Although I don’t live in the United States, I follow American politics to an extent, because what happens over there is, to a degree, reflected in the rest of the world (reminds me of Bête Noire, in Peter David’s “Fallen Angel” :)).
Therefore, I don’t want to write a lot about this, since virtually every blogger has done so :), but let me say that I’m quite happy about the results. The Democrats got both the House of Representatives and the Senate back. Bush and the religious right got what they deserved, and maybe the rest of the Republican party will get rid of them (one can dream). And, well, the Dems simply can’t do a worse job than their predecessors have been doing.
I don’t believe in sticking to “the devil you know”. When things are bad, change. If they stay bad, change again. Repeat as necessary.
Anyway, maybe the Democrats will finally grow some balls, and begin to notice that going to war based on lies, killing thousands, ruining the economy and increasingly destroying civil rights may — just may — be as much reason for impeachment as lying about a blowjob. (if you tell me that the problem wasn’t the blowjob, but the lying, then, well, Bush lied about WMDs and 9/11 connections as well)
I’m only disappointed (though it was predictable) about one thing: Joe Lieberman got re-elected. I despise that guy. He’s as pro-censorship as they come (like Hillary), and also believes that, in times of war, the president becomes uncriticizable and above the law (actual quote: “in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”), which is, in a word, repugnant.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
More of the same is not a good or preferable outcome. Sure some wear a different color coat, but all supported the war OF terror, all supported the increase in governmental power and the sever decrease in freedom for the individual. A pile of crap by any other name smells just as bad…
Yes, but nobody’s as bad as the neocons / religious right.
That is what everyone was saying when the admitted leftists were in power.. The fact is that in the US certainly, though also throought the world, politicians are politicians with only one shared goal: increased governmental power. Some focus on one issue or another to try to sway others to give up the freedom of other people, but this difference is a trivial one.
BTW I don’t know if you caught it or not, but the demoncrats that came to power were in no small part conservatives who happened to call themselves demoncrats. For instance they adopt anti-abortion and pro-gun (sort of) positions, which are the hallmarks of the conservatives. They voted to support the war OF terror, and the war against Islam so we do not even get a change in this regard. They of course embrace religion (christianity) and pretend that they are fine upstanding individuals, just as the repugnicans do.
While I appreciate anything which increases the in-fighting in government, I cannot herald this slight change of appearance as anything substantive or positive.
I believe that the only thing you’d consider positive would be a change of political system.
From what I see, your position is: “they’re politicians, so they’re all pure evil”. While I don’t think they’re good, nice, respectable people, I do believe that there are degrees of evil.
The current Democrats may be too conservative, too Christian, and do a lot of things wrong, but the neocons / religious right are, in my opinion, far worse. At least, the former don’t want to invade other countries (they voted for the Iraq war not because they thought it was a good idea, but because they’d be seen as “unpatriotic” if they didn’t do so - which is cowardly and dishonest, sure, but not “pure evil” like I believe the neocons are) or turn the country into a theocracy where not believing in their version of a fairy tale is a crime.
I’m just scared that the man with his oversized-monkey nose hovering above the DEFCON 1 button is currently ~250mg over the safe limit with Zoloft (an antidepressant), and has just followed them down with a glass of whiskey.
I hate Right wing America :(. In Australia there’s less emphasis on religion, which doesn’t really help me when I’m debating.
“Religion does this this and this”
“No it dosen’t I’ve never seen any of that!”
” (uh-oh) Thats because we live in Australia, this is more predominant in America”
“pfft America!”
Pedro you are wrong about what would count as an improvement, and what I would acknowledge IS actually an improvement. More of the same, which was the result of the mid-term election, is by definition NOT an improvement.
Though in principle it would still be an unjustified state, were the libertarians, or those who are libertarian minded to get into power, and then use that power ONLY to reduce the power of government, then we would have the sort of improvement you seem to want to say exists today in the US. We have objective standards by which we can determine improvement so why would we claim improvement when none exists? Do we revel in the illusion of a change simply because it is an illusion of change?
