyDeleteThe US Constitution is the law of the land. The US Constitution does NOT claim anything came from "god." It begins with "We the people in order to form a more perfect union..."
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and the 19th enfranchised women.
Those amendments were enacted by men. If the original Constitution, which did not provide for women's voting rights nor for the abolition of slavery, was god-given, then he/she got it wrong and man/womankind had to amend him/her.
Does "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." ring a bell? Of course that's another document but the early colonists were religious many of them anyway. Read somewhere that the Founding Fathers were really Masons but if anything they were tolerant of faith more so than many liberals are today.
ReplyDeleteOh Lordy, how many times do we have to bring up the 13th and 19th amendments? Are they in line with the Constitution? Yes, they are, so what is your point about bringing them up time after time?
ReplyDeleteWho do you think, Shaw, gives you your rights? They are within you, so whoever you think designed you, be it Mother Earth, some big bang, or God, that Creator is what the founders believed gives you the inherent rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It isn't the government who gives you these rights, no document can create them if they exist within you.
Maybe we are talking different languages here.
ReplyDeleteBeth, there can be no denying that women and blacks were lacking in some civil rights at the founding of our country.
Those errors were rectified when the Constitution was amended.
So, in a sense, that was when those rights were conferred, at least civilly.
Now, if we are talking about God's Kingdom, that is an entirely different story. Then people only get the rights of Kingdom citizenship after they accept whatever conditions their particular brand of Christianity demands of them.
Biblically speaking, and if we are going to argue from a founders perspective, people, when speaking of God given rights, had no rights outside of Protestantism. Theologically speaking anyways.
Z, as almost every state was in some way founded by a different denomination or branch of Christianity, they were convinced those like them were not really Christians.
As such, frequently, members of one state felt perfectly justified in killing the members of another, less Christian state or denomination.
Probably the most persecuted state at our founding was Maryland, bastion of the Catholics and arch enemies of the Protestants.
I agree with Mal (for once!)
ReplyDeleteFor all that America has been touted as 'the land of the free', I think that's a very relative statement.
ReplyDeleteAt no time whatsoever in the history of this country, from before it was even founded as a nation, have all its inhabitants enjoyed equal liberty under the law.
Pick a group. Any group. Chances are that they've been a persecuted class at some time.
Those inalienable rights may be inalienable, but they certainly were not always protected under law. And even that 'protection' is many times on paper only, not in practice.
Case in point: the systematic attempts going on (and succeeding in many cases) right now as we speak to disenfranchise large minority and low-income groups.
Freedom is relative and the 'fundamentalists' of the Constitution hopefully recognize that it has never been anything near a perfect document. In fact, it NEEDS to be an evolving document... we are no longer in 1778, and the world and country we live in no longer bear much resemblance to the one that the writers of the Constitution lived in.
Dave - I wasn't speaking theologically at all, just about the fact that within all of us is the desire to live in freedom. But I agree, I think libs and conservatives DO speak different languages, which is why we cannot understand each other in the least.
ReplyDeleteSaty, the Constitution is able to be amendended, of course, as long as the changes are within the basic tenants of the document. Freedom is ageless and timeless, so the heart of the document is absolutely fine the way it is.
I should have mentioned that the only group that HAS had its freedoms protected has been white Protestant males.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution needs to be a living document that continues to reflect the changing needs of our society as time passes.
While there are many good things in the Constitution that should be admired and kept intact, the hypocrisy it contains in other places is glaring. And amending it has taken in general much too long.
The United States can never call itself 'the land of the free' until EVERY person who lives here is free indeed. And so far, that title is just so much propaganda, because the American Way has always been that some people are more free than others. To even attempt to envision another way is just Socialism.
And yeah, if I wasn't clear: I'd eat at Soap's place if he had a decent vegetarian menu. I've eaten in a lot of weird places especially in other countries.. you miss out on some killer food if you go completely by externals.
