MP War on Government
"Here's the deal: Virtually ALL Republicans concede the need for government, It is SO much better than who-has-the-biggest-gun anarchy.
The problem comes with:
It is generally inefficient and wasteful--whether we are talking entitlements or military
It is WAY too subject to cronyism--both Dem & Repub.
It is VERY MUCH PRONE to curtailing liberties. Some may be liberties you don't than other people ought to have--but liberties that for the most part should not matter to you. (Smoking pot, deciding who to bake a cake for, who to marry, how many and what type of guns I may own, ad infinitum.
Hence the need to keep it small and watch it VERY closely.
It just drives me nuts that so many people think 'the government is my friend.' It is NOT." Dennis
"The problem with Dennis's republicans is that they simply cannot fathom the fact that there are different types of government, not just "government". Therefore this is a little more than a stereotype of government rather than an actual system that actually exists. The entire mentality is based on the bizarre notion that a Nazi government and a liberal democracy share the exact same characteristics because they're both governments. Many republicans actually don't believe in democratic governments, and on a basic level don't really believe they live in a democracy, they'll even tell you once and while this is a "republic" as if there's a difference. Liberal democracies are NOT prone to curtailing liberties, they have been expanding those liberties for 200+ years. The people most prone to curtailing liberties in this country are republicans. All this talk about "liberty" is rarely more than a thinly veiled attempt to curtail the liberties of others and apply authoritarian policies.
The rejection of liberal democracy leads republicans into a bizarre zero-sum notion of "liberty" wherein liberty cannot be expanded to someone without taking it away from others. In essence, republicans have no coherent concept of "liberty" much the same way fundamentalists have no coherent concept of religion. With a rational concepts of democracy and liberty you're never going to get coherent concepts of government.
Again, any notion of government based on size is simply incoherent. In liberal democracies governments are as big as they need to be in order to perform the functions citizens want them to perform. Those functions are determined by voters and elected representatives. Whenever you try to talk to proponents of small government about what you want or don't want the government to actually do they simply start whining about taxes and that's as far as it goes. Small government proponents have never been able to point a functioning example of their model and every nation on the planet with an affluent population that enjoy substantial personal liberties has a "large" government. Somalia is not the land of freedom and prosperity some would have you believe.
Models of government based on "size" can't even tell us how they actually measure the "size" of a government, it's an incoherent principle pretending to be a measurement of some kind.
Now by "republican" I'm not talking about everyone who votes republican, I'm talking about the Party leaders and those who support them." Paul
I always love your Somalia side note. I will give the best example of a country that thrived and maintained law and order when governmental costs were less.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
Now it is true that people had to take personal responsibility for getting an education, getting a job, buying insurance, saving for a rainy day, saving for retirement, etc. And if they didn't or things went bad they would need to ask for charity. And the charities could then judge their lifestyle to determine if they were truly unfortunate or if their pain was self induced.
Whereas now the government forces us all to pay much higher taxes in order to ensure the irresponsible, lazy and/or unlucky will receive money, healthcare, food, etc and not be reliant on the charity of others.
If you doubt this. Please try to explain to the govt that you feel you should have the freedom to not pay 15+% for FICA because you want the freedom to invest it elsewhere." G2A
3 comments:
From MP.
"If your definition of freedom is government spending as a percentage of GDP, you're missing the point. The Founding Fathers weren't upset with Britain because they allowed their spending to cross some arbitrary threshold.
Sure, government spending was lower in 1900 than it was today. But, then again, women couldn't vote. Non-whites faced rampant government (and private) discrimination. Child labor was rampant until the Great Depression. Member of the LGBT community? Good luck trying to live your life openly. If you couldn't find charity to help you in times of trouble, you died. (And many did!)
We're far more free today than we were back then." Sean
"Remember the Nolan diagrams. There are 2 aspects to freedom.
Nolan Chart
I do agree that many people correctly have more personal freedoms. Of course often that comes at the loss of some one else's freedom. Be the Gay Couple being free to Marry and the Christian Florist forced to serve them against his beliefs. People being free to buy assault weapons and people being killed. People being free to walk away from their mortgages with little pain, and all of us paying more because of it.
On the economic axis there is no doubt that we have moved Left. As I noted, we are all forced to fund the "government charities" whether we agree with them or not. And if single payer healthcare is ever passed, then we will lose our choice regarding that also.
Regarding the Founding Fathers... Remember that rallying cry... No more taxation without representation. I think you underestimate how important the paying too much and getting too little factored into the revolution." G2A
From MP
"Narrow View. Are you "more free" if we let you bleed out on the sidewalk because you don't have health insurance? Your taxes help to ensure your freedom in that case -- and many others." Sean
"Personal Responsibility. Freedom comes with a Personal Responsibility as noted above.
I am free to waste the years during which society is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for my K-12 education
I am free to have more babies than I can afford to care for and raise them questionably.
I am free to not work too hard and avoid the cost of carrying health insurance.
Now if I make these free choices and get injured. Who should pay for the consequences of my poor choices / actions?
Why are other citizens forced to fund accounts that are used to pay for my choices?
Which of course depletes their savings an reduces their number of free choices...
To me increased freedom would be if people gave to charity of their free will. And the charities helped the unfortunate few." G2A
When I think of waste, I think of how Mitt Romney's private sector job paid him millions of dollars in wages despite the fact that he hadn't shown up for work in years.
--Hiram
Post a Comment