Pharyngula

Posted by: Glenn Kachmar | September 19, 2009 3:37 PM

Absolutely hilarious. That should them them food for thought if they are capable of said process!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 19, 2009 3:43 PM

*But I paid into social security and medicare.*
Never mind that after about two years, your contribution is gone and you are living off the backs of the present day workers like any socialist.

Posted by: Steve8282 | September 19, 2009 3:47 PM

Walton...

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 19, 2009 3:48 PM

And while they forbear all of these socialist evil, I will be purchasing textbooks with my socialist Federal Grant, that arrived via the socialistic United State Postal Service, to attend my socialist public university where I will study such godless subjects such as the evolution of the genus homo, world music, and lithic technology.

I guess I'm truly a godless anti-American socialist.

Posted by: Zeno | September 19, 2009 3:51 PM

This morning's San Francisco Chronicle has a nice piece exposing the horrors of that hotbed of socialism known as the public library! [Link]

Posted by: Benny the Icepick | September 19, 2009 3:57 PM

PZ, I know you didn't write this, so I have to forgive you, but this really rubs me the wrong way.

To suggest that because we still have certain rights we will always continue to have them is asinine. We exercised our rights in protest of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions act PRECISELY BECAUSE those rubbish heaps of legislation threatened our rights.

I've noticed that now that the tides have turned, my fellow liberals are using the same empty rhetoric against the conservatives that the right-wingers used against us when WE were protesting these past eight years.

It does no good to the cause to engage in logically unsupportable arguments.

Posted by: noahpoah | September 19, 2009 4:00 PM

Mmm-mmm, that's some good strawman right there.

Posted by: Martin | September 19, 2009 4:02 PM

Hello, Dennis. Goodbye, Dennis.

Posted by: Zetetic | September 19, 2009 4:05 PM

Somewhat related to the topic....
Here is a poll that is in need of some input.

Poll: What's behind anti-Obama outcry?

Currently the results are...
"He's a socialist and taking us in the wrong direction" - 74%
"It's racism pure and simple" - 6%
"It's no worse than anti-Bush protests" - 9%
"It's Republicans trying to bring him down" - 10%

Enjoy.

Posted by: Ivence | September 19, 2009 4:10 PM

This isn't so much a strawman as much as saying "look...socialism isn't evil." Yes it's done at the expense of the teabaggers, but watch any video of the ignorant masses turning out to those protest rallys and you'll find it pretty difficult not to make fun of them too.

Posted by: Facehammer | September 19, 2009 4:15 PM

Reminds me of something similar, yet slightly more biting, that did the rounds not long ago. I think it was originally posted to the laissez's fair subforum of the somethingawful forums.

I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE SHITHEEL

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Posted by: Crewvy | September 19, 2009 4:23 PM

It`s slightly funny how these conservatives ,that are so terrified of socialism, want to interfere in every aspect of our private lives.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 4:24 PM

"A wonderful example of ideology's ability to obscure more than it illuminates" ... said Marcus Ranum, nihilist and anarchocapitalist.

Posted by: Crewvy | September 19, 2009 4:27 PM

Oooop`s sorry double post ,don`t know how that happened.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 19, 2009 4:28 PM

Well what started it was people protesting against "government takeover" had the gall to whine about public tranportation not working well, forcing them to pay extra for cab fares.
Seriously.

Posted by: Andy | September 19, 2009 4:34 PM

What gets me is that these people seem to have no problems at all when our money is going to kill people, but as soon as it might go to help people they freak out. It's even stranger when you consider that most of these folks consider themselves to be *good Christians*.

Posted by: BMcP | September 19, 2009 4:44 PM

I doubt most Tea Party folks are Libertarians, especially since Libertarians are not religious folks and tend to be strong promoters of separation of Church and State. Also should be pointed out that Tea Party folks are generally against federal programs and expenditure, which doesn't translate to opposition to state and local program.

-- Brian, who is not a Tea Party protester, or a libertarian, or a socialist.

Posted by: pcarini | September 19, 2009 4:45 PM

Certainly you don't think it's "us guys" who labeled the proposed health reforms as being socialist, do you?

Posted by: BMcP | September 19, 2009 4:49 PM

#34Is it too much to ask for you guys to have a reasonable, polite conversation about *anything*????

Sadly you know the answer to that, it is easier to broad brush your opponents int he most exaggerated light then to attempt to actually understand them. It is the nature of the Internet.

Posted by: Dahan | September 19, 2009 4:51 PM

Thanks much PZ. I just posted it to on my FB account to annoy my many conservative family and friends.

Hilarious!

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 19, 2009 4:54 PM

Is it too much to ask for you guys to have a reasonable, polite conversation about *anything*????

We we're being impolite?
And you fail. There is much socialistic aspect about those government infrastructures. They are paid for by tax payers dollars. We could, however, turn towards private alternative to them (private own parks, private run schools, branded bottle water, etc.) The decision to chose these government infrastructures does affect the economy.

Posted by: Hank Fox | September 19, 2009 4:57 PM

I love it! Only one problem:

The argument behind this list is based on REASON.

Posted by: pcarini | September 19, 2009 4:57 PM

I should add to my #40 that satirically exaggerating the opposition's position is _not_ the same as a strawman argument. The pledge above is much more a reductio ad absurdum than a strawman.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 4:58 PM

The people saying "strawman" are being introduced for the first time to the fact that the USA is not a purely capitalist system. Be gentle with them; unfamiliar ideas can seem frightening.

Posted by: pcarini | September 19, 2009 5:01 PM

Fourth, although you are obviously just trying to be funny, eating is not partaking of a government program.

Not like there are any government agencies ensuring that what you eat is of the quality that it claims to be and isn't contaminated in some way ...

Posted by: Walton | September 19, 2009 5:04 PM

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on Pharyngula.

Firstly, "socialised" is not the same thing as "socialist". Opposing socialism does not mean we have to automatically reject all government-run services.

There are some services which cannot effectively be provided by the private and voluntary sectors, because they involve externalities or public goods with which a free market cannot deal. These include military protection, law enforcement, courts and environmental regulation. Everyone, except anarchocapitalists, agrees that government should provide these things. At the same time, there are other areas - such as manufacturing and retail - in which a free market is demonstrably more efficient than government central planning.

Thus I am against socialism, yet I support a government-run military, police, courts, and a number of other government services. Supporting these things does not make me a socialist. It is perfectly coherent to argue that government is good at providing some things, but bad at providing others. And it is perfectly legitimate to debate whether certain services, such as healthcare and education, can be provided better by government or by the private sector. To say "you use government services X and Y, therefore you're endorsing socialism!" is intellectually lazy.

Some things should be provided by government, others by the free market, others by a mixture of both. We can have a sensible debate as to where the line should be drawn. But it is intellectually lazy and foolish to argue "you oppose socialism, therefore you shouldn't use any government services." The fact that I am against socialism, and in favour of a generally capitalist economy, does not mean that I think all government intervention is automatically bad. It isn't; and it is perfectly legitimate for people to use government services while, at the same time, arguing that some services might be provided more efficiently by the private and voluntary sectors.

Posted by: Susan | September 19, 2009 5:07 PM

Thank you! Self-evident truths are not the teabaggers' strong suit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 19, 2009 5:08 PM

At least this is a political thread, so we can't accuse Walton of threadjacking. But accusing him of being a selfish b****** is still appropriate.

Posted by: Chris Tucker | September 19, 2009 5:09 PM

Zeno, the Chronicle piece was satire.

THIS CLOWN really means it!

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Landauer/The_Scourge_of_Public_Libraries.shtml

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 5:11 PM

the reason many are protesting current proposals to expand government is because they don't want to be compelled to pay into another poorly run boondoggle.

And the point really is: not every government program is a "poorly run boondoggle". Your paranoia is showing.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 5:16 PM

There are some services which cannot effectively be provided by the private and voluntary sectors, because they involve externalities or public goods with which a free market cannot deal. These include military protection, law enforcement, courts and environmental regulation.

Posted by: Walton | September 19, 2009 5:18 PM

strange gods,

The people saying "strawman" are being introduced for the first time to the fact that the USA is not a purely capitalist system. Be gentle with them; unfamiliar ideas can seem frightening.

What do you mean, exactly? There is no such thing as a "purely capitalist" system. All capitalist countries are, to some degree, mixed economies, in the sense that there is some provision of services by government. Conversely, most professed socialist countries today (except possibly North Korea) allow some kind of private trade and ownership in some sectors of the economy. In the real world, the difference between "capitalist" and "socialist" countries is usually one of degree rather than of kind.

(Anarchocapitalists, of course, advocate a hypothetical "purely capitalist" society with no government, where all goods and services will be provided by voluntary exchanges in a free market. But no such society has ever existed in reality. Indeed, some free-market anarchists, such as Wendy McElroy, reject the label "anarchocapitalist", because they recognise that their ideal society bears no relation to capitalism as it actually exists.)

Posted by: BMcP | September 19, 2009 5:20 PM

#44 Interestingly the latest trend when it comes to Interstate highways is to lease them to private companies who have a tendency to raise capital pretty quickly. Alas usually through raising tolls. I am still unsure of this public-private mixture in regards to our national highways, the jury is still out on this one wither or not it is a good idea.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 19, 2009 5:22 PM

wow, so many people completely missing the point. not that it was surprising, really.

of course this list doesn't talk about socialism. it talks about "socialism", as in: "Obama is a socialist".

also, if you're complaining about the Post Office then you're the person they talk about when they say "I wish I had your problems"

USPS works just fine, and unlike UPS, they're open more than half an hour a week and are capable of climbing stairs.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | September 19, 2009 5:23 PM

Nobody will compelled to pay into anything.

You are aware that many of the proposals have a fine for not having insurance, right? That sounds compelled to me.

Posted by: Snoof | September 19, 2009 5:26 PM

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Landauer/The_Scourge_of_Public_Libraries.shtml

Is this person clinically insane, or just spectacularly moronic? I... I'm so astonished I can't even formulate a coherent response.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 5:26 PM

What do you mean, exactly? There is no such thing as a "purely capitalist" system. All capitalist countries are, to some degree, mixed economies, in the sense that there is some provision of services by government.

As I've stressed numerous times. But "mixed" with what, Walton? You can't say it's not a pure capitalist system and yet at the same time these aren't examples of socialism.

In the real world, the difference between "capitalist" and "socialist" countries is usually one of degree rather than of kind.

Rendering your previous comment nonsensical.

Posted by: wise one | September 19, 2009 5:27 PM

It's a shame people would rather make such all or nothing arguments like this post. It inaccurately and unfairly simplifies the argument many of the "anti-socialist" protesters are making and boils them down to TV sound-bites. Also, after reading many of the comments, I can tell that hardly anyone here is aware of the strong libertarian-leaning element from which these protests arose. While FOX News (and its supporters) has co-opted these protests to a certain degree, many of the protesters want the FEDERAL government largely out of their pockets and their lives (including their bedrooms). People who simplify the arguments of 300+ million people down to sound-bites are trying to manipulate you. Be very skeptical of such approaches.

We are a diverse country with diverse problems and opportunities facing us. Fundamentally, besides the protection of property and providing for the ability to repel foreign invaders (i.e. a military and DOJ) there's not much need for the FEDERAL government to be involved in controlling our lives. Services such as police, libraries, etc. (important services that most communities desire) are provided at the local level. Each community, city and state should be able to decide these things for themselves.

This century has seen a strong trend towards increasing FEDERAL control and power, at the expense of the states' and people's rights. This is disturbing for many reasons, the chief of which is that accountability and transparency exist less and less the further up you go in the hierarchy of gov't. That is to say, the farther away your money goes from your pocket (to the city, to the states, to D.C.) the harder it is to track it, much less try and get it back, i.e. HUGE incentive for corruption to take place along with IMMORAL waste of taxpayer money.

Other consequences such as the usurping of more and more power to each successive executive branch, eroding the inherent checks and balances of our government have also been occurring, i.e. increased use of emergency EXECUTIVE ORDERS. The has resulted in, most notably, numerous expensive and costly (in human lives) illegal, undeclared, unending wars across the globe.

Increasing FEDERAL POWER has resulted in OVER-CRIMINALIZATION of our lives. We are all probably felons without knowing it, whether it be an overly complex tax code or some obscure law against storing common household cleaning products in an improper way. The risk that you might be investigated and held in jail (at great expense), without habeas corpus is not unreal.

A little education: Socialism (an impossible ideal where wealth and power are redistributed to the majority's benefit, yet where actual results include a corrupt gov't elite where we are all "equally" poor) is one form of collectivism. Fascism (where a centralized authoritarian gov't owns all corporations and is in constant conflict around the world) is another for of collectivism. Neither have proven effective, nor appealing. Unfortunately, our incredibly sad, undemocratic two-party system has left most people feeling obligated to choose from one party who presently leans towards socialism and the other who presently leans towards fascism. In my opinion, both are exhibiting fascist tendencies, or perhaps, more accurately, Corporatist tendencies, a similar-looking beast. Corporatism is where we have the undue influence of large, moneyed groups such as corporations, unions, and religious organizations (churches, environmental groups, etc). Both parties unfortunately have fallen in line with these influence-peddlers, allowing them to shape agendas, campaigns, and legislation. Why is the greatest representative democracy around do we have only 2 parties? Increasingly similar parties at that. One heavily influenced by the corporations, war hawks and the religious-right (churches) and the other by unions, corporations and the religious-left (environmental nuts).

There is an answer at the FEDERAL level! We should all be pushing to SHRINK the FEDERAL government, push them to REPEAL these unconstitutional laws (executive orders, Patriot Act, etc.), and we will have greater authority (greater control and greater transparency) in our cities and states to push for more appropriate solutions to our diverse set of problems. Quit looking for band-aids and demand real solutions that work for you and your neighbors. Quit trying to tell others how to live their lives and spend their money. We'll all be better for it.

Posted by: amphiox | September 19, 2009 5:31 PM

#68: "Look at Walton defining all socialism-he-likes as not-socialism"

In this instance, though, Walton is right. Those things he is calling "not-socialism" really aren't socialism. In fact, almost nothing that the American right wing (or at least its most vocal elements) traditionally calls socialism is actually socialism. Almost all of it is just good government.

Posted by: Walton | September 19, 2009 5:32 PM

of course this list doesn't talk about socialism. it talks about "socialism", as in: "Obama is a socialist".

Saying "Obama is a socialist" is, of course, foolish hyperbole.

However, this doesn't detract from the fact that President Obama is advocating an expansion in the role of the federal government. It is legitimate to have a debate about whether this expansion is a good idea. As I said, government is better than the private sector at providing some things, such as military protection, police and courts. Conversely, the private sector is better than government at providing some things, such as manufacturing, retail and consumer services. There are other goods and services, like education and health care, which are on the borderline; and we can legitimately debate whether these things should be provided by government or by the free market, or a mixture of both. But saying "government provides X and Y effectively, therefore socialism is great!" is a weak argument.

also, if you're complaining about the Post Office then you're the person they talk about when they say "I wish I had your problems"

USPS works just fine, and unlike UPS, they're open more than half an hour a week and are capable of climbing stairs.

