USA Politics

The other problem is when they are too old, they don't do anything to fix them.  For instance, we have a privately owned draw bridge (rail road owned) near by.  The bridge is in horrible shape, but the rail road is still making money on tolls, so they don't want to replace it.  In comparison, the two bridges on either side have both been replaced by the state, and are in great condition.

Ok, though, one thing I'm not really clear on:  Who owns the toll roads?  I know there are 'toll interstates' all around, but are those gov't built roads that they are just trying to recoup the loss on?  I should know, but don't.
 
Perun said:
the libertarian movement
Click to expand...

I find the movement's view on things simplistic, radical and obsessive. Everything seems to turn around taxes, money, taxes, money, taxes, money. Plus there seems to be some strange urge to associate various matters with fascism, and there is the unstoppable anti-government talk.

Nothing is important because it costs money, because there are taxes.

Wow, if money is the one and only value in life, then life must be really boring. There is more out there:

Reasons, causes, politics, relations, initiatives, people, details, votes, democracy. Life is complex.

And how can people ignore the current financial crisis. Surely fraud has to do with it, but also a lack of control. Advocating more freedom for banks and advocating capitalism will surely help (not)! Governments need to make stricter rules.

I have the idea that libertarians sometimes conceal facts of working systems which they oppose.

Come and check out a state with the lowest unemployment rate within the eurozone:
The Netherlands: 4.2 percent.

A government can surely have a role in stimulating that figure. A government can react, help, and work.
In other words: a government can stimulate the economy, by taking measurements, by making deals with organizations.

And the Dutch health care system is one of the best in the world, if not the best.
Why? Because we have some good laws, made by some intelligent politicians.
 
Perun said:
When you say that the interstates or the Hoover Dam could have been run by private corporations, that claim may be true if you consider their economical situation; but the private sector would never have come up with the initiative for such projects, because they lack the grand vision for such projects. They only care for their own benefit and perhaps that of the ones immediately dependent of them. They do not care if such projects would have benefits for greater fields. And that's why you can't have an economy based on the private sector: It lacks the grand perspective. It only cares for it's own goods and never for that of the general population.
Click to expand...

Um, who built the railroads?  The founder of my alma mater (Stanford) and the namesake of my wife's grad school (Vanderbilt) made a pretty respectable fortune building interstate railroads.

Forostar said:
I find the movement's view on things simplistic, radical and obsessive. Everything seems to turn around taxes, money, taxes, money, taxes, money.
Click to expand...

Aha.  This explains your negative view of libertarianism.  You don't understand it.  It's not about money.  It's about freedom.  Money is simply a natural outgrowth of freedom.  Consider: if I ask you to do something that benefits only me, you have the freedom to say "no, fuck you."  So, I have to offer you something in return.  Could be barter, but money is more efficient, because it is freely transferable.  People have a problem with taxes because, if you're taxed at ~50%, that means that for six months out of the year, you are working as a slave laborer for the government.  They take the fruits of your labor and give it to others.  That is, indeed, a bit of an oversimplification, but it makes the point.  Libertarianism is about liberty.  You may decide not to work and drop off the grid.  If you can survive that way, great.  Thoreau did that -- he wasn't concerned about money or possessions, he cared about liberty. 

That said, most libertarians are not anarchists.  They understand that there is a role for government, because of the "free rider" problem identified by economists -- e.g., "why should I pay for national defense if everybody else is going to pay for it, anyway?"  I'm an attorney, so my whole career is predicated on the notion that the state should use its police power to enforce certain express or implied contracts.  The government also serves a social insurance function, because a crack baby is incapable of buying a private insurance contract to cover her own health care, child-rearing and education.  The problem with a welfare state, however, is that it encourages and rewards free riders.  My brother is a professor, and most of his work day is spent applying for government grants to do economic research that no one gives a shit about except him.  (And he makes fun of me for being a blood-sucking lawyer!)  At least he works.  The notion that the government can force you to work primarily for the benefit of others is not only economically inefficient, the libertarian would say it is immoral. 
 
cornfedhick said:
Um, who built the railroads?  The founder of my alma mater (Stanford) and the namesake of my wife's grad school (Vanderbilt) made a pretty respectable fortune building interstate railroads. 
Click to expand...