Has the power of religion been curtailed? Nope. Do we have any reason to believe that it will be curtailed? Nope. Remember that the demoncrats are trying to make sure that no one accuses them of being anything other than neo-cons. They are spouting the very same things that the neo-cons are, advocating the same ends and methods that the neo-cons are, and were elected by appealing to the neo-cons. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
Show me real improvement and I will of course applaud it. Short of that, we can only do harm by pretending that more of the same (or a step worse) is a step in the right direction. This is true both with regard to our own use of reason, as well as for the practical effects of contributing to the strength of the illusions which allow those in power to continue to increase the harms to others.
So, you believe that if the Republicans have kept the House and the Senate, it wouldn’t have been worse?
I, for one, think that the potential for change for the better counts for something. While it is true that a number of the newly elected Democrats probably were elected because they presented themselves as not so different from the Republicans they replaced, they have at least shaken our president. While else was Rumsfeld let go so quickly? THAT is one positive effect I can see as a result of the election. Whether it remains positive depends on the actions of his replacement.
Change in an institution never comes about quickly. Even if a second “American” revolution were to occur to depose Bush, the odds are good that the replacements would be little different in their exercise of power. On this point I think TX and I would agree. Looking at the current loss of freedoms, one can imagine that if it all happened in a week people would be up in arms, but because it happened over time they are much more complacent about it.
However, I agree with Pedro that when things are not working well, some change IS good because it offers the potential that the change will be good. And yes, I acknowledge that it also raises the possibility that the change will be bad. If so… change again.
I guess I have a couple questions for TX. What would have to happen, say within the next week or so, that would constitute a significant improvement in the United States? Secondly, how realistic is it?
Tell me which is worse, the knowledge that those in power are doing evil, or the illusion of change which gives those same persons in power carte blanche to continue doing evil?
It seems that there is an assumption which is identical to the conclusion that in fact there was a change, with the corallary that ANY change is necessarily good change.
There is not one lick of difference between the Repugnicans or the demoncrats. They are both bound and determined to increase the power of the state, to line their own pockets, and to enjoy the power that they have seized from innocents. Both groups support aggression abroad. Both groups support the taking of property, more specifically the abolition of private property. Neither will stand up for any protection of the individual from the powers that be.
So Pedro, if nothing had changed, as nothing did change, there would be no change…
Jim,
The Rummy situation was a done deal before the election. The timing was only put off so as to not weaken the repugnicans facade. The fact that it happened immediately actually goes to show that it was in fact a done deal since such changes cannot and are not made that as quickly as would have been necessary were it causally related to the election. The changes of tactics (so they are euphamistically called) in Iraq and dealing with Iraq began before the elections, and losing Rummy was just part of this effort to appease the military (since us innocent civillians don’t matter).
As for any change being good, there are at least two major problems with this: 1. It assumes in this contect that no change is change. Obviously this violates the law of non-contradiction. 2. It also assumes that changing (now) is the best option. Surely we can agree that change for change’s sake is at best pointless, and given the fact that positive change is overwhelming overshadowed by the probability for negative change, it is a fool’s bet, which is merely a colloquial way of saying that the conclusion is not supported by the premises.
As for your questions, I believe that the second one is loaded based upon the first. How realistic is dramatic change in one week in the political situation in the US? Not very. So this does not reflect on any objective standards for positive change, but on any change at all. It shows a problem with the question (in this case the time period amongst other things) not with any possible answers. As to the first, I honestly believe that the answer has been quite clear: an increase in freedom. Now, as to what counts as significant, perhaps we can differ, but going back to the objective standards we can easily simply look to see where laws have been removed, where freedom has gained and coercion decreased. However since that has not happened in our lifetimes, we must of course not shy away from pointing out that coercion is still gaining at the expense of the individual.
When we revel in the new drapes in some office in DC as real change, we have abandoned reason and evidence. CHanging the drapes, or changing the color of tie worn does not change the degree of coercion under which innocents in the US must suffer. When we embrace the illusion of change, especially the illusion of positive change, we are simply granting more power and more confidence to those who are reducing our liberty, taking our property, and selling our lives without bothering to ask us.
Politics are something I’ve always tried to stay away from. Because of things like this.
