« McCain on The Extremely Dramatic and Sincere Showdown in the Senate | Main | There is no table. Or is there? »
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Help me understand the libertarian impulse
Folks, one of our regulars said something in a comment in the last day or so that prompted me to ask a question that I would really like to have answered. I think it's important to understanding a lot of conversations we have here. Anway, Doug Ross was responding to something another commenter said about retirement systems, and he said:
I would agree with you on portable pensions as long as that means I own every penny of what my employer and I contribute and I am not responsible for paying the retirement for somebody else.
That prompted this question from me, which I would now like to offer more prominently, in the hope of increasing the chances I can get an answer I understand:
Doug, why do you feel that way -- about wanting to make sure that you're not expected to help anyone else in retirement?
That might sound facetious, or provocative, but I'm sincere about wanting to know. The concern you express seems to be at the heart of the whole libertarian impulse, which I find it so impossible to connect with. And one thing I keep wondering is, how do people develop an attitude of "this is mine; it's just for me; don't anybody expect me to share it?"
It might be that it's a perfectly natural impulse, as many would maintain, and that some of us just have it conditioned out of us -- or, we become conditioned to be embarrassed to express such a thought, whether we have the impulse or not. Our mother tells us when we're young that it's mean not to share. Or we hear the Bible story in which Cain acts like the Lord is out of line by suggesting that he should in any way be his brother's keeper.
But I'm not sure I feel that impulse at all. I mean, if somebody came and took all I had so that I was hungry and cast into the cold, I'm pretty sure I'd feel like saying, "Hey, that was mine! You can't do that." But when I'm able to get by, however hard it might be paying bills from month to month, I just don't even feel a murmur of protest at the idea of paying into a system that makes sure nobody else starves in old age, or into a system that makes sure no one will be turned away when they need medical care.
It would be one thing to say, "I don't think the plan would work," or "there are better ways to build a Safety Net," or whatever. But when you say that WHATEVER the system, you want to make sure you're not paying in to help somebody else -- that it's the INTENT of doing that that bothers you -- you leave me bewildered.
So why do you think that way?
Posted by Brad Warthen at 04:43 PM in Marketplace of ideas
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef00e008dae4038834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Help me understand the libertarian impulse:
Comments
Brad
Re: Our mother tells us when we're young that it's mean not to share.
There is a enormous difference between the moral imperative to take care of "the least of these," and being compelled under threat of imprisonment to provide money to politicians who use it to bribe a majority of voters to stay in office.
We've decided as a society that we are not willing to allow people to be hungry. At least when the government redistributes income to those who are hungry, it allows the poor to get quality food delivered through the same highly efficient grocery stores that we go to.
The worst situation is when the government forces taxpayers to support inefficient, poor quality, government managed delivery systems, like public schools. That taxpayers are compelled to support clearly broken system like this is obscene.
All of us who are successful built on the legacy of others, which creates an obligation as citizens to give back. But where the government decides to force that to happen it ought to tread very lightly.
Forcing taxpayers to support programs rather than allowing philanthropy to occur voluntarily, breaks the bond between the giver and the receiver, creating resentment in the giver and a sense of entitlement in the receiver. Both the giver and the receiver are often worse off as a result.
Posted by: John Warner | Jul 18, 2007 6:14:05 PM
Thanks, John. But your response, while sincere and meant to be helpful, invokes libertarian arguments about something that's very different from what I'm asking about here.
It's an interesting thing, that I'll be glad to discuss in another post -- the whole thing about how the involvement of something called "government" makes it a whole different thing for libertarians. That strikes me as odd, too, because to me, "government" is just a word to describe the arrangements that we set up in a society to address various issues that come up between human beings, and do so within the framework of the rule of law and (in this country) a republican decision-making process -- an essential set of arrangements (whatever they might be in the specific instance) where more than two people are trying to live in the same community. We could call it "Fred" for all I care, but we call it "government." I understand your point about preferring direct, personal charity rather than having the rest of society act as a middleman. But direct, personal charity is not a subject that needs political discourse to make it happen. When we address things as a community -- in other words, where there are more than two parties involved -- some sort of more complex set of arrangements will be necessary, and if that thing is intended to be accountable to the general intentions of the community, that set of arrangements will be "government," whether we call it "Fred" or whatever.