ReplyDeleteBesides, we always used to get the Sabretts (with ONIONS!) from the guy on the corner, and that has to be enough to inoculate you with every evil pathogen there is. So I figure I'm immune now.
I'm in no way denying the need for regulation and all, because I think we do need it.. I'm just saying it wouldn't necessarily be a total dealbreaker for me.
Government negates rights it doesn't grant them.
ReplyDeleteJust as women were born with the right to act and to take action; the right to make choices; in essence to vote
so too were blacks denied their right of self preservation and liberty.
In both instances government initially failed in it's primary function which is and was to protect individual liberty.
When you say you are for regulation what does that even mean?
ReplyDeleteIn a free-market the people are the regulators. We don't need no stinkin' bureaucrats.
You either eat at my deli or you don't. If people get sick I don't get customers, I can't pay my bills, and the place shuts down.
"In fact, it NEEDS to be an evolving document... we are no longer in 1778"
ReplyDeleteNONSENSE!
The constitution needs to be respected. Were it respected the Federal government would have ever less power, ever less authority to run roughshod over the people.
We already have an oppressive authoritarian tyrannical Federal government which has evolved despite the restrictions placed upon it under the constitution.
And you want to give them MORE power; more authority?
They already oversee our food supply, the educational system, our transportation and mobility....
Doing back to back 16s.... I am not fit for intelligent human association until Wednesday...
ReplyDeleteAlright, I got a little (3.5 hrs) sleep and I have a couple minutes before I have to head back into the salt mine, so whilst I partake of the Breakfast O Champions (crockpot veg soup and some kinda orange drink) let me say this:
ReplyDelete1. If people get sick, you don't get customers. But people die all the time from food poisoning, and personally if ONE person could be saved from that I think it's worth it. We take this from two perspectives: you aren't really as concerned about people getting sick as whether they come back. Me, my priority is the people getting sick. Do people sometimes get sick even with regulation? Yup. Why? Because inspectors aren't omnipresent OR omniscient. But it's better than nothing. Not to mention that even despite fines and so forth corporations piss on the rules every day. If there were NO regulations it would be a million times worse.
2. Who said anything about giving the government more power? You're extrapolating something that's not there. All I said is that it needs to be an evolving document. Not everything that was applicable then is now and conversely there are things that need to be added (amended) as times and society change.
We see this mentality sometimes in devotee circles; some people are all for recreating Vedic India. Well, this isn't Vedic India of 5000 years ago, this is the USA of the 21st century. We have to live in the reality of our environment and our world. You can work within that, but no matter what you do you are not going to find yourself in the Vedic India of five millenia ago, and it's unfair to ask. Same thing as I'm talking about here. When the Constitution was written black folks were property and women were marginally better. As society advanced it became clear that the reality of life in 1778 wasn't quite the reality of life that was current and that the Constitution was needing to be amended to reflect and protect this advanced understanding. I'm not really sure where you got this more power and authority thing but it didn't come from me.
Now I shall return to the mining of salt. I had plans to go to Pennsylvania this week that have been rudely negated by this storm. I've already had 2 snow wrecks with the Taco and even with a load of concrete block in the back I don't really trust it in the mountains. Plus, I was going to visit Gita Nagari, which sits smack in the middle of Amish country, and with 3 million people out of power, you can bet an Amish neighborhood isn't going to be high on the priority list.
Woe. I really wanted to go. (I bet you wanted me to go too :P )
"1. If people get sick, you don't get customers. But people die all the time from food poisoning, and personally if ONE person could be saved from that I think it's worth it. We take this from two perspectives: you aren't really as concerned about people getting sick as whether they come back."
ReplyDeleteIt's the chicken and the egg man. How do you suppose you get them to come back? By giving them good food that they want to eat that isn't going to make them sick. So yeah, the motivation is as much not making them sick as it is in giving them a quality product they will want more of.
"Me, my priority is the people getting sick."