Our freedoms are being taken away from us. The government has the right to knock down your door and take everything you own, now.
Bullshit.
They always have had that right. Since day 1, when America declared independance, anybody who’s been suspected of treason was subject to the same. The government has always had rights beyond rights. (And not just in America) None of what’s been concidered “legal” has been different from what’s happened. They can take your horses and rape your children and sell them all of to be slaves in ethiopiasia.
I don’t vote… at all. WHY would I? Every person, or law, to vote for is just more of the same bullshit. Do you want THIS business to get rich off of you, or THAT business?
Of course, I’m surrounded by politics, just by waking up makes me observe it. So, I can observe that the fact that mostly democratic people were voted in this mid term only means that the american people are sick of the republican rule we’ve had. In otherwords, we want change, in a bad way. Even republicans voted democratic this time… and probably will when it comes to the next presidential election.
For one we don’t want to be involved in any bullshit “war”.
The political discussion has probably been argued for centuries now and nothing has changed. The change will never happen unless you can convince greedy people in power, to no longer be greedy, and therefore give up thier power.
I need to repeat my first question again, TX. What would constitute good change? Be specific. I know you think it would be something that would increase freedom. I’ve got that. However, Kren has a point when saying
[quote post="167"]The change will never happen unless you can convince greedy people in power, to no longer be greedy, and therefore give up thier power.[/quote]
How do you truly counteract that? I am not asking this as a philosophical point. I am being practical. I want to know because I agree with you that more freedom is good, I just do not know what can be done.
Well, we disagree on this one. To me, they’re different degrees of evil.
And on this one as well. To say that there is no change at all, one must assume that they’re all part of something like a conspiracy; that they’re all part of a team, like different fingers of the same person. That they all agree on everything, and pretend not to. That they’re not actually individuals, so don’t have any personal interests or preferences whatsoever; that they simply want more power for politicians in general, instead of more power for themselves (meaning just them, not the others).
I don’t think that’s likely; I think that each of them genuinely wants power for themselves, more than they want to preserve “the machine”, the status quo, etc.. So they want to get (re-)elected. To an extent, that means pleasing the voters - or displeasing them less than their opponents do. Like I said in another post, I don’t think they do any good (or any less evil) out of the goodness of their hearts, but simply because they want to remain in power. We may say that Dems and Reps are the same, but an individual Dem or Rep wants to stay in power; he won’t be happy if he loses his seat.
Historically (and even just in recent history, say, after 1990), Democrats tend to be less theocratic, less authoritarian, less jingoistic, and the economy (yes, even the *world* economy) tends to be noticeably better. Good? No. Less evil.
As for me, I feel that one important part of the election results has been overlooked. The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are now, for the first time in several years, different parties. While this fact is no guarantee that reasonable government will result, it does mean more moderate positions and compromises will occur. For selfish reasons, each party tends to pick opposite sides of every issue to maintain support, and moderate action is much easier to attain in a split environment than a single-party environment. Also, government moves slower with compromises needed for anything to happen, and as I firmly believe that that government which is best, governs the least, this fact makes me happy. “Democracy” is the illusion that a (economically speaking) free market can be created among hundreds of millions of people and result in a (socially speaking) free society, despite regulations on information, participation, finances, thought, and a host of other areas. Kren said it, TX implied it: those with power have power because they lust for it; give them some, they will take more. After 275 years of giving those in power just a bit more with every law passed, it should now be obvious they have slowly gotten far too much. This site may very well pop up on some NSA guy’s screen, and you might be investgated just for reading this… scary how you’re not allowed to think these days.
[quote comment="4581"]
I think that each of them genuinely wants power for themselves, more than they want to preserve “the machine”, the status quo, etc.. So they want to get (re-)elected. To an extent, that means pleasing the voters - or displeasing them less than their opponents do.[/quote]
How do voters know if their pleased? Taxes? The impact of laws on their life? What the media tells them? I’m inclined to think the most important aspect of voter approval is based on media portrayal and campaigning, both of which are highly motivated by money and power. Most people just don’t experience in the short term enough of the impact of the negative changes the government implements on their life. When Bush tells me he is making me safer by making me surrender my shampoo at the airport, I might accept it in the short term. But if I look back at the freedoms people had 50 years ago versus today, I get scared. (This is not to say progress hasn’t been made… the Civil Rights movement, for example, was a huge victory for humanity. But the loss of rights to the average individual is staggering.) Politicians feel the need to do things while in power. Otherwise, what good are they to those who elected them under the promise of a utopia to come? But every law they enact or regulation they mandate erodes our freedoms.