Anyway, as I said, that's not what I asked about. Look at my question again. What interested me was NOT that Doug thought there were better ways for him to see to his neighbor, but that he said that however the thing is set up, just make sure that under this set of arrangements, he is not "responsible for paying the retirement for somebody else."
There is a very elemental resentment or refusal or principal or something there that is a lot more basic than HOW something is addressed. And I don't think it's an accident of words, because the sentiment sounds very familiar, and it's one that I always wonder about.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 18, 2007 6:34:19 PM
Brad,
What you're looking to be explained goes beyond just a "libertarian impulse," as you call it. In fact, the philosophy behind Mr. Ross' comment goes back to the very founding of this nation. The essence of Ross' comment is his sense of ownership. Better yet, it is the recognition of his 'private property.' Ross felt that the products of his labor, hands and mind were his, and his alone.
The root of this sentiment is not so obscure. One only has to turn to the political writings of John Locke, specifically his Second Treatise of Civil Government. Locke states: "Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian's who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon it" (Chapter 5, Section 30). It is without question that Locke's political philosophy was one the guiding philosophies of the American Revolution. After all, the Declaration of Independence almost seems to be taken word for word from Locke.
Now, we have established that foundation of Ross' comment; however, the question at hand may be less about private property than the unwillingness to share it with others. Ironically, your own question nearly answers itself. You suggest that you would not have a problem sharing "all [you] had," meaning you recognize that property as yours. This is not unlike Ross. However, both government programs that take private property from individual without their direct consent—the situation Ross outlines—is not much different from the hypothetical you construct with someone taking things from you.
But the difference between you and Ross is your reaction to the same action. He feels that he should have a say over how his private property is dispensed; a rational reaction. You feel that you would not mind how your private property is dispensed as long as it is going into a system that you feel is helping people. Well, the latter is a matter of personal opinion.
Perhaps Ross doesn't like the idea of just barely making ends meet so that another person can benefit from his private property. Is that not his right to do with his property as he chooses? Why should he be forced to pay into a system that violates this "natural right," as Locke calls it, for whatever justification? If you so chose to do so, then that is your right. But if it lacks your volition, then you run into the sentiments Ross surely feels.
How would you react if you were mugged? You would upset, would you not, as that you had your money taken from you by force? This is exactly what Ross feels. So the disconnect from him is because you don't understand how Ross doesn't consent to his property being taken from him, even if for a charitable cause. You answer your own question by saying that you wouldn't mind if it happened to your property whereas Ross would mind if it happened to his.
There is no such thing as the common good in society, regardless of the construct of the social system. To so say is to say the right of one individual is not as important as the right of another. Ross has the sole right to his private property. Nobody else has a claim or right to that property. Should you want to give your property away, it is yours to do so.
Is this a "libertarian impulse?" Not necessarily. It is an impulse of anyone that values the sanctity of private property.
I hope that helps.
Andrew Davis
Media Coordinator
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
Posted by: Andrew Davis | Jul 18, 2007 8:30:57 PM
Brad, I have a friend who is Libertarian (which I consider to be the Anarchy party). I have asked that same question of him so many times. As closely as I can understand him, he thinks that people will take care of others out of charity. I wish I thought so well of people, but my experience has been that most people (including myself) tend to be selfish, and to find ways to justify their selfishness. Some are way more selfish than others. It seems to me that allowing people to "take responsibility for their own decisions" leaves a social culture in which the biggest bully wins. Mr. Warner expresses dislike for having to pay for the inefficient, poorly managed public schools. Is he planning to pay for those kids whose parents cannot afford private schools? Even with vouchers? How about places in SC where there are no private schools? Or is he planning to ensure that the poor kids don't even get minimum schooling, thereby creating a permanent underclass, who, within a generation will not even be able to read well enough to figure out what minimum wage is. Furthermore as I understand it, the Libertarians firmly believe that a person should be able to do as he wishes with his property. Does that mean that developers can buy land down at the coast and fill in the tidal marshes? That would kill the sea, and eventually us? Does that mean that a business can pollute so badly that it poisons anyone unfortunate enough to live down wind from it? Apparently so. No, I can't concur with that kind of politics.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 18, 2007 8:36:08 PM
Brad
I tried to explain the impulse, and we didn't connect.