But the USPS, like its counterparts elsewhere in the world, is not economically viable. It is never going to be profitable to deliver mail everywhere in the country at fixed affordable rates. The only reason it exists at all, in its present form, is because it is government-run and propped up by government money.

Again, we can legitimately debate whether it is an important enough service to justify government funding. But comparing USPS service to that of private couriers misses the point. They aren't in the same business; and the couriers, unlike the USPS, have to compete in a free market and live within their means in order to survive.

Posted by: maureen brian | September 19, 2009 5:34 PM

To repeat, Walton, you are not the target audience for this. You are disqualified because you write and think in whole sentences but most of all because you have read more than one book.

There are a few others which I wish you had read but there is plenty of time for that. That's why, though we may argue vehemently against you, we tend not to laugh and point - as you may have noticed - which is the only possible response to some of the arguments, using the term very loosely, dredged up by those who are the target audience.

Psst! Want a book recommendation?

Posted by: Lifewish | September 19, 2009 5:36 PM

Not really any of my business, since I'm from the other side of the Big Pond. But I'm not sure this pledge hits the spot.

My understanding was that most libertarians ("teabaggers"? wtf?) don't hate government per se, they just think it's an extremely awkward way of achieving anything. It tends to expand to fill the space provided and then some. It tends to accumulate corruption like my cat accumulates burrs, ticks and corpses of cute fluffy critters. And it tends to spew out red tape that makes life harder for those of us trying to do a decent day's work.

As a regular reader of Private Eye's tales of corruption, as someone who has worked on Big Government Projects, and as a card-carrying member of the financial sector, I can only say: they might just have a point. This is possibly more obvious in the UK than in the US: we don't have a written constitution to keep 'em under control.

Note that I'm not saying the government should be gotten rid of. In situations where competition isn't gonna happen, a monopoly is pretty much guaranteed to arise; it might as well be one we the people have (theoretical) control over. But where there is potential for more than one company to operate, the government can usually do the most good by keeping the playing-field level, keeping the companies honest, and otherwise staying the hell out of the way.

I'm afraid this is a drive-by posting - it's 10:30 here and I need my beauty sleep.

Posted by: Alverant | September 19, 2009 5:39 PM

Tim, to address your points.

#2. The USPS is not "self-evidently bad". For less than $0.50 they will pick up your letter and swiftly deliver it anywhere in the US in a matter of days with 6 day a week delivery. For just a few dollars, they will do the same with a package with an option to track it online. They also offer insurance at a very cheap rate. All and all, it's a heckuva good deal.

#3. I get the same "false choice" arguements from libertarians. Mostly along the lines of, "If you don't like how the companies in a certain industry are being run, make your own company." or "If you want X, then you have to accept Y. Is getting rid of Y worth X?" If you don't like the socialist aspects of our country, then move. A good example this is the health insurance companies. I understand these companies actively spend 10%+ of the budgets trying to weasel out of their obligations and NOT pay medical bills? Medical insurance companies are companies, ergo they exist only to make a profit. So if they can make a profit by not paying claims, they have a libertarian obligation not to do it. This is definitly an example of where the government can and should be there to provide an alternative.

#4. Yes, eating does take part in a government program. Unless you grow all your own food, someone has to inspect it. Since businesses can't be trusted to do a proper inspection (that would cost them money), it has to be the government.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 5:40 PM

While FOX News (and its supporters) has co-opted these protests to a certain degree, many of the protesters want the FEDERAL government largely out of their pockets and their lives (including their bedrooms). People who simplify the arguments of 300+ million people down to sound-bites are trying to manipulate you.

People who call themselves "wise one" and then lie outright are definitely trying to manipulate you.

We are a diverse country with diverse problems and opportunities facing us. Fundamentally, besides the protection of property and providing for the ability to repel foreign invaders (i.e. a military and DOJ) there's not much need for the FEDERAL government to be involved in controlling our lives.

I know, right? You and me and Trent Lott agree: "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

accountability and transparency exist less and less the further up you go in the hierarchy of gov't.

Only someone who has never tried to deal with the blatant cronyism and corruption of local government could dream this up.

The has resulted in, most notably, numerous expensive and costly (in human lives) illegal, undeclared, unending wars across the globe.

Yet the anti-war movement is made up almost entirely of progressives and socialists, not paleoconservatives and libertarians.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 19, 2009 5:43 PM

wise one,

This century has seen a strong trend towards increasing FEDERAL control and power, at the expense of the states' and people's rights.

Yes, I really do miss the days when the states had the right to tell black children they had to go to sub-par schools, that black people had to sit in the back of the bus, that prayer could be required in public schools, that women didn't own their own bodies and were incompetent to make decisions regarding their own sexuality, that women could not vote, etc.

There are libertarians out there that think the problem is Federal power, but most of my libertarian friends think the problem is government power in general. In fact, that's what the Libertarian Party platform states. It refers to government power.

Posted by: Mike | September 19, 2009 5:45 PM

Also, we have demonstrable proof that private health care is not the best system.

I don't buy this argument, which I would sketch thusly

We have private healthcare.
Our healthcare system sucks compared to social programs throughout the world.
Therefore, private healthcare doesn't work.

First, our healthcare and health insurance system is very heavily regulated as it is. There's no evidence except anecdotes and rhetoric to indicate that deregulating it wouldn't improve health outcomes and make health insurance more available. I know that argument won't win me many supporters here, and I don't even believe that complete deregulation is the best option, but the evidence can't reject it. However, there are an infinite number of regulatory configurations over a privately run healthcare system and we have only one of them in place. Who is to say one of them isn't better than just handing the reins over to the federal government?

Also, this public option thing is sort of sketchy. There's a reason no one sends all of their letters via FedEx and it's because the private option can't compete with a heavily subsidized government option. Provide a public option and I envision a situation in which it will take advantage of its favored status and heavy subsidies to provide prices with which private companies can not compet. This would not mean it would be better, mind you, just that it would be predatorily pricing, something we generally discourage in the private sector.

Posted by: Kate | September 19, 2009 5:48 PM

I live in a country with universal healthcare and many. many, many other "socialist" programs which greatly benefit myself and my fellow citizens and non-citizens alike. (Which would mean: Landed Immigrants, etc.)

We watch these American Idiots on TV and laugh our asses off at the complete lack of even the most basic understanding of what it means to have socialized medicine. Honestly, people outisde America have been given the impression that America is a country overpopulated with mouth-breathing, violent, uneducated, paranoid whack-a-loons.

Then Walton comes along and simply reinforces the stereotype.

So, Walton, I would be honoured to present you with the "Posterior Haberdasher of The Year Award" for your glorious display of asshattery. Enjoy!

Posted by: amphiox | September 19, 2009 5:50 PM

Walton, the reason the USPS and other national post services are not economical is because in large countries like the U.S (or, say, Canada) postal service to many of the more remote communities is not and will never be economical. If it were left to the private center alone, some places would get no service at all, period.

This is precisely why there needs to be a national post service.

Government run services are not supposed to be "economically viable". Economically viable government services are, in fact, ethically reprehensible. It means that taxpayer money is being wasted generating profits (or contributing to other measures of "economic viability") rather than services for taxpayers.

Government run services should ideally run at-cost. Since the real world is not an ideal one, losses are inevitable. But any service capable of generating a profit is one that should be a candidate for privatization.

Government should not be in the business of making profit. Its purpose is the provision of services for its citizens.

Posted by: Hughes | September 19, 2009 5:50 PM

I'm going to say that churches are socialistic too. After all, they use many of the government programs listed but don't pay tax. An implicit subsidy?

These teabaggers should be lobbying their priests or whatever to pay their fair share, if you ask me. Then everyone could get a tax cut or better services.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 5:52 PM

With the current plan, some contend that within a short period of time we *will* be compelled to pay for it, directly or indirectly, whether that's in the design or not.

And I'd say that the majority of government programs ARE a "poorly run boondoggle", when compared to a viable (ie, properly-run, well-managed) private sector enterprise (the kind of company the free market selects for).

The majority? Really? While I do think that many governmet programs are not as cost-effective as they could be, I have no illusions that any market free of government regulation is in any way capable of effectively regulating itself. It's just not profitable.

Posted by: designsoda | September 19, 2009 5:54 PM

Hey, strange gods. After the thorough pwnage you inflicted upon me on the other thread I have to ask... can I speak now? :P

Just wanted to share with you (since I don't have any other way to contact you) that after of about a year of questioning my political leanings I may no longer be a libertarian (what? you thought me poking around here asking for an intellectual ass-kicking was just coincidence?).

Still a civil libertarian though.

Posted by: Walton | September 19, 2009 5:57 PM

Maureen,

To repeat, Walton, you are not the target audience for this. You are disqualified because you write and think in whole sentences but most of all because you have read more than one book.

Erm, thanks (I think).

That's why, though we may argue vehemently against you, we tend not to laugh and point - as you may have noticed - which is the only possible response to some of the arguments, using the term very loosely, dredged up by those who are the target audience.

Fair enough. There are certainly parts of the American conservative movement which deserve nothing but ridicule. Glenn Beck, for instance, has reached new depths of blithering idiocy in recent weeks. He seems to have abandoned any attempt at making a coherent argument, and now simply rants derangedly at the camera. Recent episodes of his "TV show" could have been easily replicated (at much less cost to the Murdoch coffers) by a simple robot programmed with a few words and phrases, such as "socialism", "ACORN" and "left internationalist".

At least most political pundits, wrong as they may sometimes be, superficially appear to make sense. Beck is a new low.

Psst! Want a book recommendation?

Yes please. (I'm a fast reader, and will soon have finished the Tom Clancy novel I'm currently reading.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 5:58 PM

As I said before, the difference between capitalism and socialism in practice is a matter of degree, not of kind. ... But saying "you endorse government programmes X and Y, therefore you endorse socialism!" is a silly argument, and you know it.

Why is it silly? Why is all socialism-you-like defined as not-socialism? You agree we have a mixed economy. Capitalism mixed with what, Comrade?

You just hate and fear the word, and you aren't willing to admit that it applies to anything you want.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 19, 2009 6:03 PM

Damn, blockquote fail in #108

The first paragraph is Mike's. The rest is me.

Posted by: chgo_liz | September 19, 2009 6:07 PM

Curt @ #84:

Since no one else has said anything yet...no, "forego" is correct. As in foregone, go before, etc. "Forgo" is a lesser-used variant.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 6:09 PM

Hey, strange gods. After the thorough pwnage you inflicted upon me on the other thread I have to ask... can I speak now? :P

Just wanted to share with you (since I don't have any other way to contact you) that after of about a year of questioning my political leanings I may no longer be a libertarian (what? you thought me poking around here asking for an intellectual ass-kicking was just coincidence?).

That's brilliant news, designsoda. Thank you for sharing it with me.

Still a civil libertarian though.

Oh, hey, me too.

Can I recommend something? Take a firearms safety class so that you can at least be familiar with the guns you said you don't like. You might still dislike them after that, but either way, a half-informed gun-control advocate is as useless as a half-informed gun advocate.

Posted by: designsoda | September 19, 2009 6:14 PM

Can I recommend something? Take a firearms safety class so that you can at least be familiar with the guns you said you don't like. You might still dislike them after that, but either way, a half-informed gun-control advocate is as useless as a half-informed gun advocate.

In lieu of the safety class I'll read more on the subject and talk to friends who hunt about it. For personal reasons, I'm not too thrilled to be around guns, even in a controlled environment.

Posted by: Hieronymus Bosch | September 19, 2009 6:16 PM

@ #105

Don't be so hard on Glenn Beck... without him, Fox news and right wing radio there would be overwhelming support for the pro-healthcare movement.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 19, 2009 6:17 PM

Mike #93

First, our healthcare and health insurance system is very heavily regulated as it is. There's no evidence except anecdotes and rhetoric to indicate that deregulating it wouldn't improve health outcomes and make health insurance more available.

You mean like how deregulating airlines raised ticket prices and lowered service? Or were you thinking of how Enron stole millions from California after electrical power was deregulated?

The CEO of the company who provides my company's health insurance made $2.5 million in 2008. The Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is an Executive Level IV making $149,000 per year. So explain to me how paying one guy over 15 times what his government counterpart makes improves health service.

However, there are an infinite number of regulatory configurations over a privately run healthcare system and we have only one of them in place. Who is to say one of them isn't better than just handing the reins over to the federal government?

So your objection to government regulation of health insurance is that you don't like the particular system in place now. If we had a different system, then everything would be hunky-dory, everyone would have affordable health insurance, the CEO would still make $2.5 million, and the mean ol' gummint would be put firmly in its place.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 6:20 PM

In lieu of the safety class I'll read more on the subject and talk to friends who hunt about it. For personal reasons, I'm not too thrilled to be around guns, even in a controlled environment.

That's fine. I would recommend the book Deer Hunting with Jesus by Joe Bageant.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 19, 2009 6:24 PM

Nominal Egg,

I think for-profit insurance is immoral. They deserve to go out of business.

I think I love you ;)

Posted by: Mike | September 19, 2009 6:25 PM

Um, yeah, I don't think you live in reality. Less regulation of the insurance companies would lead to fewer people being covered and less insurance available to those who have health problems. It's in the insurance companies' best interest to only insure those who are unlikely to need it and to deny as many claims as possible to increase the bottom line. This is inherent to any profit driven system. The free market does not provide services that people must have to survive very well. That's demonstrably obvious to anyone who has suffered the effects of privatization of their electricity. The evidence that our private system is the most expensive with only average outcomes compared to every other developed country where health care is much more tightly regulated is pretty persuasive. That you can't see that means you're willfully blind.

Less regulation may lead to less coverage. It also may lead to cheaper policies since the government would no longer be telling insurance companies what procedures have to be covered. Is it not possible that we could see a wider menu of health insurance options, including less expensive, less comprehensive plans that eliminate some extraneous coverages that are currently mandated by regulations? IS it not possible that this would increase coverage rates? I'm not saying that this WILL happen, merely that it could. The bottom line is that we really don't know what WILL happen. It is reasonable to believe that a government option will increase coverage rates. However, will this actually improve health outcomes? Evidence from other developed countries strongly indicates "maybe".

At any rate, I don't really deny that socialized medicine would improve health outcomes. I am aware of the evidence from other developed countries. I am not "willfully blind" as you put it. However, the fact that we do not have evidence from the other end of the spectrum indicates to me that maybe, just maybe, we could do even better. Maybe I am being idealist. But the ammunition you need to persuade me is a relatively long-term trial, even on a small-scale, of a well-designed, deregulated system to point to and say, "This doesn't work."

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 6:27 PM

Speaking of hunting,
What did the doe say when she came out of the woods?
That's the last time I do that for two bucks!

(Sorry)

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 6:32 PM

1. where am I lying in the first stmt you quoted?

300+ million people are Tea Partiers?

2. Lott and Thurmond are great examples of the problem.

Strom Thurmond of the "state's rights" party is a great example of federal power? Do you even understand these concepts?

