I know I'm uncompromising, but there are certain things where I find it illogical for the government to intervene more. "They do NOT reduce the size, cost or influence of the Federal government" is the very problem. Each new program has increased spending (NCLB is more than what the states were spending themselves) for questionable value, if any, that in the end is not worth the cost. I'll be blunt here and say that you and others who think you believe in small government have been hoodwinked into believing that more government intervention can fix what government intervention already screwed up. The federal government will be usurping $3 trillion *and that's merely on-budget* out of a $13+ trillion economy, and that's nothing compared to the upcoming Social Security and Medicaid bailout.

NCLB is clearly unconstitutional; there's just no argument to the contrary. The Constitution's articles give the federal government no powers over education, and it's actually the the Tenth Amendment (which is still in force, albeit forgotten) that leaves everything else to the states or the people. Similarly, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention all other social programs the feds do, are all unconstitutional.

But from a purely economic standpoint, I still don't see how you can justify the prescription drug expansion. People may have the ability to choose the plan, but it's still subsidized for a lot of people. So the fact that some people are coerced into paying for others, and that government intervened by providing the infrastructure means the entire plan is hardly free-market. That's the bottom line.

Now, I'll say again that private accounts are/were a step in the right direction, though not true privatization. Either way, the system will need a bailout because. At least under private accounts, it can be demonstrated to people that the fault lies with themselves: that they aren't saving enough for what they want to pull out, and that in the end it requires the redistribution of wealth. Under the current system, people never pay attention to the annual notices of what they actually pull in. Maybe someday enough people will realize the raw immorality of taking money from others, whether it's outright robbery or under the guise of government taxation. Better yet, give some of us a fighting chance: let us have our own private accounts as a precursor to opting out completely. When enough of us do that, because we won't be paying for others' retirement, everyone else will have to make do with their own pitiful abilities to save.

The solution to NCLB is to leave it to states and their local school districts. In my home county of Westchester, towns often grow and decay according to the quality of their schools, so some people do factor in public education when deciding where to live. The problem is that enough *don't*, because they think government should fix it, or they think government can't, or they just don't care. With a steady supply of students, the vast majority of public schools never have to worry about being good, or even "good enough." The teachers unions know they'll have jobs anyway.

"I contend that all of these had -- as a redeeming factor -- a "seed crystal" of a market mechanism:"

This goes back to FDR's fallacial notion that government can and must "prime the pump." The market does not need government to plant any seeds. That is its nature. On the other hand, the nature of government is that when it goes beyond protecting life, liberty and property, it can do nothing but inhibit free market forces.

"NCLB called for testing of schools and vouchers to help those in the worst schools escape."

The government cannot be counted on to fix the problems it engendered in the first place, whether it's the tremendous power of teacher unions or a simple inability to hold teachers accountable. Aren't states and local school districts already capable of setting their own standards? If a town's school superintendent won't fire bad teachers, what makes you think a D.C. politician will care? The solution is not an expanded federal bureaucracy.

Also, I oppose most voucher programs in how they are proposed, because they'll a lot of people more money than they paid in. For example, the state of New York spends about $12500 per student per year. If you're only paying $5000 in property taxes but get a voucher for $12500, then it's merely redistribution of wealth: you're stealing from your neighbors. You may try to justify it by saying the schools will be better, but it's still theft. Do you justify taking money from someone "who can afford it" so another can eat better food or live in better housing? Of course not.

"But, in the absence of these programs, there would have been calls for less market-friendly solutions to the same problems. as we hear in the Democratic debates."

Yet Part D, NCLB, the energy bill, the transportation bill and every other thing Bush and Congress do are very much market unfriendly. It's still the redistribution of wealth, just in different forms. You may think there's a basis in the free market, but it's still government intervention, and "The Democrats would have done worse" is no excuse. Remember that Bush worked with Ted Kennedy on NCLB to get something the Democrats would love too. He did the same thing on the $286 billion transportation monstrosity: the only "compromise" was agreeing to give everyone what they wanted.

Give me the elimination of all these programs, or give me the chance to opt out. That is liberty.

Well, Terri, I shall remain mostly civil for this blog's sake, but if you think I haven't been merciless, very well. Don't say you didn't ask for it. First, you're an idiot who can't comprehend the breadth of my arguments, if you cannot comprehend the morality of my argument. You're merely a despicable little slug who advocates the theft of money from some people to give to others, if you aren't on the public dole yourself. It doesn't matter one damn bit that you do it under the guises of "government" and "charity."

Be intellectually lazy, for all I care, but your moral laziness *at my expense* is when I start caring. You simply do not have the right to take other people's property without their consent, and I do not consent to you and millions of Americans from taking my property to satisfy your warped sense of "charity." Now, if I refuse, my fellow citizens will seize more of my property as a penalty, and perhaps even beat and take away my personal liberty (i.e. jail me) -- all because I want to keep what I earn! How do you justify that, morally or intellectually? Give us an answer here, and if you don't, then you can, frankly, shut up and admit your moral cowardice, thankyouverymuch.

"I like medicare part d. Why? Because something was going to change in medicare. Prescription drugs were going to be covered in one way or the other."

It's cowardice to throw in the towel. So if your house is on fire, your advice is to not bother fighting it and instead blow it up, since it'll be destroyed one way or another?

"As a matter of truth Part D is a brilliant piece of legislation that in the end has worked out better than expected."

As a matter of truth, it comes down to *whose* expectations, and which timeframe. The program has only just begun. You're so incredibly myopic not to once consider the long-term exponential costs.

"Dems were cranky about this piece because it didn't offer enough."

Gee, no kidding! You said all that like a marvelous revelation.

From the beginning, I and other libertarians recognized that Republicans were merely competing with Democrats to be the party of big government (the title of one of my blog entries).

"They wanted more of your tax dollars to cover all the "free goods"."

The difference between Part D and avowed socialized prescription drug coverage? Nothing. In the end, it's still tax dollars being stolen from some people to pay for others.