Railroads that were built at government request and often (thought not always) with government funding, the same as in Canada. Some railroads were built for local and even interstate communication lines, but the big ones, like the Pacific railways, were built at government request. It wasn't Gould or Vanderbilt or Stanford who drove the last spike; it was Ulysses S. Grant.
 
cornfedhick said:
The problem with a welfare state, however, is that it encourages and rewards free riders.  
Click to expand...

Look mate, I myself have very much to criticise about the welfare state, both in theory and in practice. However, I live in a part of town which has a disproportionally large amount of population that is unemployed and living on welfare. And I can tell you one thing: They are not leading happy lives. Welfare assures them the minimum amount of income to survive, but they can't do any more than that. Most people in this situation have been living on welfare for all their life, because their low education and social status prevented them from getting any long-term jobs. These people lead useless lives, and they know it and what's worse is they know they can't do anything about it. Welfare just gives them enough so they won't starve or freeze to death.

So whenever you criticise the welfare state, just keep in mind that the majority of people dependent on it long-termed are not happy with that, and they are not leading good lives at all.
 
IMO, the problem here is perspective.  There are many people that are on welfare (long-term) that probably don't want to be on it.  And, possibly, it is different in the EU, than it is here in the USA.  From my point of view (and I know many people on long-term welfare), many of the people are happy to be living that lifestyle.  Here, in the Midwest, there are people that are 3rd generation welfare recipients, and enjoy the lifestyle that comes with it.  They know how to milk the system to get the most benefits with the least amount of labor.  People that milk churches, soup kitchens, low-rent apartment complexes.  I've had this convo with LC, there are people that I know, for a fact, that have gotten a part time job and either quit or requested reduced hours to stay on the welfare system (rather than work more to get off of it).  These people really have little drive.  They are happy to sit in their state paid apartments, eat their government paid for food, smoke their dope, and never leave their 10 block radius.  Those are the people (I believe) that cornfedhick was speaking of (not trying to put words in anyone's mouth). The problem is filtering.  Welfare should be for those in need-- lost your job and losing your house?  I really hope there is a church, family, or state that can assist you with something to get you back on your feet.  You are 55 years old and haven't worked a day in your life?  Sorry, I think that is too much (and, I know someone just like that).  That is my take-- not meant to be inflamitory or anything, but the way that I have seen the system abused here.
 
@Wasted: it's not only about perspective, it's also about proportions. There are indeed people who don't want to work, also in Europe, but do you really think that's the majority of people who live on welfare?

What about all the others? They need money.

Everyone for his own, is that the ideal society you'd like to live in?
 
Maybe you misunderstood me:  I believe that there are people that need help!  Sometimes bad shit happens to good people and they need assistance.  I believe in a system where those people need and should receive that assistance.  I'm happy that my taxes can go to that.

However, there are many, many people around that abuse the system.  I have personally seen countless cases of people that are more than able to have a job, in some field or another, but are in my shop, buying a motorcycle, paying for it with welfare income, because they would rather spend their days riding the bike than working.  Granted, I'm jaded towards those situations, but those situations happen frequently.  I know people that work in the social system (my ex wife, even) that see the abuse of the system every day.

Again, I feel that people that need help should get it.  I feel, also, that by the time a second or third generation of welfare recipients have been established, something needs to change.  Like I said, LC and I talked about this somewhere on here, and education is a key factor.  Don't just throw money at this, take people on this system and require education.  And, for christ's sake, require drug testing.  Nothing pisses my friends and me off more than having to submit to drug tests at our jobs, while you can do all the drugs you want while taking gov't money.
 
Sounds like you understand the importance of welfare and taxes. You signal the abusing, it's good to not underestimate that, but it wouldn't be bad to not overestimate it either. Because if all people on welfare would be viewed in the same stigmatizing way (I'm not saying you're doing this, but I certainly have the idea that some others do), millions of people would be denied and forgotten.