Unfortunately, the list goes on. As far as I can see, the constitution says all men (and women) are created equal.

The Constitution most definitely does not say that.

If people (or gov'ts don't act that way) then a suit is brought and justice is served.

You mean like Brown v Board of Education?

Also, education: Racism is another collectivist idea, like socialism and fascism. I see people for who they are not what they are.

You know what else is a collectivist idea?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I would also point out that the current "progressive" administration is continuing the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even increasing the Afghan war.

Obama is a conservative Democrat. The only progressive I know of in his cabinet was Van Jones, and he's gone now.

There's also strong tension building for an Iran offensive, so I would say there are a lot of pro-war socialist and progressives out there as well.

I just wanted to repeat that to show how ignorant you are, what sort of a fantasy world you live in.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 6:33 PM

We have nothing less regulated than the U.S. to point to as a cautionary tale.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 19, 2009 6:36 PM

Mike,

Less regulation may lead to less coverage. It also may lead to cheaper policies since the government would no longer be telling insurance companies what procedures have to be covered.

There are a variety of plans a person can buy. Some of these plans have very limited coverage because most of the regulations only require insurance companies to offer plans that cover particular things (like birth control pills) not that all plans offered must cover these things.

Have you ever had to shop the private market for insurance? You can get horribly basic plans that have very limited coverage. Then you can get real insurance that will actually help you. It's all horribly over priced though due to the profit motive.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 19, 2009 6:42 PM

Pygmy Loris #96 (quoting the American Libertarian Party platform):

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

Two lies for the price of one.

Before the EPA came into existence, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio used to catch on fire. Literally. In 1969, Time magazine reported on the condition of the Cuyahoga River:

Some River! Chocolate-brown, oily, bubbling with subsurface gases, it oozes rather than flows. "Anyone who falls into the Cuyahoga does not drown," Cleveland's citizens joke grimly. "He decays" ... The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration dryly notes: "The lower Cuyahoga has no visible signs of life, not even low forms such as leeches and sludge worms that usually thrive on wastes." It is also -- literally -- a fire hazard.

Most of the pollution came from the Cleveland steel mills. Then in 1972 the Clean Water Act was passed. Now the Cuyahoga is inhabited by hogsuckers and spotfin shiners, two fish moderately sensitive to water quality.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 6:43 PM

yet we still oppose Obama's healthcare plans for lots of logical, intelligent reasons.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 6:45 PM

Thanks Pygmy!

Posted by: Lifewish | September 19, 2009 6:47 PM

[Libertarians] ...hate the idea that some of their tax dollars might end up helping people they don't like.

Yes, if for "people they don't like" you read "unnecessary bureaucrats". Here in the UK it's very noticeable that every budget increase to the NHS just boosts the number of middle managers. This makes the 'tarian suspicion of government involvement eminently justifiable.

I don't particularly agree that healthcare should be private-sector. I don't think most people have the medical knowledge to tell good providers from bad, and the short-term consequences of bad healthcare are too dire to chalk up to long-term economic benefit.

That said, I can understand why libertarians might not want the current US system to be made more public - if nothing else, this is likely to be one hell of a pork barrel, not to mention how badly it'll go wrong the first umpteen times. And I'm not sure why the 'tarians get the aggro they do, given that their position is not intrinsically daft.

Also, "teabaggers"? As a Brit, anything associated with tea is held second in holiness only to the Royal Family and warm beer. What's the insult here? Someone please explain.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 6:50 PM

Where do you get the idea that the majority of those campaigning against Obama's plan *don't* have logical intelligent reasons for what they believe?

If you've got a logical and/or intelligent argument against universal health care, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: scooter | September 19, 2009 6:50 PM

(((audio)))

Kevin Brady: DC's New Socialist Texan Republican People's Transportation Czar, and Health Care. RIP Jim Carrol. Wonkette on Radio. also.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 19, 2009 6:53 PM

Lifewish,

Yes, the libertarian positions are "intrinsically daft." Read the party platform that I linked to earlier.

As a Brit, anything associated with tea is held second in holiness only to the Royal Family and warm beer. What's the insult here? Someone please explain.

Are you really unaware of the term "teabagging" to refer to a man dipping his scrotum in and out of someone's mouth?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 6:54 PM

If you've got a logical and/or intelligent argument against universal health care, I'd love to hear it.

Notice how these conversations always seem to go:

"That's not fair!"

"Why isn't it fair?"

"Some people have good reasons."

"Okay, then what are those good reasons?"

"Some people have good reasons."

Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 19, 2009 6:55 PM

It is quite amusing to hear complaints calling the original post a "strawman arguement".
Whereas-
the real strawman attacks came when the right wingers started calling the then candidate Obama "socialist" and subsequently using the same term to attack healthcare reform.
Yes, it would be easier to have intelligent conversation without strawman arguement. Unfortunately people often forget who starts them.
Socialism itself is a waste basket term-used by those who, doctrinally, despise all things that are state run. It seems to me quite appropriate to point out to such people where their idealogy would ultimately lead.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 19, 2009 6:56 PM

Nick

So, I resent the whole "get your libertarian" friends to sign this thing. Some of us want to keep religion as far away from the government as possible. I also want to keep my guns (flame away), and that's about as "conservative" as I get. Socialized healthcare: about time.

Then you're not a libertarian. Again, just look up the party and read their platform.

Posted by: Give me a break | September 19, 2009 7:00 PM

@#137, 149, anyone looking for "good reasons" to oppose Obama's health care plan...

There's plenty of info out there, if you're willing to put any effort into looking. For example, 60 seconds of googling gives this:

http://media.www.docketonline.com/media/storage/paper744/news/2009/09/15/Opinion/The-Mysteries.Of.The.Health.Care.Proposal.Unveiled-3773465.shtml

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 19, 2009 7:10 PM

Why all the hate on libertarians? Don't let Glenn Beck fool you, he's not really one of us.

The libertarian motto: "I got mine, fuck you."

The libertarian philosophy: "Government is the Great Satan. All evil comes from government, and all good from the market."

Libertarian history: "Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police."

Libertarian economics: "Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the Protocols of the Elders of Statism."

Note: Most of these are shamelessly stolen from Mike Huben's Libertarianism in One Lesson.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 7:12 PM

Give me a break,

How about you give me a break? That's the best you got? An opinion piece that boils down to "It'll cost too much"?
In other words, we can't afford to treat poor people. Nice.

Posted by: maureen brian | September 19, 2009 7:17 PM

OK, Walton,

How about these choices - - Engels and written when he was just 24 - or Marge Piercy - each an excellent book in its own right, each also a dreadful warning ......... of the logical end of some arguments!

Or, why not pop "oop North" - just 280 km - and see what an aged socialist has in her library, bed & breakfast included? I am not taking the piss here.

Posted by: Jordan Licht | September 19, 2009 7:21 PM

@wise one #150:

That being said, I never said anything about (pro or con) passing laws against such behaviors as racism.

That being said, just because you pass laws against behaviors such as racism that doesn't mean the behavior will cease. The only people laws effect are the law-abiding.

Besides racism is bad for business as well.

Posted by: Mike | September 19, 2009 7:24 PM

Give ME a Break, #34. Good definition of socialism. Now tell me how it describes a government health care program?

Posted by: Hieronymus Bosch | September 19, 2009 7:29 PM

Ok, who let markuze out of his cage?

Posted by: Eric Michael Johnson | September 19, 2009 7:32 PM

If only I could boycott the government support for Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon. Our troops would come home right quick without them.

Posted by: Give me a break | September 19, 2009 7:38 PM

#168:

Ah, yes, "raise taxes," the knee-jerk liberal response...

OR, we could tweak the existing system slightly, and avoid establishing another inefficient, bloated, government program to breed further entitlement....

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/theotoon3.gif

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 7:41 PM

One thing I've never really understood is why the libertarians aren't in favor of a single-payer system. That would free the individual business owners and corporations from having to provide health care to their employees, increasing profits and wages more than enough to offset any tax increase, and generally improving the economy rather quickly.
What am I missing?

Posted by: Hitodama | September 19, 2009 7:47 PM

I'm not in the mood to get into a political argument here, but I just want to say: I consider myself a libertarian, but that doesn't require absolutes or stupidity. We need a goverment and we need SOME things to be goverment ran, but there are plenty of things that don't need it or that have too much of it already. That's all I feel like saying.

Posted by: wise one | September 19, 2009 7:49 PM

@Pygmy Loris #160

What is so different about racism today than 50 years ago, in the South or anyplace else? Do crimes against people still occur because they are different than others? Do people still treat others poorly because they are different? The list goes on. I would argue the problems still persist even with your beloved laws. You cannot legislate morality. I would say education is a much better tool than any law. Laws have tons of unintended costs (monetary, social, etc.). How about the costs of telling someone or group of people they're helpless and need government support. Talk about killing the morale of a generation or generations of a group, subjecting them to a life of victim-hood. I would only wish that upon my enemies.

Social costs are a real "cost" and should be considered as much, if not more so, than monetary costs (of which there are many in attempts to legislate behavior).

Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords | September 19, 2009 7:51 PM

Nice examples here illustrating why I decided years ago to prejudge "libertarians" as deluded maroons until they made one remark that wasn't obvious Cloud-Cuckooland bullshit.

They seek "purity" in government, which is as ridiculous and destructive as the religious loons who seek "purity" in, well, everything really, but especially sex.

We are social animals who have evolved a variety of very complex systems requiring different degrees of what we call (in English) altruism. But altruism is not one of those Platonic entities - it only exists as a bunch of previously successful impulses that are stringer or weaker in diferent individual homo sapiens.

I want relatively fair, very transparent, minimally intrusive, relatively cost-effective government. I never expect to get it, because government is run by human beings like myself.

Posted by: Andrew T | September 19, 2009 7:55 PM

*sigh*

This kind of demonization and marginalization is remarkably similar to that done by xtians against atheists. We libertarians just love being associated with "teabaggers," just like atheists love being associated with Stalin. (It's about as accurate too.)

Oh and, the Boy Genius who came up with that lovely pledge seems to be offering a very similar false dichotomy as that offered by theists. (Coming from the Daily Kos, I'm not surprised.) They're saying that either you must accept the status quo of gov't intervention in every aspect of human existence, or total and complete anarchy with no gov't whatsoever. This is NO DIFFERENT from the theist who says that the only choice is between xtian morality and values, or being an immoral, conniving, hedonistic nihilist. Libertarianism is NOT anarchism and is NOT Republican conservatism. Libertarians do support SOME gov't, but what we have now is easily 5 or 10 times larger than it needs to be--a tremendous drain on both our freedoms and prosperity. And libertarians are just as opposed to corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex as we are to leftist nationalization programs and other fiscally unsustainable, hugely wasteful programs.

Really PZ, I know that gov't is as sacred to your political ilk as god is to the religious, but for you to engage in the same kinds of logical fallacies and gross demonizations as the fundies do against atheists is, well, not the feather in your cap you may think it is.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 8:00 PM

but what we have now is easily 5 or 10 times larger than it needs to be

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 8:05 PM

Gregory, not really an answer to your question of why, but Time recently covered "a brief history of red scares."

We do have a socialist Senator, though, so things are getting a little more chill.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 19, 2009 8:08 PM

Strange gods before me @ 185;

Thanks for the links. They were very interesting.

Here I was thinking the whole 'reds under the bed', fifth columnist thing went out with the cold war.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 19, 2009 8:12 PM

Why is it that some people in the USA react to the word 'socialism' or 'socialist' (especially in relation to healthcare) in the exact same way religious fundmentalists react to sex?

Posted by: Feo | September 19, 2009 8:16 PM

Wow! And it's an almost exact duplicate of the Blumpkin eating/Liberal Democracy-Free Purity Pledge of 2000-2008!

Must have required very little thinking to just change a few words here and there.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 19, 2009 8:21 PM

Hey "give me a break",
when you speak of "more affordable ways", you can't possibly mean let those who can't afford it go to hell, do you?
As far as I can see that's the easiest solution if your prime worry is cost. And it makes sure the evil of big brother will not be threatening the pack checks of private sector executives and the portfolios of insurance industry shareholders.
Of course we can all agree that some things better be left to the private sector and to be run by the state. As for providing health insurance, given that the private industry hasn't had enough time, we can give them several more decades to see if some day they will put, you know, providing health care ahead of the lifestyle of their executives.

Posted by: Asclepias | September 19, 2009 8:22 PM

Just chiming in to say that Sweden has a socialist democracy, and also has one of the highest standards of living in the world, certainly better than ours. The word 'social' refers to people, so by being socialist you are more or less showing how much you care about the well-being of others. I thought we were about done with this Socialism=Communism nonsense from the McCarthy era.

Posted by: James Hughes | September 19, 2009 8:26 PM

The author clearly doesn't understand socialism if he suggest that George Washington was a socialist.

Posted by: ragnar_rahl | September 19, 2009 8:27 PM

Tell ya what. I'll sign if the government promises to stop taxing me after I sign.

Waiting for the government's word on the matter...

Posted by: Dan Isaacs | September 19, 2009 8:35 PM

Let's add that I won't use any electricity provided by the Hoover Dam, or by the TVA.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 8:38 PM

weis one,

1. I never said there were 300+ million Teabaggers. That was your misread. The reference to 300+ million is clearly to the population of the U.S., i.e. there are many people with with many views. Trying to impose complex solutions across a population that wide and varied is fraught with unintended consequences.

I did not misread you. Here is what you said:

It's a shame people would rather make such all or nothing arguments like this post. It inaccurately and unfairly simplifies the argument many of the "anti-socialist" protesters are making and boils them down to TV sound-bites. Also, after reading many of the comments, I can tell that hardly anyone here is aware of the strong libertarian-leaning element from which these protests arose. While FOX News (and its supporters) has co-opted these protests to a certain degree, many of the protesters want the FEDERAL government largely out of their pockets and their lives (including their bedrooms). People who simplify the arguments of 300+ million people down to sound-bites are trying to manipulate you. Be very skeptical of such approaches.

There was no segue. You spent four sentences talking about teabaggers, and then said "300+ million people."

2. That's a complicated issue. Two things: State's rights are important; and Racism is not good policy, ever.

4. BvsB: Another complicated issue. For another discussion.

No, it's for this discussion. You have been making a pro-segregation argument for several comments now, that the government should not have passed laws against discrimination.

This is why libertarianism is a haven for white supremacists. There is no way to tell the difference between a racist and a non-racist libertarian. You give white supremacists rhetorical cover, by pretending to offer "pro-liberty" arguments for segregation.

5. There's no law saying that individualists can't get together to battle against tyranny and try and create a system of gov't for themselves.

That has nothing to do with anything, because the US Constitution is not a government of individualists. Indeed, the very idea of a "general welfare" is an affront to libertarianism.

Your preferred version of America was tried, with the Articles of Confederation. It failed.

On this same topic, I see many faults in the readers here get caught up in labels; who boil varied beliefs in political, economic, foreign policy, etc down into one word.

Asserted without evidence, from someone who doesn't even know what socialism is.