"Republicans held ground on this. Yes, the dollar amounts looked bad to start with. (and maybe the totals are bad. That's a question of degree)"

One tax collector wants to seize $1000 from you each year for the rest of your life. The other will seize only $100 this year, but in time it will grow to $1000 and probably more. That's holding ground? "That's a question of degree"?

You can stand on the surface of the sun, or on the surface of a white-hot star. It's "a question of degree," but either way you still get scorched.

"So when the next 5 years were that much bigger, it was not a valid statistical comparison."

You really have no idea what I'm talking about when I say "long-term costs," do you. The first decade is still short-term. Try *several* decades into the future for the full projections.

"The brilliant part of this legislation is that all that bad stuff occurred before the thing ever got off the ground."

So, you don't consider greater long-term liabilities than Social Security to be "bad stuff"?

"Actual projections for future spending are now going down not up."

Again, you're myopic to consider only the next short while. Try taking a look beyond 2016 -- the feds don't like admitting those skyrocketing numbers. You may also want to quote someone with a more objective analysis, rather than HHS, which has a direct interest in making a rosy report.

"And once again this doesn't include future spending that is NOT being spent on operations/emergency care that will no longer be needed because old folks are taking their drugs.
Your argument is that the govt should stay out of our lives period. Excellent, excellent point."

You have the completely moronic point of assuming that government should pay for either or both. I don't think government, meaning *my* tax dollars, should pay for people's operations or emergency care, either.

People need to be responsible for themselves. I really don't care about people who are obese and/or smoke all their lives, then expect me to foot the bill when they're 50-ish and dying. Nor do I care about illegal immigrants who come here and get free health care through the emergency room. Let them pay for themselves, whether it's preventitive drugs when younger, cancer treatment or whatever when older, or regular doctor visits.

"And may I say that people should all just get along so my tax dollars no longer need fund the dept of defense."

I actually support the idea that people shouldn't have to pay taxes for *any* government program they don't want to participate in. Which means that when some country comes to invade us, then you, poor Terri, will be on your own.

"Oh - and I don't really care about the education of stupid people so if they can't figure out how to raise a viable adult, I don't want any of my money going into their kid's education either."

I would fully abolish the public school system if I could.

"Well - that isn't going to happen. Govt is here to stay and I'm just Democrat enough to actually enjoy some of the benefits."

Exactly my point. You're enough of a sniveling little thief to support taking other people's money because *you* benefit from it. So what exactly are you on, anyway? Full welfare? Food stamps? How much are you cheating, so that the rest of us pay so you can sit at home in front of a computer?

"Clean air/potable water/national parks/public education/decent roads/fall back welfare system/ the list goes on."

Yeah, just ask LA residents how effective government is at mandating clean air, and Magna, Utah residents how clean the water is. Good lord, talk about faith-based legislation: you truly believe that just because government passes a law, it'll make things better. You really have no clue that in the end, someone will have to pay for developing and running the technology.

National parks, run courtesy of my money so others can enjoy them. How is that fair?

Decent roads? Only an idiot would claim that. You don't have to live in New York to see countless road crews of several men doing nothing but standing around one guy who's actually working, creating roads that eventually crumble.

I live on a private road, and every so often we'll have it repaved. We haven't in the last six years I've lived there, because unlike government, we hire someone who will give us decent work at a good price. Government doesn't care, because it's not its money.

And of course, the safety net of other people's money. It gives people an incentive not to work hard and keep their jobs, because if they get fired, they can get money from the government. In fact, it gives certain people an incentive not to get jobs in the first place. It gives teenage girls an incentive to not care about sex, because as two girls I once knew said when they got pregnant, they can just go on welfare.

"I'm not going to get you to agree with me because we are starting from different points of view."

Was there really a point to saying that? Of course neither of us will agree. You're a socialist, and I believe in freedom.

"I completely concede if you think that govt belongs out of your pocket, then fight all you want to end Medicare Part D."

Do you believe people should override your wishes merely because they can outvote you?

"Should only the people that want it contribute to it? That would be ok with me too, but then we live in a country that wouldn't put up with old people left to die of sickness in their homes because they had nothing."

Like Harrison said, where were all the dying old people? Oh, pardonez-moi, they were in *France*, the land of socialized medicine. And they died because of the very fact that government instituted socialized medicine, and a one-month holiday in August when almost all doctors were off sunning themselves.

"If the collective "we" won't do that, then you should contribute. If the collective "we" become willing to watch people in die in such conditions, then sure."

I am willing to let people die because of their egregious stupidity. I am not willing to force people to pay for others who should have known better.

I contribute on an individual basis, using my own discretion. The other day, I saw an elderly woman on the subway. She was clearly homeless, dressed in torn and worn clothes, with a couple of bags next to her (a regular commuter doesn't dare put bags on the next seat, because it's now a fineable offense if the MTA police see you). Before I got off, I gave her a $20 bill. Now, when was the last time you did that? Very few people do. In fact, it seemed like the entire car was staring at me, dumbfounded that someone could actually give money like that. In hindsight, I had a lot more money than that on me, and I could have given it all to her without thinking.

On the other hand, I categorically don't give any money to the black men who frequently panhandle everywhere in the city, not just the subways. I've never given a penny to this apparently able-bodied woman, maybe 40-ish. She's there most mornings and a lot of evenings at Grand Central Terminal's west subway entrance, sitting on a crate and doing sudoku.

"I personally would suggest you start the next fight against the SCHIP expansion legislation that the Dems are pushing for. They are looking to sneak in universal healthcare by expanding coverage up for the young and down for the old."

My fight is on many fronts, against any program that expands government powers into where it does not belong. So your suggestion is something I already do universally.