However, Pedro, I do agree that the Democrats have been the lesser of the two evils over the last 100 years. I think they seem more apt to take rights away from the privileged in deference to the less fortunate, which I personally feel better promotes the greater good.
Pedro,
I agree that there are degrees of evil but still point out that there is no difference in degree or type between the two faces of the one party in the US. As I have cited already repeatedly, both support the war OF terror, both actively seek to reduce freedom and increase governmental power, both adopt the exact same tactics and measures. This does not require belief in any grand conspiracy as you claim it must, it merely requires the ability and willingness to observe what actually has been and is the case without buying into the completely empty rhetoric.
The dems preach less, but are no less theocratic (the TYPE of religion may differ slightly but the degree is the same). As for the economy, there remains no difference at all. If you look to the very recent history you have Bush reaping the negative effects of Clinton’s disasterous economic policies, then introducing his own that he feels here in this second term. Clinton was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time such that he was granted credit for an economy which boomed DESPITE government interference, but there is no basis whatsoever for granting him (or any politician) credit for the positive economy.
As for being less jingoistic, I have no idea upon what this claim could be based. There is a perceived need in the US for all politicians to be the most jingoistic that they can, regardless of party. Probably this is left over from the red scare days..
Kren,
Governments have always assumed the powers you speak of, though no government can ever have any rights. That said, for a time some governments were limited in their power, including that of the US. As Pedro mentions there are degrees of evil such that the years following the founding of the US, the government was infinitely less evil than it is today.
We cannot expect a change in human, or politician, nature. What we can do is limit the amount of power available to those who seek it. This was the notion behind the founding of the US originally. They understood that standing armies will be used, that whatever power that any government has will be used, and that government will seek to increase the power. So the founders put barriers into place to slow this growth, and hoped that citizens would stand up to the government to prevent future growth. This worked to some degree, but unfortunately for those of us in the US as well as for those targeted by the US government, we live in a time of exponential growth in governmental power and the demolition of the last illusions of restraint on government. So since we cannot change the nature of humanity, we simply stop consolidating power such that these degrees of harm are not available to any individual who seeks power. By refusing to allow government the illusion of legitimacy we curtail the consolidation of power. One way is the path that you have chosen, for which I highly commend you, that of refusing to vote. Voting is a sham at best, but the price we pay as individuals is great. We are selling our autonomy, selling our integrity, for nothing. We are granting to those in power the illusion of legitimacy which simply bolsters their confidence that they can do anything that they want. By refusing to vote, we refuse to grant them this legitimacy. Though I have not seen the numbers for the last election, it is usually the case that any given politician is elected by less than 5% of the people he assumes the role of ruling over. By reminding him/her of this, and reminding our neighbors of this, we can reduce their power, and reassert our own.
I believe that is the first part of the answer to Jim’s question. For myself I am actively getting out the word that voting is not merely ineffective but is evil as well since it assumes that the voter has not only the ability to abdicate responsibility for his own life, but has the right to abdicate all rights of his neighbor as well. To put it graphically, voting is hiring a thug with your neighbor’s money to violate your neighbor’s wife. Nothing about it is justified, and nothing about it is practical. In voting one hopes that others will be the ones getting screwed, and that somehow this will help the voter. Of coruse it never works this way, especially since all ovters are engaging in the same behavior.