6. Obama is the president who received considerable support from progressives, socialists and conservative democrats alike. I could care less what you call him, all I can say is that the president these supporters voted in to office is very much pro-war.

You act like there was an anti-war candidate that could have been elected instead. But go ahead and tell me how you don't understand the mathematics of a first-past-the-post voting system.

I would also like to comment on your general insulting attitude. It says a lot about you; quick-temper, low self esteem, and poor general perception of others.

My self esteem is fine, but thank you for your concern. And my general perception of more intelligent people than you, such as Walton, is also fine.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 8:48 PM

Government regulation and co-opting of industry is good in certain industries and in certain situations and bad in others. There is no panacea "good government" -- no perfect application of socialist vs capitalist ideals for every instance. This is called reality. It's why the term "mixed economy" applies to every nation that has ever existed -- some just lean more towards socialism or capitalism than others, experiencing more of the woes that their particular preferences entail.

And yet, Jambe, here you are complaining about a post that defends that mixed economy.

Really, you haven't made a single point that's relevant to this discussion. You are just upset that people don't take kindly to libertarians trying to prevent universal health care.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 8:52 PM

Pygmy Loris, what do you expect? "Wise one" thinks that Brown v Board of Education was not a good decision.

Posted by: ragnar_rahl | September 19, 2009 8:58 PM

@strange gods before me
Learn what health care system the libertarians advocate. Then look at the present one. Note the differences (hundreds, thousands of regulations in every state that reduce the availability of insurance).

Posted by: bonze | September 19, 2009 9:01 PM

'Tis Himself #157:

Aaaaah, boolsheet.

But that site does have some interesting stuff on it:

"... he wrote that he has always been 'in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country...'"

Sorry, SGBM, to completely disregard your oath on noodles at #68, that's in reference to... Hayek.

And as for the raging debate mindless controversy over what Dennis The Peasant aptly refers to as "health care, er, insurance, er, whatever the fuck it is today reform", I believe that it's a safe prediction that the resulting legislation (if any) is going to be massively fucked up.

Posted by: Teddydeedodu | September 19, 2009 9:10 PM

Fucking Libertarian sociopaths! If they had more conviction, they should tatoo their motto on their foreheads for everyone to see. And it should say: MINE, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!!

As for health care, socialism is not about the agency but the end results. Government policies that provide for equitable and affordable (not to mention effective) health care for EVERYONE is socialism. And a government that does that is one bloody excelent government indeed! One that truly cares for the majority of the people that elected it. Now, by whichever way it goes about implementing such policies is a matter for debate. Whether it be done through the free market or by the government procuring the funds is just mechanics. The important thing is the end result. And this end result is a purely SOCIALISTIC one. This means that socialism can employ whatever agency it needs without having to contradict it as long as social policies are ultimately the goal.

Why oh why cant Americans see this? It is for the good of the many. And their society and ultimately themselves. Or are Americans really the pieces of selfish shits that Randroids and Libertarians would love to turn them into?

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 19, 2009 9:11 PM

"New rule - not everything in America should be about profit" - Bill Maher

Posted by: A. Noyd | September 19, 2009 9:27 PM

Hooray for bathroom reading. Thought this was cute and relevant. Oh, and amphiox wins the thread at #97.

Posted by: ZeroCool | September 19, 2009 9:35 PM

My oh my.

If my position, as a libertarian, was that my money was being stolen in order to pay for these items and services, then surely it would be consistent to insist that I be allowed to make use of them, even as I ask that both the tax and the service be scrapped. Unless your argument is that people who assert they are being stolen from lose the right, simply by making that assertion, to be compensated.

By the way, what does the Grand Canyon have to do anything?

Also, why is the Smithsonian on here? It was a private endowment! If anything, it is an argument in *favor* of the benefits of libertarianism, rather than against, as is just about anything bearing the name "Mellon." The National Gallery of Art, for instance.

Finally, while there are some schools of thought that disapprove of *all* public goods and services, most fiscally conservative folks who seek limits on government spending and programs understand that it is the just and proper role of government to protect the law, which means police and armed forces. I am not certain whether or not the teabaggers are in this school, or even if they've thought it through that far. Of course, talking about thinking things through is a little silly on this blog.

But really, who needs rational debate about the founding principles of the limits of government? If those guys over there are going to be silly, well, we should be just as silly! That's the spirit! Go get those libertarians, comrades!

Posted by: Peter R. | September 19, 2009 9:35 PM

Coming late to the game here, but I want to add a clarifying note. As far as I know, the USPS does not receive any subsidies from the US government. They are required to be self-supporting and therefore are in true competition in package delivery with UPS, Fedex, etc. And they are competing rather well. The USPS is required to deliver to all addresses in the US, no matter how remote, for the same cost. This would not happen if delivery was left to private companies. It's a good example of a "public option" that really works.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 19, 2009 9:43 PM

But really, who needs rational debate about the founding principles of the limits of government? If those guys over there are going to be silly, well, we should be just as silly! That's the spirit! Go get those libertarians, comrades!

If you want the "founding principles" of government, you'll have to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment. The incorporation doctrine changed everything.

Also, why is every libertarian crying about being "unfairly" portrayed, but only one or two is actually trying to make the case that the portrayal is unfair.

Posted by: Ray | September 19, 2009 9:57 PM

Hi Folks,
Slightly off topic, but from some of the comments about the USPS I get the impression that y'all don't know that the Postal Service is NOT supported by tax dollars, it is entirely funded by stamp revenues. I think we do a damn good job with the constraints, such as universal service and six day a week delivery, that we work under. Does anyone think that privatizing it is the answer? A for-profit company would keep the money making areas and reduce or eliminate service everywhere else, and there goes the universal service mandate and the convenience of local Post Offices.
Sorry about the rant, when I hear people talk about the USPS using tax dollars I feel the need to say something.

Cheers & Happy Monkey,
Ray (the Postal Weasel)

Posted by: Ermine | September 19, 2009 10:01 PM

On the 'teabaggers' question above;

It all started with the Boston Tea Party, when settlers in the new Colonies on the American continent dumped shipments of tea from England into the harbor to protest taxation without representation.

Just recently (April of this year), the Conservative movement and Fox News decided to put together an astroturf campaign to protest Taxation WITH Representation (HUH?? - Hey, I didn't come up with it!) by mailing individual tea packets to representatives in Washington D.C.

They advertised broadly about 'Teabag Protests' and 'Teabag Parties', somehow never seeming to realize that in common colloquial slang, 'Teabagging' represented a (generally homosexual) sexual act, that of dangling one's scrotum in someone else's face or mouth.

The Conservative Right being the party most vehemently against homosexuality, the other side got a LOT of laughs out of their sudden fixation on teabags and teabagging!

And that's the basic story in a nutshell, unless anyone else wants to provide more explicit detail on any part of what I just explained..?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 19, 2009 10:02 PM

zerocool, the Smithsonian is GOVERNMENT RUN. It may have started as an endowment-but today it runs with our tax money. Without that, it would shut down (and good old Newt managed to do exactly that once).
As for the Grand Canyon, are you arguing that running the National Park Service through the private sector would be better? Sure, let's have the timber industry run those.
What I don't quite understand is the doctrine that "bi government is bad". Scrutiny never seems to include the private industries. I would be fine with it if people who are so skeptical of the government applied the same standards to the ultra-respectable "invisible hand" of the free market.

Posted by: R. Schauer | September 19, 2009 10:09 PM

I immediately sent it off to all the goofballs that email me trash on a daily basis...can't wait for their replies.
-R

Posted by: Pharyngulette | September 19, 2009 10:21 PM

Thanks, Ermine @227. Down here in Australia, I had an inkling about "teabagging", scrotally speaking, but could never connect that with what was meant when referring to US politics, so I appreciate the short lesson. (Working through the options in my mind did make for some amusing trains of thought though, I assure you.)

Posted by: Ray | September 19, 2009 10:37 PM

Dang, didn't see Peter R.'s comment @221 until after I posted mine @225. Well, great minds and all that.
Cheers & Happy Monkey,
Ray

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 19, 2009 10:47 PM

@ragnar_rahl #199: Considering how quickly you will be destitute and quite likely dead after giving up use of all publicly funded infrastructure, I thing we can say "deal".

Posted by: Lou | September 19, 2009 11:00 PM

Liberals = unclear on the concept

Posted by: A. Noyd | September 19, 2009 11:03 PM

Ermine (#227)

And that's the basic story in a nutshell, unless anyone else wants to provide more explicit detail on any part of what I just explained..?

Very well explained! I thought I'd add that it's also become a gamer term, taken from the sex act. In FPS or MMO games that allow your character to do a crouching, squatting or sitting animation, it's traditional to disrespect dead enemies (or stupid people or AFK friends) by squatting repeatedly on their faces. It's not exactly an uncommon practice, either, so I can't keep a straight face whenever I hear a Republican talking about teabagging with such pride.

Posted by: Cannabinaceae | September 19, 2009 11:03 PM

Liberals = unclear on the concept

Dude, if that was an attempted anagram, you're sorely deluded.

But if it was an attempt at coherence, you're sorely deluded.

Posted by: Ermine | September 19, 2009 11:27 PM

You are correct, Noyd! I first saw the behavior as 'Asshatting' in Dark Age of Camelot, where the opposing team would take off their pants and sit on the head of defeated enemies. (I'll bet you all had all been wondering where in the world that saying came from, weren't you?) I don't know which is worse, having a troll sit on your head, or a half-dozen leprechauns (lurikeen) all trying to fit their rears onto your head at once as you lie there on the ground, defeated.

I think Halo was the real birth of the online teabagging movement, but I didn't play Halo, so I am not entirely sure. ;)

Not terribly mature, but a lot of gamers are still pretty young. As an aging gamer, (Hey, I remember when Space Invaders was an incredibly new and exciting game. I predate Pac-Man!), I didn't much care for the practice, but it's definitely something that I've seen quite often in competitive online gaming.

Posted by: bonze | September 19, 2009 11:51 PM

'Tis Himself #224

Because most libertarians know that selfishness is not easily defended.

Gosh, it's almost a truism: libertarians are just at root heartless selfish bastids!

Sooo selfish they do not want to contribute to expanding the prison system to incarcerate the relentless tide of (need I say selfish?) individuals who violate our Sacred Social Contract by inhaling or enabling those who do. 800,000 marijuana arrests in the U.S. in the past year: why don't we follow the sage recommendation of Daryl Gates and just shoot the (selfish) bastids? Libertarians just don't get it! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Sooo selfish they do not want to pay for the prosecution and imprisonment of the (selfish) bastids guilty of AWFUL UNNATURAL SEXUAL PRACTICES!

Sooo selfish they would disregard the pressing imperative to fully fund (and empower) Team America™ in their relentless crusade to Spread Democracy and create a New World Order™!

Sooo selfish that they do not realize that Free Speech is too costly in an era where delicate sensibilities may be inflamed to (and beyond) the verge of violence by inappropriate {cartoons, music, opinions} promulgated by {selfish, racist, *phobic} bastids?

Sooo fuckin' selfish that they do not realize that our beee-yoo-ti-ful Interstate Highway System and ancillary freeways are the grandest achievement of humankind, even though they have made possible almost limitless suburban sprawl and enabled Average Citizens to experience the SUPREME JOY of being encapsulated within an SUV WHILE COMMUTING? CAN YOU BELIEVE that some of these selfish bastids object to paying for the paving of America?

Yes, I personally, am sooo fuckin' selfish that when I came of age, I said to myself: I am not going to pay one fuckin' dime I do not absolutely have to pay to fund the U.S. program for Global Nuclear Annihilation, and resolved that to do so I would... minimize my tax contributions by minimizing my income.

Yeah, I'm fuckin' selfish. More nukes, better nukes, nukes on racetracks, nukes in space, it's in the frickin' Social Contract and I just pissed all over it--even when there was a compelling social goal at hand like reducing the Soviet Union to a heap of fuming ash in a first strike.

Posted by: Ermine | September 20, 2009 12:01 AM

*points and laughs at the idiot above (Todd) while it's still early*

Ha-ha!

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 20, 2009 12:03 AM

strange gods before me writes:
said Marcus Ranum, nihilist and anarchocapitalist.

I wonder if "anarchocapitalist" is contradicted by "nihilist"? I suspect it is; I don't believe in capitalism any more than I do anarchism. It would seem to me that "anarchist" trumps "capitalist" anyhow - what's an "anarchocapitalist," hmmm?? Sounds to me like an anarchist who just spouts capitalistic nonsense as a cover for doing whatever he's going to do in the first place. Your terminology is cute, but, as I said, ideology tends to confuse more than it illuminates.

When I dig into people who espouse such ideologies, I usually find that their belief systems are similar to those of the typical creotard: they treat the ideology as a menu of a la carte items to choose from in accordance with their self-interest, then convince themselves that they're the holders of the one true faith. That's how you wind up with armchair anarchists who talk about autonomy but wouldn't last a day without the sheltering hand of the state to protect them. Or the libertarians - well, I think PZ deconstructed them pretty well in this post. Etc. Your beliefs? Wanna tell me about your important beliefs, buddy, in case I need a handful of something to wipe with next time I'm in the bathroom?

Posted by: Wirelizard | September 20, 2009 12:05 AM

"Libertarians are just anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." - from Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" SF novel.

Not sure it's even really accurate, and it's entirely unkind, but it's pithy and snarky and has stuck with me.

Actually, I have an entirely *selfish* reason for *favouring* public healthcare: Why the fuck should my potential illnesses, or those of my family, friends & fellow citizens, go to fatten the purse of some random shareholder or CEO who will do exactly fuck-all to actually improve said health?

Even a senior civil servant making $200,000/yr to manage a public health unit doesn't quite sit right, but J. Random CEO making ten or fifteen times that for exactly the same damn job *really* doesn't sit well.

But then, I'm a snarky socialist from the public-health paradise of Soviet Canuckistan, so what the fuck to I know?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 20, 2009 12:08 AM

Marcus Ranum again lying and denying that he's an anarchocapitalist.

Posted by: designsoda | September 20, 2009 12:18 AM

The people in the streets protesting the wars are leftists, not libertarians.

Certainly the majority of people in the streets protesting the war (Iraq war, mind) were leftists. But I know for a fact that there were libertarians there too. Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

Posted by: Coldwell | September 20, 2009 12:30 AM

I'd totally sign that. I really could not have written it better myself.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 20, 2009 12:32 AM

Certainly the majority of people in the streets protesting the war (Iraq war, mind) were leftists. But I know for a fact that there were libertarians there too. Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

No, you're not misunderstanding. But these "it's only libertarians who are against the war" liars deserve an equivalent rebuke. The truth, you're quite right, is that the majority were leftists and there were some right-wing libertarians and paleoconservatives among them. And I'd have no complaints if all that was stated up front from the likes of bonze.

The demonstrations against the war in Afghanistan are still being organized by leftists.