Doug is not "responsible for paying the retirement for somebody else." He is obligated under threat of imprisonment to pay for the retirement of many others because politicians have created a system where large numbers of passionate voters are able to extract income from Doug that he has earned, regardless of whether they need or not. That's not community, that's extortion. The emotion in Doug's response is his resentment of the forced redistribution of his income.
You confuse that negative emotion with a moral obligation Doug may have to support those who can't support themselves. Ask Doug whether he feels charity to elderly people who live in poverty, and you may get an entirely different reaction from Doug. Get Doug actively involved in a program of combating poverty among the elderly and he may contribute in many ways beyond merely money.
Government is essential in a civil society, but when it forces people to do things they would otherwise not freely do it becomes a very corrosive force. I went on many Meals on Wheels deliveries with my grandfather "because those old people need me." My grandfather got more from Meals on Wheels than he gave.
That's what heavy handed government destroys when it overrides the charitable impulse by force. The government is reaping what it has sown in the resentment you hear in Doug's response.
Posted by: John Warner | Jul 18, 2007 8:40:54 PM
Hi Brad,
You suggest government is just a middle-man to coordinate the programmes that (supposedly) the majority of people believe are necessary. But the essential difference between governments and other organizations is the voluntary aspect. There are many organizations that are set up to help the less fortunate (charities, church programs, etc) but government is the only one that forces you (under threat of violence) to fund them. And if you disagree with the services they offer, you have little recourse.
All libertarians that I know have a desire to help less fortunate people in society, but they do not believe that a monopolistic supplier (who you are forced to fund) is the right way to address inequalities.
Posted by: Robbie | Jul 18, 2007 8:42:11 PM
Brad,
I agree with your bewilderment that someone would not be concerned with helping others to ensure their sustenance during retirement.
But in answer to your larger question, I think is has to do with the degree of that help.
Humans are social animals, and human societies have only prospered where we take care of each other, especially our weakest and most vulnerable: children and the elderly. To coldly claim that we will not care for our seniors and keep it all for ourselves is idealistic and naive.
I think the point the author was trying to make is that fewer and fewer workers are going to be paying more and more to support an increasing population of retirees. And the retirees will be living longer.
It may be that the modern libertarian impulse derives from the totalitarian prospect of the government's taxation power taking a greater and greater portion of your earnings to distribute to others.
This hard earned money - money that would be better spent by the person who earned it, including being set aside for their own retirememt - is often wasted. Or given to a large number of retirees who do not need assistance, but have their hand out anyway, while seniors that do help barely get by on the meager amount paid out by the system.
Back to my point concerning degrees, most people would be fine with 5% of their earings going to support others; 10% would be more noticeable but not to painful to most; 15%, as the current FICA tax takes (I know, you only see 7.5% come out of the paycheck, but your employer is paying 15%, the other 7.5% is still your money) is getting painful to average wage earners, but is buffered by the clever accounting trick of only showing 7.5% of the contribution;
20%? Ouch;
30%? Please stop, that really hurts;
40%? Noooo, I can't live on what's left over;
All to pay for other people's retirement!
As the percentage of your earnings that goes towards other people's retirement increases, you will see more and more people leaning libertarian and saying that they will just keep whats theirs.
Screw the rest.
However cold-hearted that sounds.
Posted by: Jones | Jul 18, 2007 9:04:56 PM
I would guess, Brad, that Doug doesn't want to pay someone else's retirement because he thinks the Protestant work ethic works better than a system where the hard-working stiffs pay for not just the welfare of the unfortunate but also the long lazy life of those who won't do much because they can get away with it.
Why should Doug work to pay for someone else not to work? Why would you question such a fundamental sentiment?
Sure, it's mean not to share when Mama GIVES you something. But if you sweat for a paycheck under the noon sun, why should you share it with someone who just stood in the shade? Won't that encourage more people to just stand in the shade? Won't our system collapse under the weight of endless entitlement?
We live in a capitalist republic, not a socialist democracy. Capitalism fits human nature. Socialism flies in the face of human drive and begets dictatorship.
And, after all, it's one thing for a man to spend all his spare time working in his garden and share all the vegetables he grows because he enjoys doing it. It's something else for someone to require the man to share those vegetables with anyone and everyone, friend or foe.