And why do you suppose that is? Because your career endeavor is in the healthcare industry. If you were a restauranteur or a chef or some such thing, your priority would be making and serving good food.
"Do people sometimes get sick even with regulation? Yup. Why? Because inspectors aren't omnipresent OR omniscient. But it's better than nothing."
Your assumption here is that without government regulators there would be no regulators. This assumption is false. Either private regulatory entities could fill the void or the people; that is the consumers within a free-market serve as the regulatory body. Ever been to a farmer's market or a flee market or hell...even a garage sale? Same concept. One individual has something to peddle and one individual has a desire to purchase said good. You look the item(s) over and come to some agreeable term with the individual selling said item. The only way you come to an agreement is if the transaction proves beneficial to both parties.
"Not to mention that even despite fines and so forth corporations piss on the rules every day."
Indeed they do. And you know why? Because as a corporation they receive special privileges and exemptions from the government in light of the fact they are incorporated (massive direct and indirect state subsidies). What's more, if said corporation is directly wedded to a government bureaucrat or several of them and therefore funding in large part specific campaigns, the corporation is that much more likely to have their transgressions overlooked. In a free-market, corporations, special privileges and special exemptions do not exist. Their existence is antithetical to a free market because their very existence distorts the natural market forces in favor of the large corporations.
In order to have large corporations, you need State restriction of the capital market, making it hard for individuals to start new businesses. You need state regulations, which impose extra costs on small business owners.
As another example, suppose a small business owner has $100,000 in revenue. He probably has to spend $5000 on accountants, just to make sure he's in compliance with the tax laws. That's effectively a tax of five percent. A large corporation with $10 billion in revenue might spend $10 million on accountants. That's a tax of only 0.1%.
Large corporations can most effectively lobby the state for favors. That's completely unrelated to any efficiency gains. If you own a $100,000 business, you can't afford to bribe a Congressman. If you control a $10 billion corporation, then a $10 million lobbying budget is a negligible expense.
"If there were NO regulations it would be a million times worse."
If there were no regulations it would be a MILLION times easier to shut them down.
"2. Who said anything about giving the government more power? You're extrapolating something that's not there. All I said is that it needs to be an evolving document. Not everything that was applicable then is now and conversely there are things that need to be added (amended) as times and society change.
ReplyDelete"
Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Sates, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This whole idea; this whole notion that "well the Constitution needs to be an evolving document because...well...because we don't live in the 1800s anymore" illustrates the ignorance that those who utter it have for the document.
RE; "This whole idea; this whole notion that "well the Constitution needs to be an evolving document because...well...because we don't live in the 1800s anymore" illustrates the ignorance that those who utter it have for the document." Guess that would be
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson?
"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience."
""A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
"The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living."
It is worth pointing out BB that Thomas Jefferson supported the Constitution on one condition. You know what that condition was?
ReplyDeleteThe Bill of Rights.
He was a strong supporter of the 10th Amendment.
What is more, the context of that quote was in a letter to Robert Garnett regarding term of presidential service, placing the choice of president on the hands of the people, and congressional authority for internal improvement.
Further, he seems far more supportive in that letter for a preference towards getting acceptance from the states for the aforementioned Amendments.
"Who do you think, Shaw, gives you your rights?"
ReplyDeleteThe US Constitution.
"They are within you, so whoever you think designed you, be it Mother Earth, some big bang, or God, that Creator is what the founders believed gives you the inherent rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
No. The rights I enjoy were given to me by the US Constitution--its Bill of Rights and its Amendments.
"It isn't the government who gives you these rights, no document can create them if they exist within you."
One can have the hope for freedom within oneself, but if you are unfortunate enough to live in a totalitarian state, it is the leaders of that state that decide whether or not you can exercise those desires. Not you.
I don't believe in gods, so I can never accept that rights are handed to me through a supernatural being.
"One can have the hope for freedom within oneself, but if you are unfortunate enough to live in a totalitarian state, it is the leaders of that state that decide whether or not you can exercise those desires. Not you."
