OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
  This would also include such activities as providing for universal education, scientific research, medical assistance for the poor, etc.

Gotta ask why we now think these are the responsibility of government??? Historically it hasn't been. Isn't that nothing more than forced charity???

Besides when government gets involved then you get stuff like government dictating what can and cannot be taught. What medical attention you will and will not get. Most importantly you get what we have now; government giving companies, that have billions in annual profit, money in an attempt to create a market. If the market is valuable, then it would suit the company to invest in it privately.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
sounds like i need to go into a bit more depth. i'm not arguing for no government, nor am i suggesting that it must be all government or no government. obviously there has to be a mix somewhere between the two, which accounts for all of the various systems we've seen throughout history. though it would take time for america to evolve into a truly just society (i.e. every human being having all the same rights), i feel that the american model was the right mix. the ideals of its founding were a philosophical awakening that kicked off our western perceptions of what government should be. but in the time sense, we've drifted a long way from its fundamental principals.

a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, has inevitably turned into a strong, centralized government that rules over the people. and the founding fathers knew that this was the natural order of government, which is why the entire bill of rights is meant to protect the people FROM the government, AND is the reason they decentralized the power structure of the u.s.a.  it's the classic federalist v. nationalist debate, and we've gone from a predominantly federalist founding, to a strong, burdensome nationalist state.

why does this matter? because the larger and more powerful the government, the more corruption and consolidation of power you will find; and the further removed it will be from its subjects. government is self-serving. if it can get away with it, a government will increase its authority, its jurisdiction, its revenues, its agencies, its staff, and its overall scope, every time. that's what government is about; governing. look up governmentalism.

i mean let's just look at the word government. taking away our modern interpretation of the word as this big thing that runs the country, it is simply the noun form of the word govern. govern~ment. etymologically speaking, it means "the act of governing or ruling." in a legal sense, it means "the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

it's very function is to govern, so naturally it's going to want to govern more and more. sure it may provide services, but it's purpose is to govern; otherwise it would be called the servicement instead. and with each new service, comes another layer of governing. another layer of "direction or control." also comes another agency to monitor and oversee, and of course the money for all these services has to come from somewhere; i.e. the taxpayers. so in essence, we're paying more to be controlled or "directed" more. it's a self-feeding loop.

anyway, in closing, i agree with some of your points, but not the third. and if i were king of america, here's the system i would enact.

the federal government, itself, only has the following obligations. to provide for the common defense (similar to point one), to guarantee the constitutional rights of those in its boundries; a.k.a. the federal justice system (like point two), to mediate any interstate quarrels, and to maintain a uniformed monetary system. that's it. the implementation of social programs, building of infrastructure, education, and all that, should be left to the states, who cannot exceed the limitations placed on the federal government in the constitution. doing so would drastically lessen the federal tax burden, and states would be free to make their own revenues, compete with each other to draw in new residents and businesses, and more importantly, give americans the ability to choose under what type of system they want to live. do you want a state with great social services but high taxes, or do you want a state with less generous entitlements, but lower taxes?

but it'll never happen. at least not without a total restructuring of america, which would only come after a tragic fall.


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George washington

Sounds like someone has been reading anarchist material....oh have you have changed over the last few years.

Anyway, I gotta disagree with you on one point. I believe it is the Federal government's responsibility to maintain roadways. One of our greatest achievements was our Federal Interstates. As dependent as we are on roadway freight, we can't let the lesser budgets of the states dictate quality and scope of our major roadways.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
  This would also include such activities as providing for universal education, scientific research, medical assistance for the poor, etc.

Gotta ask why we now think these are the responsibility of government??? Historically it hasn't been. Isn't that nothing more than forced charity???

Besides when government gets involved then you get stuff like government dictating what can and cannot be taught. What medical attention you will and will not get. Most importantly you get what we have now; government giving companies, that have billions in annual profit, money in an attempt to create a market. If the market is valuable, then it would suit the company to invest in it privately.

Whats wrong with the idea of public education?  While there have been many cases where politics have gotten in the way of proper curriculum *Texas*, this is still far better than having an uneducated public.  If education was left exclusively to private companies most Americans wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school.   The literacy rate would be very low and we would never have developed beyond a third world nation.

Much scientific research is paid for with government grants (NSF is the big name source, however different state and federal agencies offer grants to do studies that meet their needs).  Some private scholarships exist, however the majority of these are for small sums of money and are prized more for prestige than their monetary value.  If the only source of funds were private entities our understanding of geologic processes likely wouldn't extend far beyond natural resources.  Our understanding of geologic hazards (earth quakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, sink hole collapse, landslides, etc) would be rather primitive and likely result in many more casualties from such occurrences each year.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
sounds like i need to go into a bit more depth. i'm not arguing for no government, nor am i suggesting that it must be all government or no government. obviously there has to be a mix somewhere between the two, which accounts for all of the various systems we've seen throughout history. though it would take time for america to evolve into a truly just society (i.e. every human being having all the same rights), i feel that the american model was the right mix. the ideals of its founding were a philosophical awakening that kicked off our western perceptions of what government should be. but in the time sense, we've drifted a long way from its fundamental principals.