Thanks for joining the discussion, Harrison. One problem that Terri and other socialists have is that they confuse value with money spent. For example, New York state spends incredible quantities on all students. A poor family living in, say, Washington Heights may pay nothing in taxes, but the state still spends thousands each year for each of the children's education. The problem isn't the money spent, it's that the teachers unions dominate the system and make it so unaccountable to protect their jobs.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 10, 2007 2:41 PM

I should add, the problem isn't the money spent, but the government that wastes it by not caring about getting value for the money -- true value for the taxpayers, instead of job stability for bureaucrats.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 10, 2007 2:47 PM

Terri,

I agree with Perry's insights on particular issues, but I must challenge you on philosophical grounds.

You write that: "Libertarianism IS naïve. There are too many people of varying ideas of self interest to make it work. Is govt a necessity to this? Not if you can get everyone to agree. But you can’t."

That is precisely a libertarian argument. Individuals do not agree. In a free market individuals will only interact if it is mutally beneficial. When the government acts, however, it is for the "greater good." Greater for whom? Surely this does not create a Pareto optimum. In reality, it favors one group of individuals at the expense of others.

Further, one cannot simply state that democratic policies are always and everywhere for the benefit of society. It is quite simply impossible to aggregate social preferences.

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 10, 2007 3:18 PM

I appreciate the commentary. I need to restate my position.

Terri and TrekMedic, I cannot join you in your fulsome praise for Part D. It will be expensive whatever happens, it can be hijacked easily by a Democratic Administration and Congressional majority to be all the things we dislike about it and none of the tings we like. I'm glad to see the President get a win, and I can see its market mechanisms but I am still uncomfortable marching in the celebration parade.

Perry, I still do not believe that you have heard me. My case is political pragmatism. I think -- with a few minor exceptions -- you and I would choose and create similar worlds in some millenarian vision where we could decide the funding mechanisms and the extent of government.

Where I break from the pack is to say that this is about as good as we can do. There is no plurality for lassiez-faire. In a choice between HillaryCare and Part D, I find it worth fighting for Part D.

I'm all for demanding more liberty. I just worry that both Perry and Harrison will pull that old libertarian trick of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The election is 16 months out and I am already hearing a lot of people tell me they are staying home. "There's no real Conservative" or "There's no real libertarian," so these folks will stand by and watch Senator Clinton or Senator Obama be elected. That will not serve either the libertarian or conservative agenda.

I'm a Frank Meyers and Rodney King fusionist: can't we all get along? We call each other names around here (Terri is really not a Socialist) but I see a coalition. One that could elect a Republican and hold him or her up to little-l libertarian ideals.

Posted by: jk at July 10, 2007 5:46 PM

jk,...I don't praise, nor wholly embrace, Part D. I merely point out that it is an expense, and one that our government seems to have tamed.

Having a controllable human services expense, IMN-SHO, is totally anathema to the liberals. Its being controlled now because someone is willing to bargain with those nasty capitalists that manufacture these medications.

As it is now, people such as myself, think nothing of taking a week or two off from work, having their knee operated on, and going back to work and being a productive member of the workforce.

If Shrillary, et al, were to have it their way, I would be forced off my job, sitting around in extreme pain, collecting some government dole for my troubles.

My job would have to be replaced by another paramedic, which would either a) have the inherent costs of hiring and training/orienting a new paramedic, or b)filling my position with another full-timer at greater salary expense to the company.

Let's face it, we're stuck with Medicare until something else can replace it. If Medicare Part D must exist and can be cost-contained, so be it,..it's the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 10, 2007 7:49 PM

Perry,
Loved your opening.
“Well, Terri, I shall remain mostly civil for this blog's sake, but if you think I haven't been merciless, very well. Don't say you didn't ask for it. First, you're an idiot who can't comprehend the breadth of my arguments, if you cannot comprehend the morality of my argument. You're merely a despicable little slug who advocates the theft of money from some people to give to others, if you aren't on the public dole yourself. It doesn't matter one damn bit that you do it under the guises of "government" and "charity."”
You are right about one thing. I can’t comprehend any breadth in your argument.
Lets see you have your basics: keep your hand out of my pocket because a) you have no right to be there and b) people taking care of themselves is the only and the best way to go about things. Please… tell me what I’m missing. I’ve got the morality part in a) and the "I got here by myself and so can everyone else" part in b).
I've also got he kindergarten name calling that I suppose is meant to catch my attention. (?) Not sure about that, but then it's probably part of the "breadth" of thought you have.

I’m not a knee jerk liberal Perry. And I’m not a moron. I’m pretty moderate politically and have been close enough to actual real problems to know that mutual help in times of real need is beneficial to all. You think I’m a moron because of this. You’re incorrect.
I've never been on the dole and knock on wood I won't need to be. Nor am I a sniveler. (where did you get that from?) And I actually like the military. I was being facetious earlier.

Bottom line of why do I think it’s ok for the govt to grasp its filthy hands around your billfold? Because the people (who are the govt) say that’s what they want to do and the law of the land has agreed!!

You can work for your utopian idea but in the meantime I'll be realistic and go ahead and vote for the lesser of evils during election times. But while you're working on your arguments, save yourself some trouble and come up with better examples than pregnant teenaged girls, smokers, the obese and illegals. Real problems do exist out here for real people. And $20 doesn't really cover it. And yes - I do a lot. (though I try to see it through the "man, am I ever lucky screen" vs the "look at me, I'm a great guy screen" your message above implies.)

You've been helped by the govt throughout your life. We live in a country that has a lot and we the people have chosen to pool resources and get more.
All because the society you live in has ideas of what they want themselves to look like. They want potable water. They want well – whatever, we’ve been through it and your response it that you don’t want it so why should you pay.

Because even if you don’t personally want it you derive the benefit from it. (future grandchildren seeing actual nature at a park?-sorry - I keep trying to see if something will click..)

Chances are good that whoever you work for or if you're in business for yourself you've gotten benefits from the taxpayers.
Your line in the sand in this string is showing up here on Part D. Ok - fine. Mine might have shown up on the Dems version of prescription drug benefits.

I'm not myopic about long-terms costs. Yes, it's going to cost. Longterm. (just because you like to speak to me as a moron, doesn't actually make me one)
Frankly – I believe the Democrats will win the next election and in their bid to "do something" they'll add so many changes to this bill that it’s going to get all screwed up, but that’s another line of thought.