ReplyDeleteWrong. If one lives in a totalitarian state, it is up to them, the individual, to decide whether or not they want to exercise their right to disobey them. For centuries people have, and continue to, pursue an environment which is in accordance with the natural state of freedom and liberty.
So you think, Shaw, that a piece of paper gives you something? Really? And that people who live in tyranny do not have a right to live in freedom? Really??
ReplyDeleteYou know, soap, like I said, I do admire your consistency and there's no doubt that you're both highly intelligent and considerably studied in libertarianism, but I just can't get past the feeling that it's some kind of very abstract theoretical mirror universe. Is there a government or a country in the world today that runs according to libertarian philosophies? If not, why? And if there is, how well are they doing?
ReplyDeleteI was entirely convinced that my vacation was supposed to start tomorrow, Wednesday, and was completely devastated to find out that it's not starting until Thursday. But someone's got to mine that salt.
"Me, my priority is the people getting sick."
ReplyDeleteAnd why do you suppose that is? Because your career endeavor is in the healthcare industry.
_______________
You might not have intended this to sound as if I was interested in profiting off people's sickness. I might just be borderline sleep-deprived psychosis. I do know for a fact I'm 'irritable' (in the clinical sense). Or maybe it's just a habit of thinking of people as all without exception being concerned first and foremost with their own personal gains and losses in any situation.
However you intended it, the way it sounds is that my priority here somehow is people getting sick because I'm in the industry and somehow would thus profit off it.
That viewpoint would certainly have a valid (though woefully mistaken) argument if I was trying to eliminate regulation, eliminate possible means of prevention of people getting sick (thus increasing their chances of sickness).
But because I'm not like this, I'm not putting my own interests (or not.. I work in a specialized population now) first... I'm more concerned with PREVENTING sickness before it ever needs my help.
And that, if properly done, would do something that I doubt any libertarian would support or possibly even conceive of: if proper and complete prevention could be in place, imagine how many LESS hospital admissions, how many LESS inpatient days we'd need. You might even reduce the average census to the point where you wouldn't need so many staff.
OMG! But that's not looking out for your own career security!!!
That's because I think bigger than just me.
Yeah. I know I'm a bitch this morning. But that f'n salt doesn't mine itself, either.
Blogger Beth said...
ReplyDeleteSo you think, Shaw, that a piece of paper gives you something? Really? And that people who live in tyranny do not have a right to live in freedom? Really??
In lots of countries they have pieces of paper that give people a right to healthcare.
We don't have any pieces of paper that say that because we live in America where we don't give a flying rat in a bucket about other people's health. Unless it affects us.
So is that a fake right or something? Cause it did come off a piece of paper.
There are aspects of libertarianism at work everyday. It is a bit absurd to inquire if a country or government has it as a matter of practice since libertarianism and free-markets are the antithesis of government. But, getting back to my point...
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism was most recently at work in ridding BoA of their desire to charge a $5 debit card fee. As for countries and the like, Hong Kong is the most recent example up until mainland China tightened their grip on them. The people of Zomia as well. I have friends in Ghana who report a thriving unregulated market as well. And, as I previously mentioned, flea markets, farmers markets, and garage sales (except in Louisiana no thanks to Bobby Jindahl).
Second point, you interpreted that wrong. You could have said xray machines or scrubs. Just as someone in the restaurant biz would be concerned with the latest kitchen knives, or how fresh the produce and fish are.
Thirdly, paper or no paper, beyond putting a bandaid or a gauze wrap on yourself, taking some medication, or contracting with a healthcare provider, healthcare isn't a right. Healthcare is a service; a good, which is provided by someone who took the time and incurred the cost to learn the trade. One has a right to negotiate or contract with them for the administration of that knowledge but they do not have a right, by force mind you, to said knowledge or the application thereof. Did plantation owners have a right to the labor of negroes tending their crops or their cane fields?