a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, has inevitably turned into a strong, centralized government that rules over the people. and the founding fathers knew that this was the natural order of government, which is why the entire bill of rights is meant to protect the people FROM the government, AND is the reason they decentralized the power structure of the u.s.a.  it's the classic federalist v. nationalist debate, and we've gone from a predominantly federalist founding, to a strong, burdensome nationalist state.

why does this matter? because the larger and more powerful the government, the more corruption and consolidation of power you will find; and the further removed it will be from its subjects. government is self-serving. if it can get away with it, a government will increase its authority, its jurisdiction, its revenues, its agencies, its staff, and its overall scope, every time. that's what government is about; governing. look up governmentalism.

i mean let's just look at the word government. taking away our modern interpretation of the word as this big thing that runs the country, it is simply the noun form of the word govern. govern~ment. etymologically speaking, it means "the act of governing or ruling." in a legal sense, it means "the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

it's very function is to govern, so naturally it's going to want to govern more and more. sure it may provide services, but it's purpose is to govern; otherwise it would be called the servicement instead. and with each new service, comes another layer of governing. another layer of "direction or control." also comes another agency to monitor and oversee, and of course the money for all these services has to come from somewhere; i.e. the taxpayers. so in essence, we're paying more to be controlled or "directed" more. it's a self-feeding loop.

anyway, in closing, i agree with some of your points, but not the third. and if i were king of america, here's the system i would enact.

the federal government, itself, only has the following obligations. to provide for the common defense (similar to point one), to guarantee the constitutional rights of those in its boundries; a.k.a. the federal justice system (like point two), to mediate any interstate quarrels, and to maintain a uniformed monetary system. that's it. the implementation of social programs, building of infrastructure, education, and all that, should be left to the states, who cannot exceed the limitations placed on the federal government in the constitution. doing so would drastically lessen the federal tax burden, and states would be free to make their own revenues, compete with each other to draw in new residents and businesses, and more importantly, give americans the ability to choose under what type of system they want to live. do you want a state with great social services but high taxes, or do you want a state with less generous entitlements, but lower taxes?

but it'll never happen. at least not without a total restructuring of america, which would only come after a tragic fall.


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George washington

Sounds like someone has been reading anarchist material....oh have you have changed over the last few years.

Anyway, I gotta disagree with you on one point. I believe it is the Federal government's responsibility to maintain roadways. One of our greatest achievements was our Federal Interstates. As dependent as we are on roadway freight, we can't let the lesser budgets of the states dictate quality and scope of our major roadways.

even you with the anarchist stuff? you of all people should know the difference between anarchism and limited government, libertarian, federalism, as our country was founded.

and sure, the federal government can maintain the interstates, as they are a federal highway. but what about u.s. 1, u.s. 90, and all the other bygone u.s. highways?

OFFLINE

the problem with public education is that it's a monopoly. there's very little accountability for performance, money is thrown at every problem, and the results have been abysmal. not that i have a problem with there being a public education system, but the department of ed. needs to go. again, let states determine curriculum. why is it that the federal government can be trusted with such decisions, but state governments can't? and obviously we need major reforms. i mean my wife works in education, and democrat ideology is entrenched in our schools more than anywhere else.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i hate  these load of bull tests, because not only are the questions leading, but they also deal in absolutes. the world is a bit more nuanced than that.

anyway, i'm right in the middle on the authoritarian/libertarian scale, and two boxes to the right economically. but i question the accuracy of these things.

Yeah, a lot of the questions there are very black-and-white, a lot of the answers you're just picking the one that is least wrong as opposed to the one that suits best. There's a lot of ones where it's "well, given certain circumstances the answer would be X but Y in others". They should have an "it depends" or "neutral/no comment" option to make it fairer.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


so miles, have i at least made any progress with you over the years, trying to get you to come around to my way of thinking on left v. right, or "lib v. con?" because i just can't get on board with the european model. i mean what does it matter if a government is fascist or communist, if the result of repressive regime is the same? it is statism that is the enemy of freedom loving people. the state has very important roles to fill in a free society, yet time, after time, after time nations take it too far, and when they do, people suffer. liberty suffers.

Heh, it's pretty much "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus" really isn't it? :-P

Well, I have mellowed a bit in the last few years from having all the great conversations in here, and to be honest a lot of my "controversial" posts are pretty much done with tongue firmly in cheek, to stir up the conversation. I don't like the idea of a big all-encompassing "big brother" government any more than you do, the main difference of opinion is the definition of "limited" in "limited government". Your opinion, pithily paraphrased, seems to be that the government is there to keep the borders safe and the power and water flowing, and apart from that it should step the hell back and let the individual  states and market forces sort everything else out. Mine is more that the government is there to provide for, within limits,  the wellbeing and security of the people of the country, and to protect the people from the excesses of unrestricted market forces and of each other.