Posted by: ZeroCool | September 20, 2009 12:37 AM

[quote]And this is the shit that really pisses me off. It's like a pro-lifer saying "If I regard life as beginning at conception..." or a PETA member saying "if I regard eating meat as murder..." - you can't have a discussion when such extremes are taken.[/quote]

[quote]Another selfish libertarian pretending his money is being "stolen." What he really means is that his tax money may be helping someone who isn't him. The point that other peoples' money goes to programs that help him isn't even considered. He's the fucking center of the universe, so everyone should support him but he doesn't have to lift a finger for anyone else. Social contract? We don' need no stinkin' social contract.[/quote]

Don't be obtuse. You make money, it's taken from you by force. That's stealing. It doesn't have to be immoral, I suppose, if the circumstances justify it, but let's be clear, that is certainly the libertarian position.

And if anyone here had any intellectual honesty, they would realize it's at least a point that needs to be considered. When taxing someone, you are taking their property by force. If you do so, it had better be worth it.

As for selfishness, because I hear a lot of talk about it here, I have only this to say: It is the individual's ultimate responsibility to look after the self. Charity may be a laudable thing, but remember that each individual is, and of right ought to be, held responsible for what they do, what they say, and what property they hold. If one is to be held responsible for these things, then surely we can agree that the individual of right ought to be considered supreme with regard to what they say, what they do, and with the condition and state of the property that they hold?

I say this, because you can't have it both ways. You can't tell a person that he has no right to property, or a diminished right to his property without also absolving him of his responsibilities, or a portion thereof.

I think that people who think selfishness is inherently wrong need to take a hard look at:
1) What it is exactly selfishness means
2) Whether it is, in fact, wrong to be selfish.

For instance:
[quote]I have an entirely *selfish* reason for *favouring* public healthcare: Why the fuck should my potential illnesses, or those of my family, friends & fellow citizens, go to fatten the purse of some random shareholder or CEO who will do exactly fuck-all to actually improve said health?[/quote]

This is not selfishness by any reasonable definition of the word, rather it is spite. He does not *benefit* from keeping CEO's (as far as his argument is stated, anyway) from having his money, instead he only wants to *hurt* those CEO's (or at least, diminish their capacity to gain from him).

This is important. Make sure you know what you mean. I see a lot of sloppy logic here. Take the first step in elevating the level of discussion that the teabaggers have brought so low by making sure you understand what's being discussed, and most of all, what your own positions are, and what they mean.

Posted by: Todd Tolhurst | September 20, 2009 12:42 AM

> Todd you idiot,

Again with the namecalling. I assure you that I am not an idiot. I will assume the same of you. See how easy that is?

> they called themselves that until someone finally tipped them off on the meaning.

You mean some reporter at Fox used the term. It wasn't the first time a reporter made a fool of himself.

Posted by: Riiderup | September 20, 2009 12:44 AM

I've read most of the comments posted here with an open mind and attempted to understand the libertarian view as best I can. The one thing that seems to be missing is a knowledge of human history. Without going too far into the past we can see the results of the lack of government regulation, government programs. Results that we still have to deal with today. The U.S during the 1800's. Slave Labor, child labor,low wages,long hours, no vacations,no holidays, no overtime pay, no safety regulations, no enviromental regulations, no consumer protections and no required educational facilities. The list goes on and on. Capitalism is a system which is designed to make a very few individuals very wealthy and the rest of society poor, subservient and dependent upon those few individuals for their very survival. If not for the progressives, liberals, socialists and labor unions hard fought victories against that capitalistic system, at the cost of many lives, we would never have attained the standard of living we now enjoy. The battle for nationalized health-care is just the natural progression in the class war that has been being waged in this country since a group of white anglo-saxon landowners declared that they were tired of paying taxes that were levied against them to pay for the French and Indian War.

Posted by: Dax Williams | September 20, 2009 12:50 AM

Arrrr
I can't believe you Americans are so Canadian.
Yelp

Posted by: SC, OM | September 20, 2009 12:59 AM

I know, I know, I know... It's contrary to the will of SC, therefore it's wrong, shut up, blah blah. I've heard it before and - as you can tell - what you want or don't want doesn't concern me.

Sometimes you feel like a nut...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 20, 2009 1:11 AM

You mean some reporter at Fox used the term. It wasn't the first time a reporter made a fool of himself.

nice try, but no. these events were originally called "teabagging parties" (yes, by Fox news primarily, seeing as they were one of the prime flame-fanners of this astroturf movement), and people brought teabags to them to throw away as a symbol for.... something. but the moment they caught on to the meaning of teabagging they retconned it to "teaparties".

and I wouldn't be calling you an idiot if you didn't behave like one. but if you prefer, i'll switch to calling you a concern troll instead.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | September 20, 2009 1:15 AM

Some things should be provided by government, others by the free market, others by a mixture of both.

That's right folks, we gots BOTH kinds in Murka!

Country AND Western! Them other kinds don't count.

Dude, you're a simpleton.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | September 20, 2009 1:19 AM

I assure you that I am not an idiot. I will assume the same of you. See how easy that is?

You can understand our need for evidence, right? I know how that complicates things for you.

Posted by: Aquaria | September 20, 2009 1:34 AM

Many, such as the post office, are usually used as examples of government enterprises which are self-evidently bad.

Self-evidently?

Trot out your evidence of how the USPS is a bad government agency. I can guarantee that all you will have is an isolated incident here and there of the usual range of human error (or sometimes machine error--technology isn't perfect). I won't go into how the customers make a hell of a lot of mistakes (oh, do they make them...).

There are numerous surveys conducted every year about customer satisfaction with the USPS. I could list a bunch of them, but one of the more reliable surveys was the 2003 American Viewpoint survey, which showed that the USPS had a 79% positive rating amongst consumers, with 47% stating they viewed it very positively. Only 9% had negative feelings, while 12% were neutral.

The Pottoman survey measures public trust in government agencies. The USPS consistently tops this survey. The latest numbers I saw was 87% for the USPS.

Hardly the numbers of something perceived as self-evidently bad.

I think it's wise to differentiate between the American compulsion to moan and groan about anything government, and how its citizens really view things.

Posted by: JThompson | September 20, 2009 2:46 AM

Of course health care really would be cheaper with no government regulation of any kind. If you didn't have to bother with running drugs past the FDA they could be sold for far less. Doubly so since there wouldn't be anyone to enforce the patents or anyone to patent it with. Real competition!
Even the doctors and surgeons would be far cheaper if they weren't forced by the FEDERAL government to spend all that time in school. You'd introduce healthy competition by creating thousands of doctors virtually overnight.

/snark

Posted by: Burn | September 20, 2009 3:08 AM

I am curious about how many of those programs / services you listed are state or locally funded.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 20, 2009 3:31 AM

Even if universal health care was more expensive than the current system, I would still support it. Period. Full-stop. That is a value. Sometimes values have to trump economics.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | September 20, 2009 3:43 AM

One more thing:

All I wanted to do was register my disappointment in P.Z.'s use of the term to denigrate his opponents. I respect P.Z. as a figure in the skeptical movement; this sort of thing lessens him in my eyes.

Posted by: Dan Earle | September 20, 2009 3:53 AM

Nitpick: Velcro was not invented by NASA but by a Swiss man named George de Mestral.
The name derives from two French words velours and crochet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velcro

Posted by: Capital Dan | September 20, 2009 4:06 AM

Again, Todd, you don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Actually, the first instance of the teabagger name in this regard comes from a sign seen at one of the tea-parties that read "We will tea-bag them before they tea-bag us."

So, if they are proclaiming that they are going to tea-bag someone or something, and they are a group, it's fine to say that they are tea-baggers.

Posted by: nobuddy | September 20, 2009 4:29 AM

In case no-one has pointed this out, the "heavily subsidized" USPS actually is self-sufficient except for its pension system.

Really.

However, email is eating into their income big time, and due to the cluster**** of email, lost bulk mail revenue due to the economy, and high gas prices last year they are going to have to close a number of rural post office branches. (They've already cut loose a lot of contractors.)

Hot tip: if you are corresponding with someone selling something and you think they are scammy, insist on USPS delivery. Mail fraud = hard time.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 20, 2009 4:44 AM

Don't be obtuse. You make money, it's taken from you by force.

Posted by: nobuddy | September 20, 2009 4:54 AM

@216

Hahahaha, Ragnar, Switzerland's real name is the Helvetican Confederation. You lose. Shut up and go home now.

Posted by: windy | September 20, 2009 5:24 AM

Where do you get the idea that the majority of those campaigning against Obama's plan *don't* have logical intelligent reasons for what they believe?

Because every opponent that I've heard is either lying or stupid. Death panels, anyone?
If you've got a logical and/or intelligent argument against universal health care, I'd love to hear it.

Universal health care? No. But Obama's plan isn't it.

Posted by: Moridin | September 20, 2009 5:33 AM

There are free market solutions to all of those services, solutions that do not require the initiation of the use of force or coercion. Just because the Maffia also builds sand boxes in addition to stealing your money from you to fund their illegal activities, does not mean that the Maffia is just or good.

Epic fail, Dr. Myers.

Posted by: Moridin | September 20, 2009 5:36 AM

Itspiningforthefjords, why do you support the use of coercion to fund your immoral political actions?

Posted by: wheatdogg.myopenid.com | September 20, 2009 6:16 AM

Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up return my socialist Social Security checks to sender.

No sense in letting that money go to waste ...

Posted by: kiki | September 20, 2009 6:38 AM

(By the way, although I once worked for two months cleaning up the text on a website, the post above is the first time I've ever done one of those embedded link thingies. And it worked! I AM HTE HAXX0RS LIEK JONNY LEE MILER!!!!one!!)

Posted by: Carla Brown | September 20, 2009 7:25 AM

I think your pledge should include the following:

"I am aware that I am protesting really because I'm either paid or told to do so. Still, I'm aware that the people behind my protest have a vested interest in the status quo. They are subsidized by the government to the tune of millions, while they disallow my family and friends from having the health care they need, if for example they have a pre-existing condition.

"I know this is counter-intuitive, that it seems like I am protesting the government making health care more affordable and available to my loved ones, but my Christian brethren and I have been manipulated to hate Obama and hate the Democrats. I'm afraid of anyone who wants to help me that much."

Posted by: kiki | September 20, 2009 7:31 AM

* 'getting it off your chest'. Aargh.

Posted by: P.C.Chapman | September 20, 2009 7:53 AM

PZ,
You are a F******G genius! Why? Because you have made the exact same argument I have made to numerous times to these 'anti' government whackjobs.
And don't forget that Mr.Anti has to pay for his own defense against foreign foes. Mr. Anti will have to negotiate with Putin and Company on his own.

Posted by: DingoJack | September 20, 2009 8:18 AM

Louis, perhaps your friend Sanchez would like to meet the esteemed Floyd Rubber... ;) [Retreats back into amused lurking] - DJ

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 20, 2009 8:38 AM

We have a competitive private electricity market in the UK, and it actually works rather well. Consumers in most areas have a choice of suppliers, and are able to switch if they're unhappy with the service they're receiving. - Walton@110

The usual rubbish from Walton. The only "service" these companies provide is sending customers' bills. They put most of their efforts cold-calling people to persuade them to "switch suppliers" with introductory price cuts, relying on inertia to keep the customers when these expire.

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 20, 2009 9:06 AM

Here in the UK it's very noticeable that every budget increase to the NHS just boosts the number of middle managers. This makes the 'tarian suspicion of government involvement eminently justifiable. - Lifewish@142

Well it might do if it were true - but in fact it's just another right-wing lie: NHS staffing levels recover to reach all-time high .

A quote from the link:

"in September 2008 the NHS employed:
* 408,200 qualified nurses – up 2.1 per cent or 8,600 on 2007 and up 26.2 per cent or 84,700 on 1998.
* 25,700 midwives – up 2.3 per cent or 570 on 2007 and up 12.4 per cent or 2,800 on 1998.
* 34,900 consultants – up 3.7 per cent or 1,200 on 2007 and up 56.4 per cent or 12,600 on 1998.
* 49,200 hospital doctors in training – an increase of 5.1 per cent or 2,400 on 2007 and up 59.4 per cent or 18,300 on 1998."

Posted by: Hyperon | September 20, 2009 9:26 AM

I think the main problems with the NHS occur in places where it's not socialized enough. For instance, you generally can't get free dental treatment unless it's an emergency. This places many poor people squarely within the shit, since they can't afford private dentists, and yet are not technically in an "emergency".

Posted by: fatherdaddy | September 20, 2009 9:31 AM

I'm curious as to when you pro-everthing-the-government-does people are going to give up everything capitalism provides, as you expect similar from me?

The FCC is socialist? And that's a good thing? You're not making your argument very well (as much of the list is evidence of).

I love the examples of the internet and Sesame Street. One sat there languishing in obscurity until capitalists took over it's works. The other went capitalist, sold millions of dollars worth toys and books, made millions off of movies, commercial TV, and DVD sales, and even started it's own cable TV station (which has almost no government regulation).

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 20, 2009 9:48 AM

Walton,

Yes. But I would obviously disagree with them on the matter of which countervailing considerations are sufficiently compelling; because their social goals are different from mine.

I wonder how much of Chomsky you'd actually disagree with. Less than you do with me, I think.

Since this thread has attracted a bazillion posts while I was asleep, mostly saying the same things in different ways, I won't be able to respond to everyone. But, as per your request, I will respond to wise one's post at #150.

Thanks. You made a fine case, though I suspect you may have overestimated "wise one's" comprehension. I thought you would go for the quick kill: racism isn't bad for business in a racist community.

At the same time, I also disagree with socialists, in that I think that private property rights and economic freedoms, as well as personal and social freedoms, ought to be protected (Kelo v New London was a terrible decision, IMO).

Since socialists agree that Kelo was a terrible decision, I'm not sure how that helps you make your distinction, Comrade.

Posted by: tom | September 20, 2009 9:53 AM

this article is utterly retarded. if anyone ever came up to me with that bullshit of a pledge i would probably use it for buttwipe.

Posted by: paleotn | September 20, 2009 10:00 AM

Posted by: tom | September 20, 2009 9:53 AM

this article is utterly retarded. if anyone ever came up to me with that bullshit of a pledge i would probably use it for buttwipe.

Tom, your intellect is truly frightening. "Uh, it doesn't conform to my very simple, preconceived notions, therefore it must be wrong. Use as toilet paper." Libertarian brain power at work. An awe inspiring sight!

Posted by: Hampus | September 20, 2009 10:01 AM

Cool! Someone should send this to Penn&Teller!

Posted by: Aetre | September 20, 2009 10:11 AM

Late to the thread, libertarian. Sorry.

The way I see it, there are two ways to take this list: as a way of pidgeonholing all people who disagree with socialism as hypocrites and morons, or as a simple humorous thought list not meant to be taken seriously.

"I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights."

Youtube: Christopher Hichens on the subject of hate speech. Most censorship comes from conservative religious groups; does that make censorship from the left acceptable? Oh, and just because I can criticize the law does not make ALL speech free. Simple false dichotomy.

"I will complain about the destruction of my 2ndAmendment Rights in this country, while I am duly >being allowed to exercise my 2ndAmendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public."