My POV isn't moronically assuming that your money should pay for anyones' operations. It's realistically saying that that is what we have now so having fewer will mean fewer future expenses.

You clearly have views of freedom from govt that are a bit on the extreme side. Things don't generally change until extremists start working towards that end. So good luck with that. Dream on if you're going to get the utopia you yearn for. But maybe some changes will come along.

In the meantime - what started this thread was Bush success stories. I added Medicare Part D to the list. I wasn't wrong about that. It's been a success from many points of view (not yours) against the odds. I'll stand by that still. (even in spite of the scary name calling....!)

Posted by: Terri at July 11, 2007 12:21 AM

I told you no real Libertarians would let me in their club unless I bought beer.

I think that Trek and Terri are facing the exigencies of life in the 21st Century United States. Medicare is not going anywhere. We can try to fix it at the margins, but a quixotic strike at its center is doomed.

I had one thought on Pragmatism. I've got another all day training today or I would try to develop it into a post. I think of my extended family. We have a few Rush Limbaugh populist conservatives, a ton of squishy moderates, several moonbats, and a lot of left-leaners.

I bet most of you have similar families or social circles. Imagine trying to get your friends or family to vote for any significant reduction of Medicare benefits. If you can't get them (and I certainly could not) how will you fight the AARP/Union/Democrat axis and get it passed nationally?

Posted by: jk at July 11, 2007 9:59 AM

Gee, take a few days off from blogging to harvest hay and some other personal business and look what you miss!

Terri- When it comes to attacking Perry (or anyone else) for receiving benefit from the government you must remember that not doing so would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. At the same time, all freedom loving people should oppose involuntary collectivization on all fronts. (Some fronts are more important than others, but the principle is sound in all cases.)

I'll also ask that you check your premises about "why do I think it’s ok for the govt to grasp its filthy hands around your billfold?" Your stated reason was: "Because the people (who are the govt) say that’s what they want to do and the law of the land has agreed!!"

First, the government is not "the people" despite the traditionally named plaintiff in criminal cases. This is like saying it's OK for the government of Red China to own everything and individuals have no rights because "it's the law of the land."

Second, at the time the 16th Amendment was ratified how many of "the people" even saw the words "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. And of those, how many of "the people" understood the long term consequences of such an idea? Do you suppose this weakening of the Constitition's preservation of rights would have been ratified if instead it read, "The Congress shall have power to grasp its filthy hands around your billfold?"

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2007 3:44 PM

John,
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not actually attacking Perry. Especially not for receiving benefit from the govt.

And while the principle of collectivization may be sound in a philosophical discussion, in reality it works better at degrees of compromise when MOST people have a differing opinion on that.

As for my premise, I would say that IF the Chinese people actually did have a say in their govt, AND they chose for the govt to own everything, then sure then their govt should own everything. But to equate the US Govt and the Chinese govt is more than quite a bit off.

And on your 2nd point of the 16th Amendment, we get the govt we ask for. If we take so little interest in amendments that we want our representatives to handle them themselves, then that is the way it goes. Yes. If, now that we have better ways of communication someone wants to start a repeal Amendment 16 drive....then what is stopping them? (you?)

Posted by: Terri at July 11, 2007 4:49 PM

I do understand what you're saying, jk. I expect to vote for the GOP presidential candidate, not necessarily because I like him, but because he's better than what I think will be a Hillary/Obama ticket.

However, we need to demand better candidates. As long as we're willing to compromise, we won't even get a candidate who's a small-government, Goldwater-style conservative, let alone a libertarian. There are two options: either we convince enough people that government non-interference is the best way, or eventually enough of us will get really, really pissed and kick *** against those who use government as a weapon against us. Remember what's been said, that we fought a revolution with only about a third of the population in favor of independence from England, with another third loyal to the Crown, and another third not giving a damn.

"I'm glad to see the President get a win"

That's part of the problem. Democrats are bad guys, but that doesn't mean opposition Republicans are always good guys. When it comes to virtually all things both parties do, I quote Kissinger: "It's a shame they both can't lose."

"In a choice between HillaryCare and Part D, I find it worth fighting for Part D."

I refuse to accept either. Again, I understand your perspective of pragmatism, so I've pointed out since Bush proposed the expansion that it was mainly to win the senior vote, in particular in Florida so that he wouldn't have another close shave. Now, buying votes is one thing, but even if that were justifiable to keep the lesser of two evils in power, it could have been done more cheaply. If you look at the projections for the next several decades, eventually Part D will cost more than Social Security.

By the way, socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Ergo, Terri is a socialist, and I'll get to her inane reply later.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 11, 2007 5:23 PM

Yes, we must demand better candidates. I bet that line won't get a single argument around here. I was devastated by the '08 GOP lineup a few months ago. In the meantime, I have seen some decent debate performances and, most notably, was won over by Giuliani's outstanding interview on Kudlow & Company.

On Part D, I think -- more than winning the senior vote -- Part D took a key Democratic issue off the table. When we have neither as you support, the Democrats will be promising free drugs (and Rainbow Stew!) and it won't be through private insurers. A lot of principled Republicans fought the bill. It was some of the worst arm-twisting ever as I recall for "The Hammer" to hammer it through.

Obviously, something is not "good" because Republicans seek it. At the same time, I see such a clear distinction, I find it pretty easy to choose sides.

I'll let Terri defend herself. I have been reading her blog for sometime now and I would not call her a Socialist.

Posted by: jk at July 11, 2007 6:53 PM

I've yet to blog about this, and I don't know why I didn't get around to it. Giuliani is talking supply-siderism, but how can you vote for someone with this philosophy of liberty?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

Part D was merely another example of how Republicans are willing to "win" by becoming the enemy they once claimed to despise. That is the danger of compromise: it only yields bigger government. Then wait another election cycle or two, during which time the people get comfortable with the program, and government can be expanded further. It's long past the time to draw the line. In my mind, the only question is whether enough people will have the sense to stop it before it takes bloodshed to stop it. When I write on my blog that "Storm's comin'," I mean a storm.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 11, 2007 11:00 PM

"You are right about one thing. I can’t comprehend any breadth in your argument."