And that's what I like about Obama. He doesn't forget the poor. He wants to give them some rights, and some freedom. Freedom to go to a doctor, freedom to be insured. Freedom to change, freedom to grow, freedom to learn. Freedom to care for themselves and others. That's real freedom.
 
In Denmark the welfare state is politically generally accepted. The state provides some of the most essential welfare benefits which Forostar mentions. This has created an stable society with a stable political system.
But this luxury has created another problem: I Denmark one of the most political tense cases was a case about food arrangement in the kindergartens. Here the government spend millions of kroners on new kitchen equipment to the kindergartens so their kitchen equipment was in accordance to current laws on the matter of food safety.  Naturally not all parents were satisfied with this arrangement - they thought they could make their childrens' food themselves. But the Danish social minister, who ironically is form the Danish liberal party, declared that these parents where "egoistic" because they would not accept the lunch pack which the other kids received.
This is an case where the state has gone to far - the state is now our nanny who solves the problems which we cannot deal with ourselves. The values which Forostar mentions are forgotten: Good intentions have been replaced with greed and laziness. Forostar mentioned earlier that the libertarian way of thinking is only on money and profit instead of social consideration. But the Danish welfare state is exactly like that: People demands unnecessarily much service form the state because they have paid huge sums in tax. Good intentions do not come from high taxes: It just makes people want more.
I do believe that the state should provide help to those who are in trouble, just like Forostar. But a welfare state like the Danish one is not necessarily the answer.
 
Forostar said:
Sounds like you understand the importance of welfare and taxes. You signal the abusing, it's good to not underestimate that, but it wouldn't be bad to not overestimate it either. Because if all people on welfare would be viewed in the same stigmatizing way (I'm not saying you're doing this, but I certainly have the idea that some others do), millions of people would be denied and forgotten.

And that's what I like about Obama. He doesn't forget the poor. He wants to give them some rights, and some freedom. Freedom to go to a doctor, freedom to be insured. Freedom to change, freedom to grow, freedom to learn. Freedom to care for themselves and others. That's real freedom.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you are right about freedoms, but I think that people often mistake freedoms for rights.  Everyone in the USA has the freedom to go to a doctor-- there are laws that state that no one can be turned away from a hospital.  However, the right to free medical care is something different.  There is a lot of discussion about the right to free medicine... I don't know that it's that simple.  Sure, we look at it from our view: we pay taxes for our gov't to take care of us, we have doctors and pharma companies that make expensive treatments and medicines that we can't afford, the health ins companies are making it to expensive to be insured, etc, etc.  But, the flip side is this:  how should the people providing these services be compensated?  Should a doctor that has spent 8+ years studying, paying college bills, etc. be paid the same wage on a gov't medical plan as another gov't worker?  Everyone talks about the 'free market' economy, but only when it suits them.  For instance-- cornfedhick went to school and spent a ton of time and money (i am assuming due to what it takes to be an atty) and is now reaping the rewards from his time.  The more you want to do something, the better you are at it, the more you should be paid for it.  Also, people (here) just assume that the insurance companies should pay for everything and rates should be low... but its not so simple as that-- i'm not saying that there isn't some profit that is made there, but I know people that pay $1200 -2000 a year for insurance, get bills paid over $3000-4000 a year and think they are getting a raw deal...

Anyway, I digress.

I know there are problems with our system.  I know there are people in need, and people abusing.  It needs reform and education, but that has been said since I was old enough to listen to those words.  Chances are that only a complete lack of funds is the only thing that will ever make a large change in our welfare system.
 
cornfedhick said:
Um, who built the railroads?  The founder of my alma mater (Stanford) and the namesake of my wife's grad school (Vanderbilt) made a pretty respectable fortune building interstate railroads.

Aha.  This explains your negative view of libertarianism.  You don't understand it.  It's not about money.  It's about freedom.  Money is simply a natural outgrowth of freedom.  Consider: if I ask you to do something that benefits only me, you have the freedom to say "no, fuck you."  So, I have to offer you something in return.  Could be barter, but money is more efficient, because it is freely transferable.  People have a problem with taxes because, if you're taxed at ~50%, that means that for six months out of the year, you are working as a slave laborer for the government.  They take the fruits of your labor and give it to others.  That is, indeed, a bit of an oversimplification, but it makes the point.  Libertarianism is about liberty.  You may decide not to work and drop off the grid.  If you can survive that way, great.  Thoreau did that -- he wasn't concerned about money or possessions, he cared about liberty.   