Posted by: Weldon VII | Jul 18, 2007 9:50:16 PM
Mr. Brad,
I've read and re-read your question and John's answer and I don't understand what you don't understand.
We're talking retirement I assume, not Social Sec?
Personally, I believe the government--state and federal--should be responsible to make sure everyone has food and health care. That said, that is unConstitutional. Using our history and Constitution, the US is a "root pig or die" place (thats the best word I can think of at the moment; anyone that thinks we are a nation is delusional.) What makes the US different from Europe is that we decided to take matters into our own hands; we knew what is best for ourselves and to heck with letting those who have been raised and reared to govern have any say over our lives. Again; as a monarchist, I don't agree with that reasoning, but we're in America.
I do believe I have stake in my neighbour's retirement--or anything about their well-being (can't remember exactly what number essay of John Donne's it was--...no man is an island; for whom the bell tolls and all that.)
But back to Amerika... We have chosen what we have; even more so after the War. Southerners are a benevolent people and were so until the Federal Government intervened. I hear and see all the "human interest" stories on the news and in The State. Many times these are people that do not have the world-view that I do; that may be OK, but charity--whether from the gov't or private sources--should be conditional. If I choose to donate to whatever cause there might be, I should be convinced that that person or family has the same world-view and owes the same loyalties that I do. If a person has squandered their earnings of a lifetime and now expects me or any taxpayer to pick up the tab, not only are they crazy, but only a fool would finance that deal.
The US provides anyone an enormous opportunity to acheive anything. With that opportunity comes responsibility. The best thing about the US is the crapshoot; I can achieve anything, or I can be destitute. Its all up to me.
In my perfect world; everyone would have food, health care and retirement provided by the gov't (or Fred); but this is "America." We don't do things that way here. Remembering the words of AlGore (kinda; I can't really remember...) there are some that need to be satisfied with the crumbs that are thrown at them.
Personally, I like a tiered society.
BP
Posted by: Brian | Jul 18, 2007 10:19:40 PM
OK, let's work on this:
To Andrew Davis: John Locke; well, we learned about him in school, didn't we (mostly public school, in my case). AFTER school I learned that he was the secretary to Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, and helped design for him the system we now call the Legislative State -- a totally dysfunctional South Carolina in which the state government is set up to serve a landed gentry that doesn't exist any more. Whenever I reflect on the grossly unaccountable mess the governmental structure in South Carolina is, I thank John Locke. I'm sure he had his good qualities. Still, his word is far, far from Holy Writ.
As for your assertion that "both government programs that take private property from individual without their direct consent — the situation Ross outlines — is not much different from the hypothetical you construct with someone taking things from you..." Well, in America the two things are as different as night and day. The mugger violates the laws we came up with through our republican system. The levying of taxes such is the republican system in action. Expecting each individual's "direct consent" before being taxed -- well, that's anarchy, not a republic. Remember Adam and Eve? Well, Adam might have been able to demand that he be consulted before he had to cough up a contribution, but only so long as he was doing whatever Eve told him to do (you married men will understand). Once there were more people in the world, they pretty much had to go along with whatever the king or the pharoah or, in the case of our republic, the Government (shudder, oh, horror) said. Of course, in a republic, the "government" is the will of our neighbors expressed through their elected representatives, making decisions within the context of a constitution. And no, individuals do not get to opt out if not consulted PERSONALLY. That takes us back to anarchy.
You say that Doug Ross is different from me because he "feels that he should have a say over how his private property is dispensed." No, that's backwards. I'm the one who feels he should have a say in it, and I do, each Election Day. I and my fellow citizens (yes, I share the power with them) elect the people who make the particular decisions about taxing and spending. What Doug suggests, and what I hear libertarians in general suggest with their talk about "direct consent" -- is that each individual act as an absolute sovereign who does not care for anyone else's opinion as to how "his" property should be treated. Not a republican view, but that of an anarchist.
Finally, "the sanctity of private property." Whoa. I think we're getting closer to that "impulse" thing, but I can't say I understand it yet. For the record -- and I'm speaking as a Catholic convert, and we know all about theology and stuff -- there is nothing HOLY about private property. Just FYI. In fact -- and this is going to come as a huge shock to some libertarians, so I hope I'm not being too brutal here -- there are no property rights in a State of Nature, it being Red in Tooth and Claw and all that. The legal fiction (and a fine legal fiction it is; I'm all for it; but that's all it is) of property rights simply does not exist without government to recognize it, define it, honor it and prop it up. Ask a lawyer. Or ignore the lawyer and go out and buy yourself a LOT of guns.