Such was already obvious, by your replies that fail to address my points.

"Lets see you have your basics: keep your hand out of my pocket because a) you have no right to be there and b) people taking care of themselves is the only and the best way to go about things. Please… tell me what I’m missing. I’ve got the morality part in a) and the "I got here by myself and so can everyone else" part in b)."

You understand the words, but you do not understand the single argument. It's *wrong* to coerce people into giving up property, even if it's government attempting to act "charitably."

"I've also got he kindergarten name calling that I suppose is meant to catch my attention. (?) Not sure about that, but then it's probably part of the "breadth" of thought you have."

Calling you a socialist, which is true, is not name-calling. Similarly, calling you an idiot, which is also true, is also not name-calling. You admitted above that you fail to understand my arguments, though I have made it plain.

"I’m not a knee jerk liberal Perry. And I’m not a moron. I’m pretty moderate politically and have been close enough to actual real problems to know that mutual help in times of real need is beneficial to all. You think I’m a moron because of this. You’re incorrect."

No, I think you're a moron because you still do not understand. And I'll point out again that you're a socialist, adding that you're hardly the "moderate" you claim to be. You have no problem with the coerced redistribution of wealth.

I have no problem with people helping each other on a purely voluntary basis. I have a problem, morally and practically, with people being forced against their will, under threat of having more property taken and even imprisonment, to use their property to help others. Will you ever be able to understand that?

"I've never been on the dole and knock on wood I won't need to be. Nor am I a sniveler. (where did you get that from?) And I actually like the military. I was being facetious earlier."

If you derive more benefit from the government than you pay in taxes, then you're on the public dole.

I used "sniveling" as in whining, because like other socialists, your argument boils down to whining about how government is needed to take care of people.

"Bottom line of why do I think it’s ok for the govt to grasp its filthy hands around your billfold? Because the people (who are the govt) say that’s what they want to do and the law of the land has agreed!!"

Actually, the law of the land is the Constitution, whose Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from exceeding the powers it was specifically given. And guess what: there's no power for the federal government to tax some people and give the money to others. I dare you, try to find that passage. James Madison said he couldn't, and in case you didn't know, he wrote practically the entire thing.

I really don't expect you to understand this, but the United States is a republic, not a democracy. In this republic, individuals have rights that cannot be subverted by the majority, no matter how extreme the voting may be. Just because "the people" vote one way does not make it lawful or morally correct.

I suggest you read Bastiat's "The Law" for an explanation of how government derives its powers, although its clearly stated philosophy may be a bit above your comprehension level. Succintly, "the people" and "the government" are not interchangeable, no matter how much you'd like them to be. Government derives its powers from the people, but a voting majority of majority of everyone sans one still have no lawful right to force the one into giving up property for everyone else's benefit.

Let's talk about this "consent of the people" notion. Politicians sometimes say that they govern this way and legislate that way, because of "the consent of the people." Now, it's the consent of which people? Is it the consent of my neighbors, who under an immoral concept of "fairness" want to dispose of my property against my will? Or is it "consent" as the Founding Fathers intended, *my* consent when it comes to *my* property and *my* own affairs?

"You can work for your utopian idea but in the meantime I'll be realistic and go ahead and vote for the lesser of evils during election times."

In fact, you're the one with the utopian (I don't think you even know the origin of the word, or what More was saying) ideal that government can effectively take care of people.

So if you're willing to vote for "the lesser of two evils," you'd therefore have no problem with one candidate who will murder 1 million people, since he won't be quite as bad as the one who will murder 2 million? Do you realize how foolish this "lesser of two evils" argument is?

"But while you're working on your arguments, save yourself some trouble and come up with better examples than pregnant teenaged girls, smokers, the obese and illegals. Real problems do exist out here for real people. And $20 doesn't really cover it."

Why don't you come up with your own examples, then? And when was the last time you gave money to a poor person you encountered? And actually, $20 can go a long way for a street person, whose primary need/expense is food. Many are mentally ill and don't want to stay in shelters, or the available shelters are too dangerous for them.

Your concept of "real problems" still does not justify forcing people against their will to "help" others. Who are you talking about, people who borrowed too much and now want government to help? People who are too lazy to take any job they can, and/or spent all their money instead of saving for a rainy day?

People need to be responsible for the consequences of their own actions and inactions. If you screw up, then you can only rely on the voluntary charity of others. Sometimes bad things happen that were completely out of your control, but you still have no right to force others to give you their property. It sounds harsh, but that's the moral way.

Smoking and bad eating are significant reasons why so many Americans have poor health. People choose to smoke and eat badly on their own, so answer the question: why should I be forced to pay for others' stupid behavior? Why should I be forced to pay for them at all?

"And yes - I do a lot. (though I try to see it through the "man, am I ever lucky screen" vs the "look at me, I'm a great guy screen" your message above implies.)"

I never claimed to be a saint. I just claim to be a better person because I don't believe in forcing people to be charitable. And I challenge the likes of you, Gore, Kerry, the Clintons and other bleeding-heart types to name the last time you helped people on your own volition.

"You've been helped by the govt throughout your life. We live in a country that has a lot and we the people have chosen to pool resources and get more."

Actually, government's economic "help" comes at the equal cost of depriving us of the same money elsewhere. I would explain, but I really doubt you'd understand it.

These days, I don't even ask government to defend me in case my life, liberty and property are violated. I just want government to leave me alone so I can do a good job of defending my rights myself.

"All because the society you live in has ideas of what they want themselves to look like. They want potable water. They want well – whatever, we’ve been through it and your response it that you don’t want it so why should you pay."

Do you not understand that it's easy to have a "vision" when you make others pay for it?