As for specific practical changes, off the top of my head here are the general approaches:
1. Lesser evil approach: One continues to vote, but votes strictly libertarian (small “l” not necessarily capital “L.”) So that on small scales, such as locally, there is a reduction in regulations etc. I believe this doomed to fail because it assumes that there is a fundamental difference in human nature, still it is a possibility and there have been some small gains made using this approach. For instance the office of orange inspector in LUbbock, Texas (I believe that is where it was) was eliminated by a libertarian who ran on the platform of eliminating the job. His one official act was to eliminate the job and he donated his 1 day salary to charity. Small improvement, though of course the taxes that were taken from the innocent citizens were not reduced to reflect this lessened expense…
2. Active violent revolution. This can certainly work, but is hard to manage, hard to get going, and of course may require actions which are themselves unacceptable to those of us who embrace peace. Furhtermore since this creates a vaccuum, there is a better than average chance that this will result in another seizing power, or in the bastardization of the revolutionaries. Still, this did work for quite some time in the US (Pretty well until Lincoln showed up and screwed the pooch by changing the view of the US from being a loose affiliation of independent States, to one strong Federal power which dictated how the states, now merely indicating territory not independence.
3. Take back the language. This is the slower, but most effective approach in my opinion. It is part of what made the US revolution effective at the time, and elements of it have been used throughout time to affect change. What this means is that we start examining the substance of matters, and not getting caught up in the empty rhetoric. So as I have been arguing in this thread, we do not buy into this illusion that there is any difference at all between the demoncrats and the repugnicans. We do not call the illusion of lesser evils by the name of “good” or “improvement.” We remind folks what freedom really is, what the very real possibilities are, and what they are losing by maintaining the status quo. For instance in the US you are paid under half what you think you are paid, with the remainder going to the government. Most folks do not realize or believe this until you go through the numbers with them. But this is not the whole story, you are paid even less than that, for the employer is actually paying you more than you think as not only are you paying the federal taxes directly but he is forced by law to hide a portion of the taxes to the feds that you must pay. Money that is in fact part of his costs to employ you. Those who are self-employed know this fact all too well..
By changing minds, by engaging minds, we can cause fear in those who have assumed power over us. They realize that even though they have all of the weaponry, and have slick propagandaists, they can be toppled as many governments have in the past, by honest citizens who realize what is being done to them. This is not merely the philosophical answer, it is the practical one as seen by examining changes in governments throughout history. Either you have sufficient brute force or you change the minds of those being subjected to the government. The first will not be allowed to exist, and at least at this time is easily defeated by the use of the weaponry of government, but the latter is not easily stopped nor its weapons removed (though the use of government schooling has been more than a little effective in removing the abilities to think that are so vital to change…)
TX -
Yours words are once again quite thought provoking. I will have to spend some time considering them. I am just curious though, are there areas of life you think government involvement can be justified? I feel crime prevention and punishment is essential, and education, health care, and public works are also extremely important. However, I also feel government should strive to be as small as possible, and that taxes should be used frugally. Where do you draw (or recognize as possibly legitimate) the lines between the influence government should possess over individuals and the rights conferred to individuals by the idea of freedom?
Shawn,
Ask yourself what have been the consequences of governmental interference in the areas you mention.
“Crime” prevention. They create artificial “crimes” so as to increase the ability of officers to abuse citizens. I am speaking of course of those things which are illegal but are not crimes in the original meaning of the word, that is to say that there is no harm to others. Prostitution, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc are all examples of illegal non-crimes, but then we also have a host of others which most folks never thing about, things like building on your own home (adding a deck or adding a garden) which cannot be done legally without permits etc.
As for punishment, we clearly disagree here. While the government is great at punishment, they fail miserably at JUSTICE. Sure we are all punished, those who are unfortunate enough to fall victim to the CRIMINAL “justice” system doubly so. The US imprisons more people for non-crimes than all other nations on real crime. So what is the purpose of this punishment? Vengence is not justice, nor should we seek it to be.
Education? Well the literacy rate is LOWER since government involvement, and the quantity and quality of what is learned in government schools is ever decreasing. GOvernment schools are a dismal failure without ANY redeeming qualities whatsoever. Few of the teachers in government schools today would have been considered learned at all a centure ago. Government has proved itself incapable of educating, which of course should be no surprise since an educated populace is a direct threat to power.
Health Care? What has been the result of governments getting involved in medicine around the world? Lower quality, lower availability, and reduced research. Remember that the promises of socialized medicine NEVER materialize..