Karen McLeod: I like Karen. We really disagree about the war, but I think she's very nice -- which, of course, is probably why we disagree about the war, so let's set that aside. I can't concur with that kind of politics, either (libertarianism). But for me, the acceptable alternative is communitarianism, to the extent that I understand it (it's not as well discussed or defined as libertarianism, which, in a world with Reality TV, is much more popular). And the reason my hero Tony Blair supports our involvement in Iraq is his communitarianism -- the idea that we are responsible for our neighbor, whether our neighbor be someone who lives in West Columbia (or in Tony's case, Islington or Slough) or Ramadi. We can no more wash our hands of Iraq and its troubles than we can of the poor old pensioner next door.
That's enough for tonight.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Jul 18, 2007 10:39:14 PM
Wow.. I'm flattered by the support for my position. Many people have explained it better than I could. For me, it boils down to the fact that my retirement should be my responsibility. I don't expect someone else to chip in for my benefit and I don't want to be forced to do so by the government... especially by a government that has no track record for being an efficient steward of my money. I have a pension from a prior employee that will become available in about 20 years. I have a 401K that my employer and I contribute to. Then there's the EXTRA 15% that you claim I should be gratified to give in the name of American patriotism or some other nonsense.
Just last year, I showed my paystub to my parents to show them that my employer and I were basically paying more than half of their monthly Social Security check. My father was embarrassed. He came from an era when Social Security didn't rape each paycheck for 7.5% and never realized how much I was paying in.
Are you that naive to think that with all the baby boomers retiring that 7.5% will be enough to keep the system solvent for when you and I retire in 15-20 years? The pool of contributors will not be there to support the broken system. I have said repeatedly that I would give up any claims to money paid into Social Security since I started working at age 17 until now at age 47 if I could drop out of the program for the next 20 years.
Your fawning over our system of government is remarkable. You admire politicians like some people admire athletes or actors... ascribing all sorts of heroic attributes to a group of people who are mainly interested in power and personal gain. You act as if these people are altruistic financial wizards working solely for the will of the people. Fat chance. I have to ask -- what color is the sky in your world????
And, for the record, I am not a miser. I give approximately the same amount of money I pay in Social Security to my church and charities each year... because I know they are better stewards of the money than the government can or ever will be. I believe in personal positive action, not government control of every aspect of my life.
Not to reveal too much, but my Social Security taxes were raised this year. How so? Because they raised the maximum income limit from 94.2K to 97.5K... that means my employer and I are both paying an extra $250 bucks into the system. I sure would rather have that $500 in my control... but since it's not your money, you're perfectly fine with the government taking it from me.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 18, 2007 11:28:12 PM
I really didn't want to add this addendum, but I must. I challenge you, Brad, to come down to the parking lot at First Baptist Church on the 4th Saturday each month to participate in our Feed the Hungry program. There might be a few homeless people there who might recognize me as the one who paid for their prescription, or paid their bus fare to get home to Beufort, or paid for a pair of shoes, or got one of the 200+ winter coats I personally collected at Christmas time... Every one of those people has a story to tell that makes me thankful every day for what I have.
I guess you consider your contributions to government welfare as acts of kindness. I don't.
Does it even give you a moment's pause to consider that your opinion about government intervention into the lives of Americans is not shared by very many people at all?
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 18, 2007 11:40:55 PM
Karen,
I think you misunderstand the basic concepts of Libertarianism. It doesn't mean I can do whatever I want, whenever I want. It means I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, as long as it does not impact someone else negatively. It's about personal responsibility, not personal irresponsibility. It's about fewer laws, smaller government, privacy, and freedom.
The government we have now is about the opposite: more laws, more convoluted tax codes (like the one that allows The State to forego collecting sales tax), more government control of our lives. If you're happy with that, so be it. I'm not.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 18, 2007 11:49:45 PM
Karen
Brad asks about a libertarian impulse. What completely baffles me is this impulse:
"Or is he planning to ensure that the poor kids don't even get minimum schooling, thereby creating a permanent underclass, who, within a generation will not even be able to read well enough to figure out what minimum wage is."
