Where the GOP goes from here

Post Reply New Topic

I'm sure the people good people in New York would just love to have to pay a bill for the continued privilege of living after a hurricane destroyed everything. I have never seen a libertarian answer that.

You seem to have us confused with anarchists. Common mistake.

First things first:

What libertarian message? We're not a monolithic bloc you know. Are you cruising Reason, the Volokh Conspiracy, Cato, etc looking for libertarian proposals and not finding any? Do you even know any libertarians? If yes, do you ever actually talk non-superficial politics with them?

Secondly, even if I granted you the idea that libertarians are much more critical than constructive, which I am not, that would justify the constant progressive distortion of our philosophy how? Whether it's being lumped together with conservatives or being attacked as heartless or cruel, it is constant and it is a distortion.

Jonathan Haidt did a study a while back suggesting progressives are less able to understand their opponents' point of view than other ideologies and that the tendency increases with the degree of progressiveness, which would explain if not excuse some of the behavior. I even did a thread on that study when it came out, here's the link to the relevant part of the study: http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/10/born-this-way/2 (near the bottom of the page). Here's a new study finding that liberals are also less tolerant of dissenting opinion online (I, for one, am shocked!): http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012 ... itics.aspx

Anyway, the flip answer to your questions would be that you don't build a new house on a rotting foundation, and flip or not there is some truth to that. There is a lot of "rot" that needs to be cleared out of various areas of government before "renovations" can be made, but most of that "rot" has entrenched constituencies that would fight tooth and nail against removing it. It's the nightmare scenario of the people voting themselves largess from the state checkbook, whether those people be defense contractors, public sector unions, crony capitalists, or the very representatives entrusted to steer the state. Reform is nearly impossible when every move to cut anything is opposed by a well funded organized lobby with a lot to lose because they're profiting from the inefficiency or wrongful policy, e.g. the drug war. If the libertarian position appears more destructive than constructive on cursory examination, it's because a lot of destruction is necessary to get this country back on the right track, and it's not going to be a painless process. I really, really hate to quote him, but once upon a time Rush Limbaugh said that it's easy to be a liberal, you just have to say yes to everything, and I kind of agree with that. It's that refusal to make the hard choices and just say no sometimes that gives liberals their spendthrift reputation, and the mindset behind it that makes voices of restraint sound like voices of oppression.

For ultra ueber disasters there is probably no better solution than government action. Only government can make the funds available and only government has the authority to impose emergency restrictions and rules.

Government exist primarily to keep the peace in society, protect the nations shores from enemy attack, try criminals and administer punishments and provide a uniform standard of justice to settle non-criminal disputes.

That is why we have government at all. From this it does not follow that government is the ideal engine for dealing with illness. Virtually all medical advances come from the private sector.

ruveyn

From this it does not follow that government is the ideal engine for dealing with illness. Virtually all medical advances come from the private sector.

I will give you an historic example.

The San Fransisco Earthquake of 1906. What the quake did not take down the fires destroyed. The Army came in to do two things.

1. Deter looting.

2. Blast fire breaks with dynamite to hinder the spread of the fire.

Once the Army had restored order to the area, private parties and firms undertook the rebuilding of the city. The city was mostly rebuilt in three years!! Can you see any government operation being that efficient? You bet you can't. After ten year, almost all signs of the destruction ceased to exist. San Francisco was rebuilt -privately- and every successfully. So the idea of having a private version of FEMA is not all that ridiculous.

ruveyn

And then the private sector does all it can to squeeze money out of people in order to get access to that advance.

This is such a lie I get so sick of hearing. People create wealth by doing things that benefit themselves and others, not accumulating money and hoarding it away like squirrels. When people are paid to do something productive they are "creating wealth" with their productivity. They can be paid by anyone, including government. They don't have to be working in the "private sector" for a bunch of random shareholders' personal profit. Government needs to take on certain productive activities that the private sector is simply uninterested in dealing with (likely because they don't see any immediate profit they can extract from it).

When there are not enough jobs to go around the fundamental problem is people are not sharing. You b***h and moan if people get welfare with no work requirement, you b***h and moan if government makes them work for their "welfare" instead by creating a job the private hoarders are unable or unwilling to create "for profit". There's simply no way to win with you! You sound like Maria Antoniette "Let Them Eat Cake!! !". I can only conclude that you want the "losers" who can't find work to starve since there is no obligation to anyone to prevent such a situation. I don't see how you can fault people for not wanting to live in your lovely world.

It's not, "Let them eat cake," but rather, "I got mine." My well-funded roads, my well-funded education, my Medicare, my Social Security, etc. and screw the grandkids!

No. If I produce 10 units of a product, and 10 units of that product are consumed, no wealth is created. Wealth creation is an accumulation, not a consumption. If you produce 10 units and consume 11 units (one from savings), then you are consuming wealth. In order to create wealth, you must produce more than you consume, resulting in savings that are later used to acquire capital goods that facilitate further production. Wealth cannot be created by consumption, no matter how you run the numbers.

If the government uses capital goods in order to produce, then it's operating as a business, not a government. Government that uses taxation in order to pay for production is reallocating resources, not producing wealth.


I don't fault people who cannot survive on their own due to a medical issue. I don't fault people who can survive on their own for needing help for a few months to get back on their feet.

I fault people when they don't try. I fault government when it encourages people to not try and destroys resources people have to succeed on their own (jobs). If there aren't enough jobs, then people should make their own jobs in their own venture. It's disappointing that so many people think it's someone else's responsibility to get them work.

As for "the fundamental problem is people are not sharing", I don't even know how to take that statement seriously. We live in a world full of opportunities. Instead of going and taking from this huge pie of opportunity, you want me to go get my slice of the pie and then share it with you? Please, get off your ass and cut your own slice.

If the state had a great track record of running efficient programs that delivered vital services to people who need them when they need them without employing brigades of bureaucrats to sort reams of paperwork who soak up all the money put into the programs, then I and many other identified libertarians would have no problem supporting things like universal healthcare and strong welfare programs. But that's not the state's track record, is it?

But instead of being positive and presenting ideas to reform programs, the libertarian message is to tear it all down.

The US does not seem to have libertarians with a coherent plan other than roll back all the reforms of the 20th century so we can go back to the wonderful 19th century Gilded Age. Even Hong Kong and Singapore have government subsidies to make healthcare affordable to all. They simply require different percentage of copay based on income level but everyone pays at least 10% to discourage overuse. Doctors and providers are required to disclose prices to promote competition. It is not single payer but it is efficient and market friendly. I'd be happy for such a such a system in the US. The problem is American conservatives and libertarians are against any kind of subsidy because that is "redistribution" and goes against their whole social darwinist view of the world. Hong Kong and Singapore also have a progressive tax system even if the taxes are low. In contrast. American conservatives and libertarians want to abolish the income tax and replace it with a flat consumption/sales tax. The American brand of Randian market fundamentalism exists nowhere else in the world. It's all about turning the clock back to the 19th century. It's a bunch of radical extremism.

If I consume a bottle of anti-biotics and get will it enables me to go back to work and produce a value greater than the bottle of anti-biotics. You have a mistaken view of consumption. Consumption is not destruction. It is using one thing or service to produce another thing or service which often is of greater value than the thing used.

You have a zero sum view of the world which is just plain wrong.

ruveyn