"Because even if you don’t personally want it you derive the benefit from it. (future grandchildren seeing actual nature at a park?-sorry - I keep trying to see if something will click..)"

Actually (and I use that a lot, because what you say and what is "actually" true are so different), I don't use a public water system. The house I rent has a private well.

If I want my future grandchildren to see "nature," then the moral thing to do is to put up my own money, rather than having other people pay for it.

"Chances are good that whoever you work for or if you're in business for yourself you've gotten benefits from the taxpayers."

I take it you never ran or helped run a business. Actually, being in business for yourself isn't about getting benefits from the taxpayers. It's largely about getting sodomized *as* a taxpayer.

My employer is a private company, and we in fact derive zero "help" from the government compared to what government costs us. We'd love nothing better than for government to stop "helping" us in exchange for zero taxes. We recently had to establish a $54 million fund of sorts, with $4 million going to pay taxes. That's $4 million that could have been higher pay for our 5000 employees, and that's just one instance. We manage nearly $1 trillion in client assets, so you can imagine how much we pay in taxes.

Now, tell me how government "helps" us when SEC watchdogs waste our time, when our own ethics and restrictions go beyond virtually every other investment firm in the world. We compete with other firms not only by having perhaps the finest equity research analysts in the world, but by having the strongest devotion to our clients' best interests and putting their interests ahead of our own. We don't need government to "help" us compete.

"I'm not myopic about long-terms costs. Yes, it's going to cost. Longterm. (just because you like to speak to me as a moron, doesn't actually make me one)"

If you know about the long-term costs, why do you instead tout only the short-term costs that are supposedly down? I'm even being kind in assuming that the estimates are correct, because the federal government is notoriously creative at using accounting to hide the true extent of its spending.

If you know about the long-term costs, why do you ignore the fact that this is potentially the most expensive social program ever concocted?

"Frankly – I believe the Democrats will win the next election and in their bid to "do something" they'll add so many changes to this bill that it’s going to get all screwed up, but that’s another line of thought."

All we need is Hillary and Obama to win the White House, and it's game over. But why shouldn't you want them to win? After all, going by what you've written, you should want them to "help" people, and if they do win, that means "the people" decided what they wanted is socialized medicine.

"My POV isn't moronically assuming that your money should pay for anyones' operations. It's realistically saying that that is what we have now so having fewer will mean fewer future expenses."

You still don't understand that it's a moral argument first, and a practical one second. Well, with the two so intertwined, you assume a lot. You assume that giving someone free doctor visits and Lipitor prescriptions will prevent heart attacks in the future. That may be, but you're *forcing* others to pay for that person's health care, when the person needs to be responsible for himself.

"You clearly have views of freedom from govt that are a bit on the extreme side. Things don't generally change until extremists start working towards that end. So good luck with that. Dream on if you're going to get the utopia you yearn for. But maybe some changes will come along."

So the Founding Fathers were extremists?

"In the meantime - what started this thread was Bush success stories. I added Medicare Part D to the list. I wasn't wrong about that. It's been a success from many points of view (not yours) against the odds. I'll stand by that still. (even in spite of the scary name calling....!)"

You've still yet to offer a credible explanation of why it's a success story. Forget the short-term "lower than expected" costs, and pay attention to the reality that it will eventually exceed even Social Security. Social Security is the elephant in the room, the single program that will bankrupt the federal government within the next couple of decades, even with benefit cuts, unless we have massive tax hikes that will wreck the economy. So how much worse will part D be, all because you think it's good preventitive medicine to force some people to pay for others' prescription drugs?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 12, 2007 12:01 AM

Perry,
My world view include a world that was not created for you individually. And one that has shown that many individuals do not treat it with the respect it merits. Keeping your $ in your wallet to a certain extent is the better system. However this country is better than others because it's also tempered with other bits. (I know of no successful "Libertarian" country. Our founding fathers knew that changes would need to be made along the way and provided for those.)
The morality of taking from you comes from what you have taken from me. Your well uses water that is coming from a source that is "owned" by all of us. The more you use, the less I have.
You house was built on land that was originally paid for in tax dollars (even if via the military). Your business thrives because laws are in place that help the people who are keeping it thriving to trust it.
I'm not on the dole. I realize $20 is quite something to a homeless person. And as I said I give to people. Interestingly (though I do give to the homeless and actually get to know them) I have been known on more than a few occasions to send a few hundred dollars anonymously to startup local businesses who are worthwhile and going through that scary start up phase. When was the last time you did that?
Your judgments of me are bizarro.

Posted by: Terri at July 12, 2007 11:51 AM

Terri,

It is by no means acceptable argument to claim, "I know of no successful 'Libertarian' country." The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, you have succumb to the fallacy of induction. Simply because you have not observed something does not mean that it did not exist or could not be successful.

Your attitude that the state has modernized is a frequent justification for the expansion of government. However, both the claim that the world is more complicated and the suggestion that this requires more government are questionable. Transportation and information may flow much faster today than in previous years, but I would hardly suggest that this has complicated the world and increased the necessity for a more powerful government.

Further, your claim that the ocean is "owned" by us all is incorrect. The ocean, like the air, is a vast supply and is a natural condition of man -- without it we would all perish. The vast supply means that my usage of air or water has only very small marginal effects on others.

Also, I think that you are mistaking Perry for an anarchist. Libertarians respect the ability of government to exist, but want to limit its scope and power. Laws that protect property rights and entrepreneurship are often supported by libertarians. If this is what you mean by businesses thriving because of laws that are in place, I think that you would find agreement with many libertarians.

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 12, 2007 10:06 PM

Hey, Can I play too?

I don’t wish to jump on the ‘bash Terri’ bandwagon, and I think her tenacity in trying to explain her positions here is terrific but she, and to a lesser extent JK, are providing a perfect example of what I think is as the very root, philosophically, of many of the societal problems America faces today.