As for the abstract theory of libertarianism, there really is nothing abstract about it at all unless of course you believe we all need masters. People get to where they want to be through mutual voluntary exchange.
ReplyDeletehttp://agora.io/laozi/
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/nrT0kBeld3Q
ReplyDeleteBecause Z always reprimands me for not answering the subject of his posts on a regular basis. Let me respond.
ReplyDelete"What is the role of government?"
T̶o̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶l̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶t̶y̶.̶
To oppress the people and destine them to a life misery, poverty, and squalor.
Now, had you asked "What ought to be the role of government?" perhaps we can remove the strikethrough.
ReplyDeletesoapster said...
ReplyDeleteShaw: "One can have the hope for freedom within oneself, but if you are unfortunate enough to live in a totalitarian state, it is the leaders of that state that decide whether or not you can exercise those desires. Not you."
Soapster: "Wrong. If one lives in a totalitarian state, it is up to them, the individual, to decide whether or not they want to exercise their right to disobey them. For centuries people have, and continue to, pursue an environment which is in accordance with the natural state of freedom and liberty."
Soapster, you changed the subject in your answer. I said nothing about an individual's ability to rise up against totalitarianism, only that under a dictatorship, one's desires for freedom are always answered with a jackboot on one's neck. I said absolutely nothing about an individual's ability to rebel against the state.
11/01/2011 4:19 PM
Blogger Beth said...
So you think, Shaw, that a piece of paper gives you something? Really? And that people who live in tyranny do not have a right to live in freedom? Really??
Beth, I said nothing about people in tyranny not having a "right" to live in freedom. I wrote what the truth is. You changed the subject.
And yes, Beth, a piece of paper--see Saty's good example, re: health care--does give one certain rights under the law.
People receive the "right" to marry, for example, by way of a marriage license, or say, driver's license, or say a license to practice medicine.
The natural state of a human is to be free, but no one is ever absolutely "free." Just look at all the constraints on the "freedoms" you live with.
That's because my "freedoms" cannot impinge on yours, and vice versa.
I changed the subject? Fuck if I did. You said:
ReplyDelete"...it is the leaders of that state that decide whether or not you can exercise those desires. Not you."
And I said NO it is not up to the leaders. It is up to the individuals to decied whether they will exercise them or not.
It is only up to the leaders whether they will aim to restrict an individual's action. They may restrict some but they cannot possibly restrict all.
The government can make pot illegal all they want. It isn't up to the government whether people will smoke pot or not. People will and do smoke pot regardless.
"The natural state of a human is to be free, but no one is ever absolutely "free." Just look at all the constraints on the "freedoms" you live with."
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But, whereas some of us are committed to removing constraints others are equally committed to adding ever more.
"That's because my "freedoms" cannot impinge on yours, and vice versa."
Do as thou wilt shall be the wole of the law until you violate the rights of another.
In case there was any doubt, the assertion of healthcare as a right impinges upon the freedom of one who practices it.
By your own admission Saty you are not very well educated on the subject of Austrian economics; that is human action and how it translates into an economic system.
ReplyDeleteAllow me:
"And that, if properly done, would do something that I doubt any libertarian would support or possibly even conceive of: if proper and complete prevention could be in place, imagine how many LESS hospital admissions, how many LESS inpatient days we'd need. You might even reduce the average census to the point where you wouldn't need so many staff.
OMG! But that's not looking out for your own career security!!!"
You grossly underestimate libertarians with that statement.
Libertarians are free-market advocates. We do not believe in contrived market distortions. As such, we understand that a market is powerful and that capital and resources have a natural tendency to flow with the demand.
An example:
Suppose a grocery store replaces their 10 checkout lanes with self service checkout lanes. One might lament such an action on the basis that the grocery store, in so doing, has now put 10 cashiers out of work.
The libertarian does nothing of the sort. The libertarian understands that where before self checkout lanes did not exist, now there are individuals employed to manufacture them, install them, and maintain them.