...This one's batshit insane. Yes, you can own a firearm legally in your own household, but the second it goes outside as a concealed weapon (something this pledge leaves out as a possibility), it's illegal in many states. In Maryland, for example, you have to prove to a judge that your life is currently in danger before you're allowed to carry. That's not "being allowed" to exercise 2nd Amendment rights.

"I will foreswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls."

Nah, I prefer smugly refuting socialist viewpoints in intelligible language on websites. Also, I would just like to mention that this pledge falls just short of pulling a Godwin here.

"I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:"

Oh boy. Here's the list:

*

Social Security
If I didn't have to pay into it, I wouldn't. I would gladly trade not paying for this with not getting a cent from it. Call the IRS for me and tell them we have a deal!

*

Medicare/Medicaid
Woohoo! You mean I don't have to pay for this either anymore, under the condition that I never receive anything from the program? Again, we have a deal! Happily!

*

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
Slight difference here, but an important one: I'm an adult and can refuse healthcare if I so choose--not a wise choice, but no one could theoretically deny me the option not to pay for health insurance. I can understand how children would be different, since they're not earning income and can't/don't know how to fend for themselves. So at least in principle, I don't have a problem with these programs.

*

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
These are local, not national. And that's the way it should be. If you don't like paying for police, fire, etc., then you should move to a more remote place without high local taxes for such things. This isn't anti-libertarian, as far as I can see. Now, if we lived under martial law, it'd be different.

*

US Postal Service
Small potatoes, really, but it is a wasteful enterprise.

*

Roads and Highways
This one's okay by me; it affects the whole public at large to have roads through any area, so it's only fitting that everyone have a theoretical say in it by making it a government enterprise. I know many libertarians disagree with me on this, but I don't think this one breaks any constitutional powers of government and helps to do popular things: maintain and build roads. So drive away.

*

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)
Like traffic laws and roads: there for good public reason. No problem here either.

*

The US Railway System
Likewise with roads and air transportation.
*

Public Subways and Metro Systems
Getting repetitive here.
*

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
Still on transportation are we?
*

Rest Areas on Highways
*sigh* Wake me up when this stops...
*

Sidewalks
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
*

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations--http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)

ALL of them? Way to lump in the good with the bad and the ugly. If it's popular and doesn't result in a loss of rights or safety, it's cool! If it interferes with rights or safety, it's not.
*

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
Like this. Popular? Yes. Loss of rights? None. Loss of safety? None. Green light! (...Sorry, I'm still stuck on transportation there.)

*

Public and State Universities and Colleges
Education's in the same boat as transportation: no rights infringed upon, no safety lost, and popular. At the same time, I do agree with the Penn & Teller criticism of public universities that they are, at their core, fundamentally, beer commercials run by politeness police.

*

Public Primary and Secondary Schools
Education listing #2. I will say, though, that it's a lot easier to defend public schooling when you're in a good district. Full disclosure: I teach physics in a public high school, so yes, I am a supporter of public education. No, I don't think that's anti-libertarian. I do understand, though, why such things as school vouchers can be good or even necessary in some districts.

*

Sesame Street
Sure, don't say "public television," of which 99% is crap few people want to watch; just pick Sesame Street. Gonna roll my eyes for a second.

*

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Education #3. I can't remember, but didn't this backfire? I'm pretty sure they don't teach D.A.R.E. in a lot of states anymore because it increased the number of kids who wanted to be on drugs. Seriously. Worked out just like those damn virgin pledges in Christian circles.

*

Public Museums
Education #4.
*

Libraries
Education #5.
*

Public Parksand Beaches
"Parksand?" Oh, "parks and." Right. Well, I don't know about beaches, but the parks where I grew up were the main drug trade areas. Would have benefited us all never to have had them. So I'm a bit prejudiced against parks.

*

State and National Parks
Environment #1. Increase public awareness and safety without taking away freedoms. Fine by me.

*

Public Zoos
Education #6

*

Unemployment Insurance
As long as we're not talking permanent welfare, this is a very small problem...

*

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
Environment #2.
*

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
Healthcare #1. Decrease safety? No. Decrease rights? No. Popular? You bet. Fine by me.

*

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
Healthcare #2.

*

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)
Again with the Nazis. Really? And Velcro? The main benefit of NASA is as a research organization that benefits public knowledge (education #7). As nice as duct tape and Velcro are, I think that's worth just a bit more.

*

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
Wherever it came from, the net today is a libertarian's dream come true: we really can say and do just about anything, just about anywhere, with little-to-no interference. It's a great and very, erm, liberating experience. Picking on something today because of what it used to be is a bit unfair.

*

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Mixed bag here. On the one hand, I understand the need for regulating food safety--something this pledge doesn't take into account. But on the other hand, the government funding things like corn for ethanol is just a joke.

*

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies
In fact, subsidies in general are iffy; they make the government not just a regulator or referee, but a player in the game. It's unfair to the competition, and while cotton isn't perhaps as dramatic an example as Halliburton during the Bush years, subsidies can and often do still rip off the public for not a lot of gain.

*

If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forego my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care

Pfft. The constitution gives clear rights to the military's existence, and there's no libertarian problem with funding it. Likewise with healthcare for veterans.

---

Phew! That was a long list. But going on:

"I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist

locations, including but not limited to:..."

Libertarianism is not anarchy. I don't oppose the existence of buildings for the government to operate in. Nor do I oppose, as previously mentioned, educational and historic sites, etc.

"I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government salary and government-provided healthcare. "

Their choice. Honestly, with regards to public healthcare, I wouldn't really have a problem with it... But if it's ever implemented, I would want the ability to opt out--meaning, like I'd want with social security, I wouldn't pay in, and I wouldn't benefit. The primary difference between us libertarians and socialists really is that libertarians believe social programs should be voluntary when possible--and I should be able to say, "I never asked for this. I don't want to pay for it. I don't want the benefit, either." This type of attitude isn't possible or practical when it affects everyone, as in education or the environment or transportation. But as regards MY personal health and MY physical body? Let me opt out. If the socialized system wants me to help fund it, it'll first have to prove it's a good enough system for me to want to choose it.

"I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America."

Big problem with this whole pledge, again: government-funded does not equal unconstitutional or wrong, even by libertarian standards. Now, some of the things our military has DONE, however, such as nation building in Iraq? Yes, I maintain the right to oppose and condemn that. And I don't apologize for it, either.

"I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army."

Mixed bag. On the one hand, the products aren't necessarily the problem here. On the other hand, the bailouts that General Motors etc. get when doing poorly... Those are clearly wrong. Going by my earlier checklist: they don't affect safety or rights, but they simply are not popular. If General Motors deserved my money, I'd have given it to them when I bought one of their cars. By getting money from the government when they're failing, they're taking money out of my taxpaying pocket, even though I chose to buy a (superior) Toyota. "Too bad you didn't buy our car, but we'll be taking your money anyway." So yes, I will continue not to support companies that fit the General Motors model. Notably, most of the companies on that above list don't apply; but that's why I said it's a mixed bag.

"I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees."

Again, not anarchist, just libertarian.

"Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks."

Said it at the start, will say it again: LET ME OPT OUT. I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE ITS BENEFITS. IF I HAD A CHOICE, I WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN THIS AT ALL. SO GIVE ME THAT CHOICE! Sorry for the all caps. I'm just really not a fan of Social Security. It forces me, against my will, to manage my own personal private finances differently. That's stepping on my rights. Sorry, socialists, but we do not get along here.

"Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die."

Let me opt out, and I will.

"SWORN ON A BIBLE..."

I'm atheist.

Posted by: GLH | September 20, 2009 10:27 AM

Last time I checked these are government run but people funded. I have not problem not paying the government for any of this and being responsible for donating to these things myself. Some I already do. While zoos, schools (which have shity autism programs anyway) and PBS may be subsidies I have to pay to access/ keep them running all the time after taxes have been given to them. I have no problem printing and signing, except the bible part. I can white that out (atheist).

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 20, 2009 10:42 AM

I have a certain amount of respect for the truly principled advocates of socialism. However, what I dislike is the ugly and self-interested side of the left.

Says a libertarian? Is this Through the Looking-Glass, and What Ayn Rand Found There?

they tend to oppose free trade and open immigration - therefore condemning the poor in the developing world to continue suffering.

You have no idea what causes poverty in the third world. Until you can talk about imperialism and economic hit men, GATS privatization schemes, and the erosion of national sovereignty and consent of the governed with it, you really can't be engaged on this subject. Once again you speak from dogma, and you don't deserve a reply when you do that.

As a libertarian, I condemn any use of government power to promote private interests.

No you don't. You support copyright monopolies, patent monopolies, limited liability laws, the formation of business corporations that favor stockholders over stakeholders, and courts that force squatters off land that isn't even being used.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 20, 2009 10:53 AM

Wherever it came from, the net today is a libertarian's dream come true: we really can say and do just about anything, just about anywhere, with little-to-no interference. It's a great and very, erm, liberating experience. Picking on something today because of what it used to be is a bit unfair.

Posted by: Susan | September 20, 2009 11:12 AM

@ Gregory Greenwood

Why is it that some people in the USA react to the word 'socialism' or 'socialist' (especially in relation to healthcare) in the exact same way religious fundmentalists react to sex?

Posted by: Andyman | September 20, 2009 11:19 AM

btw, apologies for calling pz a communist, I should've put a hehe or just joking after the comment

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 20, 2009 11:31 AM

what portion of your wages goes into some drug addict's bank account,

Thank you for making the point that libertarians hate poor people and think they're all drug addicts.

Posted by: amphiox | September 20, 2009 11:43 AM

#342: "what portion of your wages goes into some drug addict's bank account"

Considering the rates of drug addiction in high income groups like physicians, lawyers, politicians, stock traders, profession athletes, etc, the question you should ask is what portion of some drug addict's wages is going into YOUR bank account?

Posted by: Midwifetoad | September 20, 2009 11:47 AM

As one of those weird folks who doesn't particularly love either party or either side of the political spectrum, I've been pondering whether anything has really changed since I reached voting age (40 years ago).

I think scientific polling has provided the means by which the country has become polarized. The actual process is almost invisible.

I think politicians in my youth presented their ideas as best they could, and people voted them up or down. Most elections were not very close. Now, both parties have access to focus groups and are able to tune their pitches.

The result is that many elections are close, and the fact that anyone can win on a given day leads to an irrational level of bitterness on the part of losers.

There is also an irrational exaggeration of differences between parties. For example, can anyone state a clear difference between the way Obama is dealing with terrorist suspects, the war in Afghanistan, or any of the other hot button issues? To my way of thinking, shades of gray have been converted to black and white.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 20, 2009 11:57 AM

Mark, read more carefully: it's the military itself which is socialist, not the VA specifically.

Posted by: Alex Deam | September 20, 2009 12:02 PM

In particular, labour unions are a truly toxic influence on left-wing politics. Since they want to retain their jobs and exclude competition from cheap foreign labour, they tend to oppose free trade and open immigration - therefore condemning the poor in the developing world to continue suffering.

Walton, are you seriously blaming the anti-immigration rhetoric right now on labour unions? And here was me thinking it had everything to do with the lies and smears of the right wing press. Here was me thinking that the parties most likely to jump on the anti-immigration populist bandwagon were the Conservatives, UKIP and the BNP. Of course, that's not to say that Labour are angels when it comes to immigration, with a tighter border than most other European countries. But it's patently obvious to me that there are none of the main figures on the right are favourable to your view on immigration.

Said it at the start, will say it again: LET ME OPT OUT. I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO RECEIVE ITS BENEFITS. IF I HAD A CHOICE, I WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN THIS AT ALL. SO GIVE ME THAT CHOICE! Sorry for the all caps. I'm just really not a fan of Social Security. It forces me, against my will, to manage my own personal private finances differently. That's stepping on my rights. Sorry, socialists, but we do not get along here.

Please explain how the government making you pay taxes which go towards social security is so intolerable, whereas making you pay taxes to all the other functions that a government spends money on that you happen to agree with (e.g. roads) is not? There's no logically coherent reason why taxes towards social security are "theft" whereas taxes towards the roads are not.

If you oppose the social security on its merits, the fine, although be prepared for most here to tell you hate the poor. But you can't oppose it because you are forced to pay for it. That's true of all government programs. Oppose all or nothing.

At least anarchists are consistent.

Posted by: amphiox | September 20, 2009 12:17 PM

re #333 (and others)

You cannot opt out.

You cannot choose not to breath the clean, pollution-free air.

You cannot choose not to benefit from the hard work of the government paid air quality inspector who uses the national postal service to send samples to his lab for testing.

You cannot choose not to avoid being exposed to the communicable diseases your neighbors will not fall ill from because they get fresh air, clean water, safe inspected food, and have chosen to vaccinate themselves and their children because of publicly funded public awareness campaigns.

You cannot choose not to benefit from the pleasant conversation with a co-worker who is knowledgeable and informed thanks to a public education system.

You cannot choose not to avoid being mugged by the local kid who is not a delinquent because of the good influence of his publicly trained and paid policeman uncle.

If you live in a society, you will benefit from the activities of the government of that society. You are morally obligated to contribute your fair share. And your society is ethically justified in using reasonable coercion to make sure you do contribute your fair share.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 20, 2009 12:37 PM

A thought occurs. If we simply label "tax" as "rent", will the libertarians evaporate?

Posted by: ZeroCool | September 20, 2009 12:50 PM

There are two basic arguments that are being leveled against my position, but of which I find troubling.

1) That taxes are not appropriation by force.
2) That taxes are justified, and therefore appropriation by force is justified.

And then there's someone making the assertion that wages are theft because wages use the force of government to enforce (3).

1) This position is simply wrong. If you refuse to pay taxes, force will be employed against you to take your property. Q.E.D.

Sorry folks, but there is simply no room to disagree on this. Where does that leave us?

Well, it has an important result, that is that one ought to be certain it's just to levy a tax when considering a tax hike or levy.

2) Taxes may indeed be justified. This is a more complex question though. The "fee to society" claim is not sufficient however. The "fee to society" quip seems to be intended to make the argument that taxes are, in fact, consensual and also just.

I disagree on both claims. Exile is clearly in a different class from mere exclusion from a club, which this slogan seems to imply. Indeed, exile is generally considered a severe punishment, and so therefore more properly sits in the category of the use of force.

As for just, taxes can be. But arbitrary rule in taxes is by definition not justice. Thus it is important to have a rule that can describe when it is ok to tax and when it is not. Some libertarians will answer that it is never ok to tax. Others will answer that it is only ok to tax when it is demonstrably critical to the maintenance of the rule of law. Others may have different standards.

But whether or not you disagree with the teabagger, if you believe in the concept of the rule of law you must accept the need for a rule to distinguish when it is ok to tax and when it is not.

3) The assertion that wages are theft is plain silly. Fulfilling one person's half of a mutually agreed-upon bargain is not theft, but rather trade. Trying to cast trade as theft is not something I can see any logical argument for at the moment, but if you want to try again feel free. I think the critical point that was missed was the concept of the rule of law.