America is the greatest country in the history of earth because it is the only one (that I know of) that was specifically founded on the idea of individual liberty. The founding father’s provided us with a flexible framework (“a republic, if you can keep it”) but ultimately even the flexibility was intended to protect individual rights and not remove them. Any law infringing those rights is therefore, philosophically, “unconstitutional,” whether it receives a majority vote or not.

Some very subtle and highly destructive philosophies have been so thoroughly integrated into our culture that I don’t think the majority of the people even recognize that they have instituted these philosophies in our lives and government.

Terri, and, in fact, most of the people in the country today have a particular blind spot in regard to the actions and natures of governments. If we are to save this country from what Perry fears we must address the issues at a basic philosophical level and unfortunately the public schools are a huge part of the problem. My daughters are 2.5 yrs. and 5 months and I am already fretting about how in the world to provide them a correct education but that is a complete side issue.

Let’s start with concept that, “the people,” want the socialist policies that the government keeps voting in. In reality there is no such thing as, “the people,” to, “want,” anything. “The People,” is made up of individuals and some want and some don’t want any given socialist policy. If any policy is considered right if it is voted in then 51% of the people is all it takes to remove the rights from the other 49%. This is called the tyranny of the majority and our republic was designed to prevent this. Terri, “the People,” if allowed to would probably vote to make abortions and homosexuality illegal. Is that OK with you? What about when they vote that we all have to go to church on Sundays or pray to allah 3x a day?

If it is not OK to allow a vote to make these policies the law then how is it OK to make the taxpayers fund Part D or medicare or any other government wealth re-distribution policy via a simple vote? Who gets to decide which of these 51% approved measures are OK and which are not? You? Me? A majority? Your elected representatives? (I trust them about as far as I can throw them)

The standard that must be applied is the one intended by the Founding Fathers that no laws should be passed infringing on the individual liberty of one American to benefit another as there is no other place to draw a line.

By the way, I have asked JK this question, and now I pose it to Terri. When one adopts a pragmatist philosophy, how do YOU decide where the lines should be drawn? How do you make decisions? Against what standard? I’m just curious.

Note that there is an important distinction between adopting a pragmatist philosophy and behaving pragmatically when necessary. I too usually vote Republican under the lesser of 2 evils theory.

Posted by: dagny at July 13, 2007 12:57 PM

Dagny,
Are you saying then, (and again, I'm not going to address the fantasy world where the govt does nothing to "help out" in times of need) but are you saying that if 51% of the people want X and 49% don't and Congress has created the law and it has passed the test(s) of the Supreme Court that at that point I should say that the 49% get their way?

I don't think so.

We have the checks and balances just for this. If 51% of the people want X and Congress creates the law and the Supreme court deems it Illegal, then yes it's illegal and moot.

You/Perry/ and your ilk are not the Supreme Deciders. Until you revolt and win.
(Oops - I guess I did address the fantasy world!)

Posted by: Terri at July 13, 2007 4:42 PM

"My world view include a world that was not created for you individually."

There's another of your problems. It's always about your view, about you and other redistributors imposing *your* view on others, against their will. You never consider that a single person and his household merely want to be left alone. They don't want to harm others, they don't want to coerce tax dollars from anyone else, and they ask only that others do the same.

"And one that has shown that many individuals do not treat it with the respect it merits."

Which means what? Are you saying people don't treat the world with the respect it merits? That's your opinion.

"Keeping your $ in your wallet to a certain extent is the better system. However this country is better than others because it's also tempered with other bits."

You said "to a certain extent." What's the number, then?

Actually, this country is better despite those other bits. This country has prospered because of a great deal of relative freedom, despite having an absurdly high corporate income tax (now the highest in the world), largely on the entrepreneurial and innovative strength of its people. Also, our land hasn't been repeatedly torn up by wars, unlike much of Europe.

"(I know of no successful "Libertarian" country. Our founding fathers knew that changes would need to be made along the way and provided for those.)"

In fact, this country originally was very libertarian, if you bother to read what the Constitution set up, and how land and taxes worked. It didn't last long. Learn your history.

"The morality of taking from you comes from what you have taken from me. Your well uses water that is coming from a source that is "owned" by all of us. The more you use, the less I have."

So your argument is that because I'm taking water from everyone else, that justifies you and everyone else using government to seize half of my earnings. That's some damn expensive water.

The water comes from underground, which ultimately comes from the reservoirs nearby. There's more than enough water for everybody, so much so that the reservoirs help feed New York City. Installing and maintaining a pipe system is minimal, and hardly worthy of stealing half of each of my paychecks, do you not agree?

If anything, New York City residents should be paying me and my neighbors for taking our water. As it stands, I pay a 2% income tax to NYC, though I don't live there and don't consume any city services I don't already pay for.

"You house was built on land that was originally paid for in tax dollars (even if via the military)."

You forget that my landlord had to buy the land to have the house built. Thus he paid the previous owner, who in turn paid the previous owner, and so on, until ultimately it was a single person who settled on land that nobody claimed. At the time, whatever land you cleared and built a house on became yours. Nobody paid any taxes; it was never asked.

In my part of Westchester, New York, it did not require the military to secure it. The only military involvement in my area may have been during the Revolutionary War. This area has been settled for 250 years or so. However, that wasn't even government protecting the rights of the people. It was people revolting against government, and you forget that one of the colonists' grievances was that the Crown prevented them from settling west.

"Your business thrives because laws are in place that help the people who are keeping it thriving to trust it."

Clearly you've never had more than a minor function in helping a business run. I've helped manage one, a retail shop. A good business needs no help whatsoever from government, not even laws, to "help" the business, or "help" its customers "trust" it. A business license does not make a shop owner trustworthy, or even fire safety regulations. If I don't think a building is safe, I simply won't go inside. The free market solution is that a store owner can hire a trusted person, perhaps a retired fire marshall, who will certify the building as safe according to his standards. People will want to go to that building more than a dilapidated firetrap.

You make a lot of general statements there but have no substance, no details by which to justify them. Exactly how does a government, then, keep a business "trusted" through laws?