Libertarians would have no compunction with allowing the typewriter industry fall by the wayside because better technology has replaced it just as we would have no compunction with healthcare solving ever more ills of humanity. Your productivity would simply channel into other ventures.
Soapster: "But, whereas some of us are committed to removing constraints others are equally committed to adding ever more."
ReplyDeleteCare to name the restraints you wish to remove?
Too long a list to name them all.
ReplyDeleteBesides, restraints are for government not the people.
Well, that's a copout.
ReplyDeleteYour idealism is commendable, but in a country of 300+ million people, it is unrealistic because a nation with no government constraints or controls on anything would end up being chaotic and dangerous.
It appears, from what you've written here, that you believe all people act from their better natures and would not cheat, steal, or try to take advantage of the poor, the old, the uninformed, the very young, or the physically and mentally handicapped.
Your Libertarian philosophy is nice in theory, but would break down into chaos in practice.
Although you may be one who would behave well and function in a world without government constraints, you're forgetting human beings are terribly imperfect and quite a few would take advantage of those who are not quite as clever as you are.
We just saw an example of this in 2008, even with supposed laws in place.
People are inherently evil therefore we need a government of the people. Good shit shaw good shit.
ReplyDeleteMarriage and drivers licenses are not rights, they are privileges, Shaw. Wow, you really don't know what a right is!
ReplyDelete"We just saw an example of this in 2008, even with supposed laws in place."
ReplyDeleteThe laws weren't laws at all. If they were laws then why hasn't anyone gone to jail?
What they were Shaw were a series of regulations; policies and mandates really which resulted in (presumably) unintended consequences.
The government's policies and the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing programs not only raised the national debt thereby causing the inflation, their policy kept interest rates artificially low (how about zero??) thus flooding the economy with the liquidity which caused the boom/bust.
I should point out that some of us were quite privy to what was happening with respect to the creation of the real estate and housing bubble.
ReplyDeleteWe were laughed at for cashing in our 401k's and savings accounts and buying gold at under $650 an ounce.
They're not laughing at us now.
Between the basics of economics being lost on the majority of people and the kool-aid the leftists drink where every wish is a "right" in their little heads, and the thinking that the Almighty Government is responsible for providing all those wishes/rights by taking it from someone else, then our debating them is truly useless, Soapie, they don't get it, they really don't want to get it, and so they never will.
ReplyDeleteMy intention isn't to make anyone "get it". Eventually they either will or they'll simply be consumed by the largess of which of they advocate.
ReplyDeletesoapster: "Eventually they either will or they'll simply be consumed by the largess of which of they advocate."
ReplyDeletePeople eventually will or they'll simply be consumed by the largess of which they advocate. Good shit soapster good shit.
Excuse me, Beth, but in your scrambling to make everyone you don't agree with look dumb, you contradicted yourself.
ReplyDeleteI responded to what you said here:
"So you think, Shaw, that a piece of paper gives you something? Really?"
And yes, a piece of paper gives us many things.
Is marrying the person of your choice a privilege or a right?
You tell us.
The basic right to marry and cohabitate with the person you choose is a privilege?
Who bestows that privilege? And if it is a privilege and can be bestowed, then it can be denied.
Can you please enlighten me on this?
How about voting? Is it a right or a privilege? Who allows it? Or denies it?
Well, Shaw, in America both marriage and voting are priveleges that are conferred on those who are judged worthy by Those Who appoint themselves the arbiters of such judgements.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't new. Slaves weren't allowed to marry. Women and non-White-propertyowning-protestant males weren't allowed to vote for ages.
And now, Those Who are carrying on the tradition by refusing to confer legal rights of marriage on anyone who isn't marrying someone of the opposite sex. And Those Who are also actively working to disenfranchise large groups of people who have historically voted against Them.