Finally, let's not forget that my original argument was this: it is logically self-consistent for a libertarian who understands the assumptions of his own opinions to reject this pledge while maintaining his assumptions and assertions.

Posted by: Pax 6 | September 20, 2009 1:45 PM

PZ, I'd recommend you stick with your area if expertise. This is what makes your blog invaluable.

Posted by: Anti Vigilante | September 20, 2009 2:02 PM

Oh this will not do.

I mean you might as well argue that there is no war going on because you're not fighting in it.

There's no pollution because you recycle.

George Bush doesn't exist because not on TV anymore.

Trigger finger knee jerk arguments.

There's no wiretapping of innocent people because innocent people don't do anything wrong.

Yeah try again.

Posted by: MJP | September 20, 2009 2:13 PM

This argument is stupid. The same argument could be used in favor of a private monopoly - "You use their products, so you're a hypocrite for opposing them!"

Posted by: Anti Vigilante | September 20, 2009 2:25 PM

@338:strange gods before me

Get down from that high horse you self-righteous scheming little nothing.

A problem does no imply duty, it implies responsibility. Privacy is the right to say no, from which freedom then proceeds.

You can't humble yourself and communicate politely with your neighbor to join in your cause, yet you have the nerve to talk down to others who refuse to submit to an institution.

That's right. I'll more than happily give to a person or a representantive of an organization of people with a common interest, but quit the negative ego stroking. Being a member of or supporting an institution does not entitle you nor that institution with royal honors, moral authority, privileges. It means ZIP.

I have the right to refuse even if it's the last chance to save the entire universe from implosion.

If that makes you uncomfortable and makes you foam at the mouth, maybe you don't have what it take to handle freedom. What makes you think you can handle solving problems?

Is it so demeaning to ask? Is it so below your status?

Just because there's no other way (you neocon and neolib psychos always claim this) doesn't mean I have to go along.

Before you judge someone try learning three words: Please, and Thank You. Ungrateful before it even begins. What a hypocrite.

Quit stroking your adulthood at everyone else's expense. Just GTFO.

And if some other program has to pick up the slack, SUCK IT UP. Your pet program has to answer to those who contribute. There is no intrinsic value to but what OTHERS think of it.

How dare you devalue the work of others? Just where do you get off saying that welfare provided by private citizens and community programs is unworthy while your mechanistic bureaucracy is justified by your technocratic bias. Institutionalist b*******.

Sick son of a... listen j*****, wash your neighbor's feet before you judge.

GTFO.

Thank you.

Posted by: ALibertarianFriend | September 20, 2009 2:43 PM

Love your blog, PZ! Wish you would stick to the science, though.
I realize that this was a humorous shotgun blast at a strawman, but for many of those items, if it weren't for being taxed to support them Libertarians would gladly give them up.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 2:50 PM

ZeroCool #359

If you refuse to pay taxes, force will be employed against you to take your property. Q.E.D.
Sorry folks, but there is simply no room to disagree on this. Where does that leave us?

If you walk out of a restaurant without paying then the management will call the cops on you. If you refuse to pay your rent then force will be used to evict you.

Not paying taxes isn't initiation of force, it's enforcement of contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.

...if you believe in the concept of the rule of law you must accept the need for a rule to distinguish when it is ok to tax and when it is not.

We have such a rule at the federal level, it's called the Constitution (there's also the state constitutions, municipal codes, etc.). Taxes are embodied in laws. The Constitution quite specifically explains how laws are made at the federal level, state constitutions do the same thing at the state level and often at lower governmental levels. If you don't like a tax, then you need to get the law changed.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 3:01 PM

ALibertarianFriend #369

Love your blog, PZ! Wish you would stick to the science, though.
I realize that this was a humorous shotgun blast at a strawman, but for many of those items, if it weren't for being taxed to support them Libertarians would gladly give them up.

Suck it up, asshole. If you don't like the discussion, then go elsewhere. It isn't a strawman, it's a humorous jab at assholes like you who don't care that there are almost 50 million uninsured Americans. Thanks for giving further evidence of the libertarian motto: "I got mine, fuck you."

Posted by: Alex Deam | September 20, 2009 3:06 PM

Somehow I don't think it's strange gods who's foaming at the mouth....

Calm the fuck down #367. You're not at a teabagging party.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 20, 2009 3:09 PM

Anti Vigilante, your concern is noted and rejected.

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 20, 2009 3:32 PM

Anti Vigilante: isn't there a bottle of lube and a copy of Atlas Shrugged waiting for you somewhere?

Posted by: uncle frogy | September 20, 2009 3:34 PM

man this subject of health care really bring out the B.S.boys. I do think that socialism in many things is probably better than "the free market" in those same areas/services that have already been discussed including the post office and health care.
Those who want to opt out really do not seem to understand how this stuff works but they do give away their real motives very clearly.

If the current health care system is so good how does regulation prevent insurance companies from offering plans that are at least as good as any of the systems in use by any of the other developed countries? Why are there so many uninsured people?

If I remember rightly one of the things that GM was complaining about was the health plans (and the retirement) of their retirees. How come none of this is seen as a disadvantage in the competition with international businesses.
Labor is seen as in favor of more strict immigration laws, is business seen as in favor of relaxed immigration? With the benefit of holding down "labor cost"
If business can make substantial and substantive agreements with foreign businesses and organizations and why is labor restricted from doing the same thing?
Libertarians may have a good idea in that social pressure may be a useful tool in ordering society but it can not work if it is restricted by law.

I would like to add something that may be too much off topic for this thread but I think we should look again at the idea that a corporation is a person under the law, seems that some trouble has grown out the that decision.

Posted by: Muzz | September 20, 2009 3:37 PM

#344. Posted by: strange gods before me

I'm sure Paul Zapatista Myers doesn't mind.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 3:56 PM

Ah, one cannot argue against that logic. Thank you for your input.

I wasn't trying to argue with you, asshole. I was pointing out that not giving a shit about anyone other than yourself doesn't mean you can get away with whining about those of us who do.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 20, 2009 4:00 PM

Notice that none of those agencies has the word 'welfare' in their titles.

Just because it doesn't have the word "welfare" in its title doesn't mean it's not welfare. Social Security is a welfare program. The aim is to provide for the welfare of the aged and disabled. That's what it does, therefore it's welfare.

Then again, I can't think of another job that I can't quit whenever I want; move to another city (or country) if I want; tell my boss to piss off if I want; take whatever vocal political position I want; I must go where I'm told to, when I'm told to, even if I know the people there want to blow my fucking head off. There are civilian jobs with similar hazards (and they are MUCH better compensated than the US military), but none with those kinds of restrictions on liberty. Oh Pygmy... see the difference?

If you think you can do all of these things at a civilian job, you're sorely mistaken. I cannot tell my boss to "piss off," nor can I move if I want to, and I have to show up to a classroom where there may be people who want to "blow my fucking head off." You chose to be in the military. In return, we grant you welfare for life if you stick it out and make rank for 20 years. It's still welfare. DEAL WITH IT!

The fact that so many greedy bastards see FICA as simply another tax is a major contributing factor to the rapidly approaching bankruptcy of Social Security.

Oh, I see, you're a moron. Social Security is not "rapidly approaching" bankruptcy. Why don't you try reading a book not written by right-wing blowhards bent on destroying the tiny bit of welfare we have.

Take up a weapon, son, and stand to post for a tour, then you I can discuss the finer points of social contracts. 'Til then, go back to school.

Fuck yourself. Did you serve in WWII? Afghanistan? If you did, then kudos for defending the USA. If not, you were part of a mercenary force whose main mission was to defend the interests of American corporations while they exploited the people and resources of various countries around the world.

I will gladly take up a weapon if my country is invaded. I will defend my homeland with my life, as many of my ancestors have. Right now, though, my military is a conglomeration of christofascists and right-wing nuts who think that attacking small, non-threatening countries is "defending our freedom." No thank you. I refuse to fight mercenary wars of aggression.

BTW, I'm not a boy; I'm an adult woman. Don't call me "son" and I won't call you an ignorant, worthless old man.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 20, 2009 4:04 PM

Posted by: Anti Vigilante | September 20, 2009 3:12 PM

Actually Anti Vigilante, a fair chunk of the people who you so easily dismiss pay their insurance, but had a pre-existing condition which they didn't know about and hence are likely to get told by their insurance they aren't covered should they ever claim.

And the insurance isn't exactly going to give them back their money.

And, well, you don't know whether you are in that particular bracket. You may well be, because you see, when you get right down to it, life is a pre-existing condition.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 20, 2009 4:05 PM

I want to add that I have lots of respect for those who choose the military as a career. I think that they truly believe they're serving their country and defending our freedom. Their belief, however, doesn't make it true.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 20, 2009 4:12 PM

Bobber,

Thanks for pointing out that Sletten does need society. In my outrage at other points he "made" I forgot to go after that one too.

Also, if you don't grow your own food, you aren't independent of society.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 20, 2009 4:21 PM

Posted by: Mark Sletten | September 20, 2009 3:59 PM
Umm...
Maybe you should actually remove your head from your ass, and actually look at what the whole argument is about you fucking moron.

The central point to universal coverage and the public option is to try and reduce costs - which have gone out of control at the same time as the health insurance industry has gained a name for not actually delivering on the said health insurance.

Posted by: Bobber | September 20, 2009 4:25 PM

Pygmy Loris:

Just offering my perspective on the newest member of the He-Man Self-Reliance (but not really) Club's views.

"I don't need anybody." That's what Pee-Wee Herman said when he went looking for his stolen bike. Wonder if Mark Sletten says "I know you are but what am I" too.

Posted by: amphiox | September 20, 2009 4:40 PM

Universal coverage is the bare-minimum morally acceptable health care system. Bare minimum. Any system that does not at least make an attempt at approximating universal coverage is simply barbaric.

Cost is a red herring and completely irrelevant to that discussion. The moral imperative is not to cover everything, but everybody. Any nation or society with even the slightest pretension to the term "civilized" must provide universal access to health coverage equally to all, at a level commensurate with its available financial resources. It is in fact impossible to cover everything, but you must cover everyone. Individuals who have the means and desire should be left free to acquire additional services, but the bottom rung must be equally open to all.

That a society as wealthy as America (still the richest economy in the world, notwithstanding current economic woes) fails to do this, and, in fact, appears unwilling to even consider trying to do this is nothing short of, for want of a better term, satanic.

Posted by: Walton | September 20, 2009 4:57 PM

Mark,

What about the Cold War? Don't the service members who faced down Russia in the '70s, '80s and early '90s deserve your recognition? How about the warriors who lost their lives in the rescue attempt during the Iranian hostage crisis? No honor there? What about the airmen who brought Slobodan Milošević to heel? Not a big enough conflict? How about the folks who died attempting to bring order to Somalia and other war-torn African nations? Not glamorous enough?

Well said.

And thank you for your service.

Posted by: Mark Sletten | September 20, 2009 5:15 PM

Bobber said: 'Insurance is also assistance to someone who needs it, in the form of a bet: you're betting you will get sick, the insurance company is betting you won't. Insurance is just delayed welfare, if you want to play games with words.'

No, too many are playing games with words, that's a big part of the problem. Insurance is a contract plain and simple. The insurance company provides a means to share risk, but it is NOT welfare.

You said: 'Arrogant much?'

Only when some condescending, ignorant ass wipe makes comments about something they neither value nor understand.

You said: 'Then you learned jack.'

Read the thread before butting in. This discussion was in the context of caring for oneself, not in the context of accomplishing a mission. Nutcase Pygmy (or whatever she calls herself) says the pension and healthcare I earned is welfare and I was responding to that nonsense. Yes, I was part of a team. It took a team effort to accomplish the mission. But I also graduated survival school where I learned to live off the land -- all by my lonesome. So no, I don't need anyone to take care of me -- even at the most basic meaning of the idea.

You said: 'No one except the wealthy can quit a job whenever they want.'

I'm sorry that you feel so constrained by your commitments.

You said: 'I must go where I'm told to, when I'm told to, even if I know the people there want to blow my fucking head off. I applaud your courage. Why are you complaining about it, if you volunteered?'

No one's complaining. I simply gave some scope to the discussion and my view that my pension and healthcare was EARNED, not GIVEN. Again, you need to read the thread or you come off looking rather foolish.

You said: 'If politicians have raided the Social Security funds for other programs, perhaps you might re-examine our tax code and rates. I suppose you support an increasingly higher tax rate for those who are amongst the wealthiest, so that this so-called raiding might cease?'

No, I advocate the government live within its means -- just as we all must. I can't spend money I don't have, and I can't borrow money when I have no hope of paying it back. Our government should live within the same real-world constraints.

You said: 'Take up a weapon, son, and stand to post for a tour, then you I can discuss the finer points of social contracts. "Service guarantees citizenship." Starship Troopers much?'

Nope, just suggesting that before one begins make judgements about a particular group of people one might consider walking a mile in their shoes...

Posted by: Kagehi | September 20, 2009 5:21 PM

Like I said to someone yesterday:

Republican view - Apply **social libertarianism** to economic issues, where the entities involved function like their own states, fiefdoms, or mob families, then wonder why it doesn't work. Then apply *authoritarianism* to social systems, where that doesn't work, and rational people operate on a "community standards" system, which is, at its essence, libertarian.

Democratic view - I would *love* to say that they apply the right rules to the right subjects, instead of getting the 180 degrees backwards, like the Republicans, but there is a reason why UFO nuts, altie med people, anarchists, etc., all flock to the left. Its the same reason radical lunatics like ex-KKK flock to the right. In general, the rational ones know that you can't apply a social concept to economics, where the entities do not think like *people*, and do not see themselves as needing to get along with the rest of their "society", so the tactic becomes one of trying to parent irate children. This doesn't work terribly well, but it works better than letting them have tantrums in the corner, or stealing all the toys from the other kids. On social issues.. You get everything from near total anarchy, to variations on authoritarianism, and somehow, out of this mix, a more libertarian system arises, in which most people are not much bothered by the neighbors, except for the small few that *are*, either because they can't stand the, "I don't want to see you do X", bunch, or they can't stand the, "I am going to do X, whether you like it or not, its my yard!", types.

The people that "call" themselves Libertarians are crazier than Republicans, not because their idea are inapplicable to "anything", but rather that they see it working socially, and, unlike the right, who for their own personal gain and desire to get what they want, opt for deregulation and a school yard, without the teacher, mentality, they actually *know* they are seeking libertarian economics, and *actually think* it works, because... it does for social systems, involving actual people, for the most part.

They are the equivalent of Walter Kellog, trying to feed a wolf oats and vegetables, in order to make it less savage, while entirely missing any grasp of what sort of animal they are actually dealing with.