What normally gets my back up in here is the broad generalizations that come out occasionally that "european = socialist" and "socialism of any sort = bad and nasty", that there's no degrees of socialism/liberalism, it's all just a "softly softly" approach to bring about the One-Party State, and that anyone who doesn't agree with the american definition of limited government and unrestricted capitalism is a "god-darned flag-waving red". Once I see those, I generally start throwing out some sweeping generalizations myself to even things up (like those ones actually) :-P

I'll continue this later, but I have to go home from work now :-P    
  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


Whats wrong with the idea of public education?  While there have been many cases where politics have gotten in the way of proper curriculum *Texas*, this is still far better than having an uneducated public.  If education was left exclusively to private companies most Americans wouldn't be able to afford to send their children to school.   The literacy rate would be very low and we would never have developed beyond a third world nation.

Much scientific research is paid for with government grants (NSF is the big name source, however different state and federal agencies offer grants to do studies that meet their needs).  Some private scholarships exist, however the majority of these are for small sums of money and are prized more for prestige than their monetary value.  If the only source of funds were private entities our understanding of geologic processes likely wouldn't extend far beyond natural resources.  Our understanding of geologic hazards (earth quakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, sink hole collapse, landslides, etc) would be rather primitive and likely result in many more casualties from such occurrences each year.

Government has dropped the ball on education. Most kids these days aren't even getting one (and you know Cali's politics has gotten in the way their fair share of times....as has most governments actually). Time for something new. NYC is doing good community based education.  

I would be for governmental grants as long as the end result is not intended to be for sale. Much of it actually falls into what I believe is the governments responsibility. Watershed/erosion research, earthquake, space exploration, etc. are all types of stuff I don't mind my tax dollars going to. At least we get results.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


even you with the anarchist stuff? you of all people should know the difference between anarchism and limited government, libertarian, federalism, as our country was founded.

and sure, the federal government can maintain the interstates, as they are a federal highway. but what about u.s. 1, u.s. 90, and all the other bygone u.s. highways?

You know I am just messin with you, but remember.....libertarian ideas draw strongly from anarchist ideas. In fact the two words used to be synonyms.

If the highway is of  historic importance (i.e. Route 66, the PCH, Natchez Trace, etc.) I got no problem with the federal government keeping it up.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


even you with the anarchist stuff? you of all people should know the difference between anarchism and limited government, libertarian, federalism, as our country was founded.

and sure, the federal government can maintain the interstates, as they are a federal highway. but what about u.s. 1, u.s. 90, and all the other bygone u.s. highways?

You know I am just messin with you, but remember.....libertarian ideas draw strongly from anarchist ideas. In fact the two words used to be synonyms.

If the highway is of  historic importance (i.e. Route 66, the PCH, Natchez Trace, etc.) I got no problem with the federal government keeping it up.

yeah i know. and only reason i said the interstates is because, well the federal government built them, so it kind of seems wrong to then dump all of the financial burden on the states.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


so miles, have i at least made any progress with you over the years, trying to get you to come around to my way of thinking on left v. right, or "lib v. con?" because i just can't get on board with the european model. i mean what does it matter if a government is fascist or communist, if the result of repressive regime is the same? it is statism that is the enemy of freedom loving people. the state has very important roles to fill in a free society, yet time, after time, after time nations take it too far, and when they do, people suffer. liberty suffers.

Heh, it's pretty much "Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus" really isn't it? :-P

Well, I have mellowed a bit in the last few years from having all the great conversations in here, and to be honest a lot of my "controversial" posts are pretty much done with tongue firmly in cheek, to stir up the conversation. I don't like the idea of a big all-encompassing "big brother" government any more than you do, the main difference of opinion is the definition of "limited" in "limited government". Your opinion, pithily paraphrased, seems to be that the government is there to keep the borders safe and the power and water flowing, and apart from that it should step the hell back and let the individual  states and market forces sort everything else out. Mine is more that the government is there to provide for, within limits,  the wellbeing and security of the people of the country, and to protect the people from the excesses of unrestricted market forces and of each other.

What normally gets my back up in here is the broad generalizations that come out occasionally that "european = socialist" and "socialism of any sort = bad and nasty", that there's no degrees of socialism/liberalism, it's all just a "softly softly" approach to bring about the One-Party State, and that anyone who doesn't agree with the american definition of limited government and unrestricted capitalism is a "god-darned flag-waving red". Once I see those, I generally start throwing out some sweeping generalizations myself to even things up (like those ones actually) :-P

I'll continue this later, but I have to go home from work now :-P    
  

well of course it comes down to interpretation, because we're not talking about absolutes, i.e. all gov vs. no gov. and i'm all for the government providing whatever services it practically can. the IRS drew in more than $2 trillion in revenues last year, and we still wound up with a $1.5 trillion deficit. for one year. now, if a government can't subsist off of $2 trillion annually, then it has its fingers in too many pots. and the liberals want even MORE funding and programs than we have now. this highlights a government's addiction to itself. and if our country collapses under the burden of such debt then all those programs won't be helping anyone, will they?