“Public works” No idea what is supposed to fall under this heading, so I cannot comment specifically.
If there is any possibility of any chance of any justification for any government existence much less intereference then it must lay in preventing harm to innocents *WITHOUT being a cause of harm to innocents!* Since taxatino is by its very nature necessarily theft, it is necessarily a rather obvious and rather severe harm to innocents. So where does that leave the government?
Ask yourself what gives anyone at all the right to control the life, property, and liberty of any other. If you can find something which allows any other individual greater claim on your life, your time, your property, and your liberty, then you have the basis for government. Short of that you have bald faced coercion without the hint of justification. Government is not some special entity which gets to ignore the nature of the universe, so what is good for the goose is good for the gander, which is simply to say that in judging governemnt we ought not abandon reason or judge government by some different standard.
[quote post="167"]“Crime” prevention. They create artificial “crimes” so as to increase the ability of officers to abuse citizens. I am speaking of course of those things which are illegal but are not crimes in the original meaning of the word, that is to say that there is no harm to others. Prostitution, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc are all examples of illegal non-crimes, but then we also have a host of others which most folks never thing about, things like building on your own home (adding a deck or adding a garden) which cannot be done legally without permits etc.[/quote]
For a change :), I agree 100% about this one. Reminds me of this Atlas Shrugged quote. When there aren’t enough “criminals”, the government makes them.
I too agree with a lot of what TX said. As to the crime question, I perhaps should have been more concrete in what I meant. I agree that the government often creates arbitrary laws which make crimes out of what should be personal decisions, but some cases, like murder and theft, clearly should be prevented or punished if possible. In these cases, I think a vigilante style of justice, where you deal personally with wrongs that have been done to you, would be too destabilizing to society. How some form of prevention or punishment is implemented is a separate question. I agree that the current system is broken, but punishments have not always been handled this way, as prisons in the way we use them now are a 19th century invention. Prisons nowadays encourage more crime from those incarcerated than they prevent. Nonetheless, I think some form of deterrent to crime is needed. How to deter people from wronging others is actually a major source of the invention of religion, and as religion slowly becomes less relevant, it needs to be replaced. I think the jury system outlined long ago is an attempt at removing the power of punishment from the government and religion, but juries have become almost irrelevant in the modern system, and ultimately they still place power over others lives in the hands of third parties. So, what I meant was more how should actual crimes be prevented and/or punished, beyond vigilantism, if possible? Can justice be provided by any type of government, or is it up to individuals or small groups to implement it?
I also understand your points about the other topics TX made. My question is, though, with so many people in the world, can effective education and health care be spread to the underprivileged with a purely capitalist system? While public education and health care may compare very poorly, are they better than nothing? I know it is not fair to take from those who can live better to those who can’t, but it promotes the greater good to do so. I see the argument might be made that if we eliminate these programs and others like welfare, the underprivileged will have to learn to compete independently or perish. But the moral implications of this argument are hard to swallow, and getting our society to that point would be extremely difficult. These are just my thoughts, though, and I have trouble personally accepting the anarchy represented by the lack of these programs.
By public works, I meant things like the New Deal, which was another take-from-the-rich/defer-debt-to-our-children program that helped the extremely impoverished come out of the Depression. Basically programs where the government spends lots of some citizen’s money, those who it deems “can afford it, and don’t have the political power to stop us from taking it”, to give it to other citizens. The politics associated with these policies are obviously corrupt, and I don’t know if they are justified. But the same basic arguments about public spending in general, like education or health care, apply to what I meant here. I was just looking for some opinions about these topics, and thanks for giving them, with any further thoughts appreciated.
Shawn,
Beware falling into the politicians empty rhetoric trap. We always hear that without government control over X (Insert whatever area of our life the politician wants to control) the benefits of X will not exist. Or to put it another way the choice is presented as either government control over education, health care, etc. or neither of these will exist at all.
This is classic false dichotomy. The time in which the US had the highest level of literacy was PRIOR to government seizing control of education. This clearly stands as a counter-example to the false dichotomy of either the government “provides” “education” else no education exists. Furthermore, since government (or more accurately those in government) have a negative interest in education (since an educated populace is a direct threat to power) there is a disincentive for government to actually educate. Instead what we get is what we have now: indoctrination without education. Kids are not taught HOW to think, they are told WHAT to think.