So, you see, Shaw.. marriage AND voting aren't rights in America, they're priveleges granted by Those Who. Unless you conform to their expectations, their qualifications, their requirements and certainly their side of all questions decided by voting, Those Who can WILL either prevent you from ever getting those priveleges or taking them away if you once had them.
This is America, and that's how we roll.
The best part of a debate is when others make your point.
ReplyDeleteoh shut up :P
ReplyDeleteIt took me awhile to wade through all of this as I had to work later yesterday but great discussion (as usual).
ReplyDeleteWell, I can see that others have moved on to other discussions, but I came across something about the Constitution that I thought was perfect for this discussion. President Reagan said it at the State of the Union address in 1987. He said:
ReplyDelete"I have read the constitutions of a number of countries including the Soviet Union's. Now some people are surprised to hear that they have a constitution, and it even supposedly grants a number of freedoms to its people. Many countries have written into their constitution provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Well, if this is true, why is the Constitution of the United States so exceptional?
Well, the difference is so small that it almost escapes you - but it's so great it tells you the whole story in just three words: We the people. In those other constitutions, the government tells the people of those countries what they are allowed to do. In our Constitution, we the people tell the government what it can do and that it can do only those things listed in that document and no others.
Virtually every other revolution in history has just exchanged one set of rulers for another set of rulers. Our revolution is the first to say the people are the masters, and government is their servant."
I think this negates whatever Shaw said about the Constitution "giving" her her rights, because it does no such thing. It simply says what the government can do to protect OUR rights.
think this negates whatever Shaw said about the Constitution "giving" her her rights, because it does no such thing. It simply says what the government can do to protect OUR rights.
ReplyDeleteThe question I have here is this:
If your 'right' is not protected under law, what good is it?
If you have a 'right' to liberty that isn't legally protected, is it a 'right' at all? Women, children, and minority groups all have, according to this argument, 'God Given Rights' which were actively constrained by legalities for hundreds of years in America. Are they actually 'rights' in any practical sense whatsoever if there is no legal protection for them?
A 'right' is just an abstract theoretical concept until legal systems are in place to protect it. Until that time, that 'right' can and will be trampled at will, and, as has been shown in our history, with legal encouragement, by whichever groups choose to do so.
So it appears to me that the piece of paper conferring the LEGAL right is in all practical respects far more important than the concept of 'innate God Given rights'; because 'innate God Given rights' are virtually meaningless in society unless backed by law.
A current case in point that springs to mind would be the 'God Given Right' to 'Life Liberty and Happiness', which is currently in most places being denied to gay and lesbian couples as they are denied the legal right to marry. So that 'God Given Right' to 'Happiness' doesn't really count for much for them, does it? And it won't, until the day that the legal system grants them that right to their happiness, with the protection of law. This is actually a perfect example of how one group's 'God Given Rights' are meaningless without the government's legal recognition of same.
The 'rights' are meaningless in practice until they receive the force of law.
I don't think it is so much that the rights need to codified into law in so much as it is that the established body (i.e., Government) doesn't restrict those rights. That is what we are seeing today and have seen over history.
ReplyDeleteI have many gay friends who lament the fact that they are unable to marry and who assert and who work for equality under the guise of "gay rights".
I constantly remind them that there is no such thing as "gay rights". There are only individual rights. When they try to pursue individual equality through group classification, it does them a huge disservice. Some of them know this and try very hard to make this point known to the others who do not.
That reminds me of a quote from Liz Feldman:
ReplyDeleteThe “gay marriage” issue is on the ballot in Arizona, California, and Florida. Personally, I am very excited about “gay marriage”, or as I like to call it, “marriage”. Because I had lunch this afternoon, I didn’t have “gay lunch”. And I parked my car, I didn’t “gay park” it.
I've seen that posted on Facebook. It's spot on.
ReplyDeleteFind a liberal church and gays can marry all they want. Why involve the gov't at all?
ReplyDeleteWhy involve gov't at all?
ReplyDeleteWhy...why...why...that's just...just...hmm...that's just one helluva sensible idea.