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. How is it possible that otherwise intelligent people like you and Brad fail to see that?
What works in our society is when people pursue their enlightened self-interest, including philanthropy, with a minimum of government regulation. Why is that so hard?
Posted by: John Warner | Jul 19, 2007 6:10:07 AM
However distant John Locke may be "from Holy Writ," you're at least one Jim Clyburn bridge farther out, Brad.
I hate to break it to you, but the government does not own all the real and personal property in the United States. Citizens of this country and others own most of it. And they, not the government, control what happens to it.
Aa Oscar Wilde said, there is no society, only individuals.
But you think you have a say, and should, over what happens to Doug's property (and mine) by how you vote.
That's wacky. Way yonder wacky. Childish. Not-worth-the-waste-of-time strange.
Why don't we just divide up everything between the illegal immigrants your hero, Sen. Graham, tried so hard to patriate? Wouldn't that be the communitarian thing to do?
I'm done talking here, Brad. What you don't know takes up too much space.
Posted by: Weldon VII | Jul 19, 2007 6:19:05 AM
At last, a thread where the debate appears to be civil and issue-directed rather than nasty and personal. Keep it up, folks.
Posted by: Steve Gordy | Jul 19, 2007 6:54:39 AM
To suggest that it is an 'impulse' to be callous rather than an ethos of logic based on natural law is telling of the epistemological skill set of the author( see Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty for a comprehensive understanding).
Should one not vote for or choose a collectivism justified by majority rule they are still forced to comply with the charity of the state via gunpoint. This is not an impulse as much as the crux of the matter. If anarchy is a greater moral position, why not accept the guilt of your statist ways ?
Posted by: Eric Sundwall | Jul 19, 2007 8:38:59 AM
Let's clarify some terms:
Social Security is not a retirement system. It is welfare, according to the Supreme Court, and no one has any legal right to receive one cent. All handouts are at the arbitrary whim of Congress.
"communitarianism" = communistic impulses without the focus, feelings without any attempt at intellectual justification. That's why it doesn't work as a social construct.
The right to private property and one's earnings is not created out of thin air by laws, much less a "legal fiction" ( a juriprudential term misused by Brad ). Libertarians believe, like Locke and others, that good secular laws reflect the natural rights of man. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam specfically recognize the concept of private property and the right to create wealth for oneself and family.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Jul 19, 2007 9:08:26 AM
Brad,
Doug's issue isn't the giving to needy. It is the gun involved. Coercion turns glorious charity into something malignant. You simply cannot justify doing "only a little evil" to 300 million for the sake of doing some good for only a few.
Then there are all the "market" arguments that you are likely to hear from a libertarian. If you like math, statistics, and high level economic theory they make perfect and practical sense. For those that listen to their heart what they all boil down to is this:
To allow one point of failure for something as important as social stability, is foolish. To force a single broken system on people with the threat of violence, is just plain bad karma.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 19, 2007 10:19:15 AM
Lee is correct. Social Security is a welfare system. You have no right to any of the money you pay into the program. In fact, the worst case scenario would be a single person with no kids who works for 50 years who dies at age 67. That person pays tens of thousands of dollars into the system and gets NOTHING back.
I would be comfortable with some percentage of my paycheck going to a government program for widows, the disabled, and children of deceased parents. Just let me have the rest. I won't ask you to pay for my retirement. Deal?
Besides paying for other retiree's monthly welfare check, my employer and I are also on the hook for the Medicare taxes to pay for other people's healthcare. This is in addition to the higher premiums I pay on my private insurance to cover the below market rates the government pays for Medicare related health services.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 19, 2007 10:46:43 AM
Brad, this is one of your best posts. I'm fascinated by the two sides in this debate, both hightly partisan. On the one hand we have the super, statist types who support any government program no matter how intrusive. Regardless of the flaws in the program, the failures and the destruction it causes the pro-statists stick with it for all eternity. These programs include the USA-Patriot act and the occupation of Iraq.
On the other hand we have the doctrinaire libertarians who simply cannot give the government any credit for anything and do all sorts of mental contortions to support a failed "market" program. On the one hand we have social security which has been the salvation for millions during it's 70 year history. My current wife was saved by the provision that provided a death benefit for her children until they turn 18 when their father died. My mother enjoys a nice monthly check that helps make ends meet.