That said, most libertarians are not anarchists.  They understand that there is a role for government, because of the "free rider" problem identified by economists -- e.g., "why should I pay for national defense if everybody else is going to pay for it, anyway?"  I'm an attorney, so my whole career is predicated on the notion that the state should use its police power to enforce certain express or implied contracts.  The government also serves a social insurance function, because a crack baby is incapable of buying a private insurance contract to cover her own health care, child-rearing and education.  The problem with a welfare state, however, is that it encourages and rewards free riders.  My brother is a professor, and most of his work day is spent applying for government grants to do economic research that no one gives a shit about except him.  (And he makes fun of me for being a blood-sucking lawyer!)  At least he works.  The notion that the government can force you to work primarily for the benefit of others is not only economically inefficient, the libertarian would say it is immoral. 
Click to expand...

Thank you, cornfed!

I don't have the time to make a full reply to all the posts above.  Most of LC's post either agrees with me or just says that capitalism doesn't work without state intervention without providing examples.  He still maintains that the New Deal "worked" without actually answering any of my criticisms.  He accused me of an ad hominen attack, yet he throws out words like "idiots" without any thought.  LC brought forth the idea that Hitler used Keynesian ideas during the 30s.  The idea of state financing projects where profits go to the private hands, yet are financed by public (e.g. tax payer) is a fascist idea.  In fascism all burdens are public (e.g. that of the tax payer) and benefits are private.  The problem with general understanding, not just here but at large, is that people conflate fascism and capitalism.  The latter's actual philosophical and practical differences have been deliberately muddled over the 20th century that there is no way a layman can learn of it in high school or acedemia (with rare exceptions).

The one thing that everyone mentioned is my point on interstates and Hoover Dam.  I'm glad cornfed mentioned the railroads.  Ontario has one private highway (407 ETR) and works just fine.  Unlike our public roads which do not have the funds, the highway is in a better condition. 

As to whomever mentioned that private industry cannot plan long-term, this is about the worse point I've heard.  The state has problem planning as every 4-8 years there is someone new in the office, with different agendas, whose long term goals do not exists as they won't have to deal with the problems they cause a generation down the road.  A different politician will have to fix it.  A different politician will have different priorities depending a variety of circumstances.  State planning is inefficient, slow and has a large bureaucracy.

Also, Foro the big difference between Netherlands and North America is the size.  State planning gets worse and worse, the great the size of land one has to plan for. 

One more thing and this is the clincher.  For those (Americans) who read and did not understand my and the linked criticisms of the Fed, do yourself a favour and read upon it.  This is the key problem with American (and world) economics.  It is the issue that revolves around the problems of the Great Depression, and today's "Great Recession".

I'll probably add more, but I do not have as much time right now.
 
I cited numbers regarding the Great Depression and how the New Deal reduced unemployment, when previous plans hadn't worked. I don't see how I didn't support my thoughts with evidence.
 
cornfedhick said:
  You may decide not to work and drop off the grid.  If you can survive that way, great.  Thoreau did that -- he wasn't concerned about money or possessions, he cared about liberty. 
Click to expand...

Ok I call Bullshit. Thoreau didn't do it, he tried it for a little over 2 years and the recount of that in Walden compresses it into a year for dramatic purposes, but it was still only an experiment. for someone concerned with "liberty" and being "off the grid" he sure did work hard to pay off his debts...

anyway, back to topic. Taxes are a necessary evil. The End.
 
Forostar said:
2 days until D-Day.

What are your expectations, people?
Click to expand...

Not sure, Utah, Gold and Sword should be fine, and I'm sure the Canucks will tackle Juno, but I'm kinda worried about Omaha...
 
The Dems feel very confident it will get passed and they are very "giddy" (their words not mine) over reducing the defecit... I'm expecting it to pass, but indeed we will see
 
Oh no! Now Europeans have lost something to make them feel superior to Americans! What will we do now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top