On the other side of things, parents and kids both have great motivation for education since it will be far more clear that one must have a certain level of education, real education not merely certification, in order to get ahead. Even today parents are still the ones who are most likely to teach a child to read. The state does not force this on them (yet) but they do it anyway.
As for justice, my first question would be since we know that the government approach is a dismal failure, why would we want to cling to it? Is taking the very same action again and again but expecting a different result not the very definition of irrationality? Secondly I would point out that there is a great deal of literature on the alternatives to the unjust governmental approach to crime, including but certainly not limited to Robert Nozick’s description of protection agencies, or other’s notions of insurance companies.
On welfare, all of the available evidence shows that welfare is also a dismal failure. MORE people are confined to welfare by welfare, not fewer. Welfare provides just enough to provide a disincentive to change. But the fact that as a practical matter it is a failure is not the only problem with it, nor with the arguments for it. Where does the funding come from for this program? Is that money donated voluntarily, or is it stolen from others? If it is given voluntarily, then there is necessarily no need for governemnt to take a huge chunk of this money for itself or even to be involved. If it is stolen, then of course it is necessarily not justified or justifiable. Again we see the use of a false dichotomy here in assuming that all poor folks will be condemned if government is not there to “rescue” them by keeping them down. As taxation increases, charity and a willingness to give goes down. Not only do we each have far less to give, but since government is claiming to take care of everything, and claims that it is the only possible solution, we are less inclined to give to practical charities that work. Return the other half of our income, time, and lives back to us and you will find that people will once again give to others more freely.
Yet, there are still other factors to consider. With all of the governmental regulations charities are strictily controlled so as to prevent them from doing the most good that they can do. These regulations also dramatically increase the costs of basic foodstuffs such that a loaf of bread that ought to cost a quarter (or less) now costs us $2. That may not be much of a problem for the middle class, but for those who are the poorest, they suffer the most from these sorts of unnecessary increases of costs, even when those increases are done in the name of the poor! These are great examples of Orwellian doublespeak… Evil in the name of good is still evil.
The moral implications are not hard to swallow at all. You have a choice between actively hurting the poorest, along with everyone else, or choosing to cease such behavior and VOLUNTARILY choose to help others wherever and however you deem best. You have a choice between known, direct, intentional harms, and refraining from those. The choice is clearly between acting immorally by supporting these governmental actions, and choosing to act morally by opposing them. REmember nothing prevents us from helping others when government stops being a barrier.
The New Deal EXTENDED the depression, a depression which was caused by government interference in the first place via protectionism, tarrifs, and the like. By destroying the only source of real jobs, real investment, and real improvement Roosevelt created a situation where instead of having a normal recovery which would have turned into a real boom, millions of folks suffered in dire poverty on the handouts and demeaning policies/politics of one who merely sought to dramatically increase the power of goverment. Remember the marxist creed which was of course the very basis for the “new deal:” From each according to his wealth, to a fat assed bureaucrate, to mere pennies to someone else..
One of the great benefits of liberty is that if people really do want X, be it a library, a school, a hospital, or whatever “public work” we wish to name, it WILL get built. Because where there is desire there is oppotunity. Enough people are smart enough to turn that opportunity into a living. The government approach makes many false assumptions about humanity: 1. People are stupid 1a. Politicians are brilliant. 2. People are evil 2a Politicians are angels. 3. People cannot do for themselves. 3a. Politicians can do for everyone.
You see the inherent problem, well one of them? There are contradictory beliefs/premises. Though they only barely meet the criteria for being human, politicians are indeed human. Yet they assume that humans are not able, willing, or smart enough to know how to run their own lives. Somehow magically politicians are supposed to be separated as if they were different beings simply because they seek power. IF people are too stupid and incapable of running their own lives, then no person should be allowed to run anyone’s life. If on the other hand people are smart enough and capable enough to run their own life, then there is no need for the politicians to run our lives for us..