On the other hand we have the catastrophic mess known as "free-market" health care. It really isn't a free-market system of course but because a few companies make huge money the libertarians defend the status quo because it has some elements that mimick lassaiz faire.
Since I'm in the pragmatist middle, I'll just sit back and enjoy the rest of discussion.
Posted by: bud | Jul 19, 2007 3:22:09 PM
John, what we have today is a very unbalenced system that results in public schools that are falling down, and a few public schools that have the best of everything. But at least, right now, everyone has the opportunity to get at least some of the basics. When we give up on the concept of public schools what we'll end up with will be worse than segregated schools ever were (and believe me, most of the black schools were less than competent), and worse than what we have now. What we'll have are some very, very, fine schools that can refuse to admit anyone they want to, and schools that go steeply down from there, until the lower (not even lowest) tier has no school at all. Consider, a healthy portion of (mostly upper middle class) South Carolinians want to take the money they pay for schools, and have it given to them as a voucher for private schools. That will considerably subsidize their choice with the most 'choice' going to those who can afford the most. People with less money get fewer choices. And of course, one finally gets to the point where that subsidy still does not give the family enough to send their child to private school, or possibly to move to some place where there is a private school. Meanwhile there is no more public school because that money came from the public funds that support the public schools. Worse can become worst.
Brad,
My heart aches for the Iraqi people; what we have done to them, in the name of doing something for them, is horrible. But so far, I have not seen a shred of evidence to indicate that we can win in Iraq. The best we can do for them is stop making it worse. If you have any data to show that we have the forces, the equipment, the money, or the cultural expertise to win the war in Iraq, please share it. Everything I see indicates that we haven't.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 19, 2007 4:13:56 PM
Could Brad's point and question have been deeper than or more complex than the following:
"The right to private property and one's earnings is not created out of thin air by laws, much less a "legal fiction" ( a juriprudential term misused by Brad ). Libertarians believe, like Locke and others, that good secular laws reflect the natural rights of man."
I don't dispute Locke on these points, but Locke went on to note that the cost of not having anarchy i.e. where one could appreiciate and enjoy their property without having to know they were stronger enough to beat up their neighbor or whomever might try and steal their goods, was a civil society instituted and protected by a government. All property ownership, except for the strongest of us - and you will get weak one day - are fostered by the government and based in large part on the fact that it works.
"Taxes are the price of a civilized society" - (Oliver Wendell Holmes I believe) and unfortunately more and more people don't see that and think government and taxes are "the problem" just look at the difference between Loredo and New Loredo on the Texas boarder - the main difference "The government" yet in this instance "the government" didn't seem to be the problem, unless you are talking about Mexico's, but good governance on ourside of the boarder is what made saving for retirement, emegency service, et cetera possible. Please don't side track onto immigration as that had nothing to do with my point. Property rights can only be well protected through lack of anarchy e.g. properly working government and guess what; it costs money.
Posted by: Easily Forgotten | Jul 19, 2007 4:30:33 PM
Doug,
But with "fewer laws, more privacy, and greater freedom" what makes you think that people will be responsible? If you shrink the government to the point where it cannot ensure the common good, and limit it to the point where it cannot promote the general well fare then who is to stop those who choose to act in a selfish way? Bullies do not, by definition, pick on someone their own size. They prey on those who cannot adequately fight back. And in arena such as that, everyone is going to be too busy watching their own back to worry about the ones already stabbed. I realize that Libertarians prize "enlightened self interest." Unfortunately, I think that's a myth. Human beings in my experience have a rational component, but almost as often they make decisions that are clearly driven by the reptilian brain. Self interest? Yes. Enlightened? Sure. Just like a crocodile. You put down government. But we the people are the ones who elect these people, from the few enlightened statesmen/politicians to the mob of unenlightened selfish bozos that we so often see. If we want better government we need to create it.
Posted by: Karen McLeod | Jul 19, 2007 7:11:10 PM
Karen,
>> If we want better government we need to
>> create it.
I agree. I guess that's why I try to point out the aspects of the government that need changing. Maybe someday we'll reach the point where people have had enough. I'm already there.
Posted by: Doug Ross | Jul 19, 2007 8:40:58 PM