"I have been known on more than a few occasions to send a few hundred dollars anonymously to startup local businesses who are worthwhile and going through that scary start up phase. When was the last time you did that?"

Never. I don't bother with such foolishness. I give to people who are actually in need. Do you see how ridiculous you sound to say "that scary start up phase"? Show me one business owner who's homeless, who wakes up in the morning and is unsure whether he or she will eat that day. The homeless woman could only hope to be so lucky to worry about having a successful business.

"Your judgments of me are bizarro."

No, I just see the world for what it is. You have a lot of crazy notions and priorities, and you still fail to address what I've previously said. Are you so thick-headed in real life that nobody can have a meaningful intellectual discussion with you?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 13, 2007 4:53 PM

Actually, HB, I'm becoming more and more anarcho-capitalist. It's cheaper to bribe the bandits with 10% or even 20%, than give more to the government. As I've blogged before, and I'll find the link for you later, the bandits will take 10% rather than have to fight you. The government, on the other hand, has the authority to demand as much from you as is necessary.

I have a problem with the typical concept of law. Laws are about how government administers its own business, not our own lives. We already have our natural rights of life, liberty and property, with no need of "law" to tell us that they exist or how they are to be defended.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 13, 2007 5:00 PM

Dagny hits the nail on the head. I do not have a "Pragmatist Philosophy;" I exhibit pragmatic behavior and try to encourage the same from others.

Perry, I find the "anarcho-capitalist" view of law at opposition with your hero, Frederic Bastiat's theory of just law. History is pretty well populated with bandits who exceeded their natural 10% limitation capriciously when opportunities arose.

Posted by: jk at July 13, 2007 5:37 PM

Perry,

Peter Leeson of George Mason has done some interesting work on anarcho-capitalism that you might be interested in:

Efficient Anarchy

Trading with Bandits

Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 14, 2007 11:27 AM

It occurs to me that in posting comment number 26 on the same subject I may be beating the proverbial dead horse but here goes anyway.

Terri asks, “are you saying that if 51% of the people want X and 49% don't and Congress has created the law and it has passed the test(s) of the Supreme Court that at that point I should say that the 49% get their way?"

Yes, the 49% should get their way IF their way supports individual rights and the 51% want to remove individual rights.

I am saying that the proper constitutional and, not coincidentally, moral criterion by which to judge whether to support or oppose a Law X is based on whether the law adds to or usurps individual rights. It doesn’t really matter what 49% want or what 51% want or what the Supreme Court decides.

To go back to the original example, I therefore oppose Part D as it seriously usurps the individual rights of millions of American taxpayers including myself.

What part of this isn’t clear? On what possible basis beside some collectivist argument about need can it be disputed?

At least I noted that Terri answered the question of who should decide. She seems to think the final authority should rest with the Supreme Court. I think that is only 9 people, most of them men, and only 5 have to agree on any given item. Are you willing to let those 9 people make your decisions? I’m sure JK can provide you and extensive list of really bad Supreme Court decisions over the years.

Kelo v. the city of New London anyone?

Posted by: dagny at July 15, 2007 2:09 AM

jk, history is replete with examples of any criminal taking advantage of a situation. The reason a bandit wouldn't want more than 10% from me is because he'd rather have a constant stream of 10% and peaceably keep his life, instead of risking probable death for gaining all my possessions. Besides, bandits don't want their victims to die, just like government and all other parasites.

While my anarchist leanings may seem at odds with Bastiat, it's the difference between agreeing on principle and agreeing on specifics. For example, I agree with Ron Paul on the principles of cultivating trade instead of alliances, and a non-interventionist foreign policy where we leave other nations to their own destinies unless they're threatening us. But, I disagree on the specific example of Iraq. Many libertarians today "agree" with Democrats on the specifics of Iraq and the Bush Administration's disregard for the Fourth Amendment, but they do not agree with the principle -- in the case of Feinstein, Leahy, et al, it's not what's right, but political opportunism.

I agree with Bastiat's principle of the nature of law. "Law is justice," and its sole purpose is to defend an individual's life, liberty and property. If a law takes money from someone to give to another person, then it's a bad law and must be repealed. We don't need law to have justice, because justice existed before law (remember that thing about "Life, liberty and property do not exist because men created laws."). If someone murdered someone close to me, I would blow the ****er away if I can, and that would be justice.

Where I appear to disagree with Bastiat, but I really don't, is the specifics of today's laws. When you think about it, a good laws does not tie down people, but rather the *government*. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, for example. Good laws, then, are purely administrative so that limited government knows what to do with itself, such as a neighborhood specifying a head tax to hire a constable at $X per year. Because everyone pays equally, and the benefit is shared equally (any victim of a crime can summon the constable), it is not a bad law since it does not redistribute wealth. A bad law, by contrast, ties down the people by taxing New Yorkers to pay for West Virginians' roads, by giving subsidies to domestic agriculture, by placing tariffs and quotas on foreign goods, and so on.

When I talk about minimal government, I mean not much beyond a court system and basic police force. What we have today, under the guise of "law," is so perverse that I'd rather have full anarcho-capitalism. Bastiat would cry at all the laws we have. Virtually all our laws today don't tie down government or lay out how it functions administratively. They instead tie down the people. We're in such a sorry state that we pass laws to "give" ourselves freedom, to "permit" ourselves to do things, instead of passing laws to *affirm* that government cannot infringe upon our rights.

So it follows, dagny, that a good law by definition does not infringe upon the rights of any individual, let alone any minority as great as 50% minus one person. There's no need for a tyranny of nine to decide if a law seizes from one to give to another. The people can see for themselves. The first recourse is to vote. The second is to protest. The third is to apply tar and feathers. The fourth is to shoot and shoot well.

BTW, Randy Barnett and I talked about the SCOTUS a little. He disagrees with me that the country can be ruled by a mere five, but what happened with Plessy v. Ferguson? Brown v. Board? Roe v. Wade? Raich v. Gonzalez? All it takes is five to decide, and the entire country's course can reverse.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2007 3:57 PM | What do you think? [27]