However, they still tend, for some crazy reason, to promote the idea that one of those "community standards" that work so well in social libertarianism, can't be, "sharing resources, so people are better off". Somehow, letting people choose some things is "bad", even thought the whole concept of such libertarianism is supposed to be, "give people the choice of how they want to do things, and let the different ideas compete". Well.. They have competed. No one, when roads where privately funded, wanted to build the damn things. No one, when there was no drug regulations, wanted someone to make sure they where selling something other than poisons in a bottle, etc. Without social systems, dedicated to helping people in need, no one, including some, though not many, churches, wanted to do anything about it, and most, didn't have the resources to do so. You got a blanket, and the cheapest bowl of soup you could get, and if you where lucky, someone to pray over you, while you died from something treatable. Anything more, even the churches couldn't afford, if things where bad.

Society said, "We don't want to see this, lets change the standards." Who the frak did they think was going to run the stuff that made that a reality, and how did they imagine it would function, without regulations? More to the point, why the heck do the, "apply the same rules to megacorps as we do to whether the local citizens want to allow topless beaches!", imagine that thousands of what are basically nation states, who don't even, often, see their own employees as members of the "world" they work in, except as someone to sell to, are going to apply "community standards" to themselves.. We tried that too, it resulted in monopolies, price fixing and a lowering the of the standards for merchandise, to where plugging in your new electric blanket would electrocute 1 in 1,000 people, or burn down the homes of another 1 in 100. (Ok, these numbers of made up, but I do know that, before regulations where applied, the people making them didn't bother to "fix" the problem and we had to apply regulations, to *stop* deaths and fires from these things.)

So.. We want everyone to be healthy. The community has spoken, who want better coverage and more options, and so has the insurance industry, who want everyone to pay through the nose to get treated, only by their approved doctors, while not getting any coverage to prevent having to be treated in the first place. We do what, from the right wing/libertarian perspective, boycott all insurance for the next year, even if some of the people doing so will die without insurance, so the companies get the message? That's a bit like some idiot refusing to drink anything, and dying from thirst, because they are too damn stupid to use a faucet, while protesting the price of bottled water.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 20, 2009 5:31 PM

You still don't get it. I'll type real slow... You CAN leave your job if you want to, you CAN tell your boss to piss off if you want to, you just don't WANT to because you're comfortable, and you have commitments you prioritize more highly than a desire to tell your boss to piss off -- although I would you recommend you try it at least once, it is a supremely satisfying experience under the right circumstances!

Military members CAN do all of these things too. They will face jail for doing them, but they're perfectly capable of it.

breaking the commitment you made to your employer might make you temporarily a bit poorer, but you'll be none the worse for wear.

The term you're looking for is destitute. If I leave my employer, I will be destitute. I don't make much money and I have bills to pay. That's the reality of the labor market. We can discuss the relative effects of destitution vs. jail time, but to imply that I would simply be temporarily inconvenienced by job loss is patently false in the current economic situation.

Oh, and do you seriously believe anyone is taking a comparison of your job in a classroom with the dangers of combat? BWWAAAAA HAAA HAAAA!

I was simply pointing out that there is a possibility of getting shot in the classroom. I didn't say it was the same as being in combat. It's very clearly not, but the idea that military service is the only dangerous occupation is stupid. Do you understand why the program on the Alaskan fishing boats is called "Deadliest Catch?"

What about the Cold War? Don't the service members who faced down Russia in the '70s, '80s and early '90s deserve your recognition? How about the warriors who lost their lives in the rescue attempt during the Iranian hostage crisis? No honor there? What about the airmen who brought Slobodan Milošević to heel? Not a big enough conflict? How about the folks who died attempting to bring order to Somalia and other war-torn African nations? Not glamorous enough?

Um, how many service members (as a percentage of the total) "faced down Russia?" I've got news for you, they're called proxy wars for a reason, and they were largely about protecting American corporate interests. Yes, 8 service members lost their lives in the failed rescue attempt. However, the whole situation was a result of American corporate foreign policy. Getting the hostages back was cleaning up after that. Get it, mercenaries to back the American corporatocracy. What does Milosevic have to do with defending the USA? Nothing. A grand total of 29 soldiers died in the misguided attempt to "bring order to" Somalia. Their deaths were sad and unnecessary. In case you hadn't noticed, Somalia still doesn't have a functioning government. You're focusing on the relatively few instances that were arguably about humanitarian missions, rather than the overall use of our military as a mercenary force to support the corporatocracy.

BTW, those fighting in Afghanistan are not 'defending their country' in the way you describe it -- Afghanistan is in Asia.

My point was that the Taliban, leaders of Afghanistan, were aiding and harboring the people who planned the attacks of September 11, 2001. Fighting in Afghanistan to eliminate a base of operations for Al Qaeda is defending my country. They posed a direct threat to the USA. Hussein never did.

Continued in next post...

Posted by: Asclepias | September 20, 2009 5:33 PM

What surprises me most about this whole insurance debate is that the naysayers seem to have never had any major medical problems in their lives and lack the imagination to imagine that maybe someone else does. Further, they don't seem to understand that with universal health care, by payi ng just a little bit more in taxes, they would not have to pay $300+ a month to get health insurance.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 20, 2009 5:45 PM

The shittiest thing about the word 'socialist' being used so much in the US is that most people do not actually know what it means.

I had this discussion with my mom not too long ago. basically, the problem is that even at the best of times, "socialism" means three completely different things:

1)Marxism, i.e. an idea to keep power from coalescing* too much in business the same way we keep power from coalescint too much in government: by democratizing it and givign as much power as possible to "the people"

2)Stalinism, the dictatorial system that uses Marxist rhetoric to suppress its own populace and create an "other" (capitalist)

3)Social democracies, in which some services are provided by a democratically elected government, funded via taxes.

The fact that it can be used for all of those creates enough fucking confusion without adding the fourth, ignorant definition of "Anti American Atheist"

----

*I have this theory that power behaves like mass, in the sense that it gravitates towards other powers, and once it reaches critical mass it starts sucking in everything it can reach without giving anything back. but that's a different topic.

Posted by: Mark Sletten | September 20, 2009 5:50 PM

Pygmy said: I've got news for you, they're called proxy wars for a reason, and they were largely about protecting American corporate interests. ...the whole situation was a result of American corporate foreign policy. Getting the hostages back was cleaning up after that. Get it, mercenaries to back the American corporatocracy. A grand total of 29 soldiers died in the misguided attempt to "bring order to" Somalia. Their deaths were sad and unnecessary. In case you hadn't noticed, Somalia still doesn't have a functioning government. You're focusing on the relatively few instances that were arguably about humanitarian missions, rather than the overall use of our military as a mercenary force to support the corporatocracy.'

Wow. Just wow. And you think the teabaggers are extreme calling Obama facist?

Get a grip...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 5:50 PM

Mark Sletten #410

Bullshit. Is the pension given by a private company welfare? Is the lifelong healthcare promised to UAW members welfare? Play word games all you like, but welfare is a freebie. If I earned it, no one's giving it to me.

I see, your objection is to the word "welfare." Gotcha. It's your pride that keeps you from calling getting money from the government "welfare. No problem, if not calling welfare "welfare" makes you happy, I won't do it.

Fine by me, Navy service counts.

How very gracious of you.

Posted by: Rocketboy | September 20, 2009 6:00 PM

#355...
"If you live in a society, you will benefit from the activities of the government of that society. You are morally obligated to contribute your fair share. And your society is ethically justified in using reasonable coercion to make sure you do contribute your fair share."

Wait, what?

The gov't only exists because WE ALLOW IT. And society is a vague concept at best. I can guarantee that we don't live in the same 'society', other than the one based on the locality of our residence.

Geesh.

I swear, just change the working for govt to god on this thread and it's now a fundy blog.

Are you people even listening to yourselves? Religion is bad, because it's ideas, thoughts, and ways of behavior dictated by an invisible person, but allowing the gov't to control your ideas, thoughts, and ways of behavior is A-Ok??

Posted by: Bobber | September 20, 2009 6:01 PM

Insurance is a contract plain and simple. The insurance company provides a means to share risk, but it is NOT welfare.

Citizenship is a contract plain and simple. Government programs provide a means to share risk, which is, of course, welfare.

You said: 'Arrogant much?'

Only when some condescending, ignorant ass wipe makes comments about something they neither value nor understand.

Because you, of course, are ex-military. Yeah, we got that. Somehow your military experience (whatever it was, you haven't specified in which theater of combat your life was at risk) qualifies you above the experience of, say, someone who teaches hundreds of students each year, or who works with the poor trying to get them housing or food, or who counsels the sick or the addicted or the suicidal. Yeah, your willingness to kill or be killed makes you BETTER. We got that.

Read the thread before butting in.

I have read the entire thread, and I don't need your permission to type a response to your comments. I'm not in your unit; you don't get to command me.

This discussion was in the context of caring for oneself, not in the context of accomplishing a mission.

This discussion is in the context of the actual social services you take for granted while making grandiose claims that "you don't need anybody else". Do you sniff your armpits after letting out your rebel yell?

Nutcase Pygmy (or whatever she calls herself) says the pension and healthcare I earned is welfare and I was responding to that nonsense.

It is a form of welfare, an enhanced one due to the contract you signed with the government. But we have all signed a contract with our government - or rather, our government has made a contract with us - to see to our welfare (you know, the words that are in the Preamble to the Constitution?) when we can't do so for ourselves. Incidentally, don't you receive benefits even if you can do so for yourself? My, but you are self-reliant, aren't you?

Yes, I was part of a team. It took a team effort to accomplish the mission. But I also graduated survival school where I learned to live off the land -- all by my lonesome. So no, I don't need anyone to take care of me -- even at the most basic meaning of the idea.

Do you live in a cave, a thousand miles from anywhere else? Just because you CAN survive like a Neandertal doesn't mean you should, or that your skills, while suitable in one instance, have any bearing on the reality in the rest of the non-survivalist world. Unless you have the notion to go around and teach single mothers in New York City how to hunt pigeons for sustenance with their kids strapped to their backs.

Oh, and, again - He-Man Qualification noted.

You said: 'No one except the wealthy can quit a job whenever they want.'

I'm sorry that you feel so constrained by your commitments.

The constraints are dictated partly by my choices, but also partly due to circumstances beyond my control. It must be incredible for you to live with your (illusion) of absolute freedom.

No one's complaining.

You haven't stopped from the moment you started typing.

I simply gave some scope to the discussion and my view that my pension and healthcare was EARNED, not GIVEN.

Bullshit again. The government didn't have to give you anything for your service. Not dime one toward your health care, not dime one toward a pension. Nothing. You receive those generous benefits because we, as a society, determined that the men and women who serve in the military are deserving of them. Just as many of us - many, many of us - think that by virtue of our citizenship, we are deserving of the basic necessities of life without having to bankrupt ourselves or, without money, having to live without. (Health care, in this case, if you didn't get it. But I'm perfectly willing to explore food and housing, as well.)

Again, you need to read the thread or you come off looking rather foolish.

See above. I am not responsible if you can't connect dots. If I don't stick to your narrow confines, it's because my mind isn't as narrow as yours.

I advocate the government live within its means -- just as we all must. I can't spend money I don't have, and I can't borrow money when I have no hope of paying it back. Our government should live within the same real-world constraints.

Whoops! Looks like Germany and Japan won the Second World War - after all, we should never go into deficit spending. Deficits, in and of themselves, are not bad things - there's a lot to that, economics that I don't have as much knowledge about as others here, but governments do not work in the same way as individuals in regards to spending.

Nope, just suggesting that before one begins make judgements about a particular group of people one might consider walking a mile in their shoes...

Agreed. Come work in the soup kitchen in town, or the free clinic, or with the gang members in the alternative school. Then speak to me about "earning" that social contract.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 20, 2009 6:15 PM

Are you people even listening to yourselves? Religion is bad, because it's ideas, thoughts, and ways of behavior dictated by an invisible person, but allowing the gov't to control your ideas, thoughts, and ways of behavior is A-Ok??

Posted by: OneHandClapping | September 20, 2009 6:24 PM

First: Strange Gods Before Me - you win one (1) internet for this thread. I would suggest you share it with Pygmy, `Tis, and Kel for their rectal fortitude in dealing with several of these asshats.

Second: For you libertarians out there, I have the perfect solution. I know of a place that is exactly what you one day aspire to have right here in the U.S. of A., and I suggest you book your one way tickets as soon as possible. Bring your beach clothes, because it's warm! I'm talking about modern day Somalia!! Yes it's everything you pine for - no government control and a completely free market! I know your excited, now GTFO.

Finally, for Mark Sletten - good on you for using your right to free speech. Guess what, Marky-Mark? It was more than just you that fought to protect it. There are a few of us here that are vets, some of us still serving. So if you would place the selector on "safe", drop your magazine, lock your bolt to the rear, and proceed to the clearing barrel, you are being rodded off the range for being obtuse and willfully ignorant. You receive a NO-GO.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 20, 2009 6:26 PM

Why do libertarians think it's OK to defend the country against armed enemies, but not okay to defend it against illness?

Posted by: Tulse | September 20, 2009 6:32 PM

Is the pension given by a private company welfare?

No, but this gets at precisely the point made above -- since you worked for the government, you were paid by taxpayers. In other words, you worked for a socialized government organization, and not a private company.

When jackbooted stormtroopers kick in your door, your love of big government won't matter any more than my hatred of it, sheep.

Wow, "jackbooted", "stormtroopers" and "sheep" in same sentence -- it's like playing libertarian survivalist bingo!

Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | September 20, 2009 6:37 PM

May I just remark that the whole discussion you're having over there in the USA astounds me?

A couple of years ago, I couldn't even imagine there could be civilised nations without government-run, tax-funded universal health care. I thought that pretty much defined what a civilised nation was.

Then, our stupid government (I live in that pit of depravity known as the Netherlands) had to go and privatise health care.
I think you can guess what happend to the costs.
Yup.
They went up.
And up.
And up.

Actually, come to think of it, I still think that having govt.-run, tax-funded universal health care defines what a civilised nation is.

Posted by: Andy | September 20, 2009 6:45 PM

Also should be pointed out that Tea Party folks are generally against federal programs and expenditure, which doesn't translate to opposition to state and local program.

So they're just all the about the state's rights then? That doesn't make it better.

Posted by: Asclepias | September 20, 2009 6:59 PM

By the way, Mark, I live in an area where there is an air force base, so I've known a lot of military members. The ones who were officers were thoughtful and intelligent, and just all around nice guys. They did not denigrate women as you just did with Pygmy. Despite your 20 years of service, you are reminding me very much of the immature high scool kids who go into the military and seem to expect the rest of us to lick their boots because of it. Respect is not given. It is earned.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | September 20, 2009 7:32 PM

You see, in the military, you make a commitment that can land you in jail if broken

Posted by: ChrisE | September 20, 2009 7:49 PM

Joshua Cain Hardy, so I guess you want to make sure you control who get's help with your charity and can advertise yourself.

I'm sure it's great to get clothes when you need health care to survive ...

Posted by: ChrisE | September 20, 2009 7:52 PM

Explain what's your type of "reform".

Posted by: DanN | September 20, 2009 8:03 PM

Pygmy Loris, I said regulated, not banned.

All states have rules about it. Even the ones that allow open carry without a permit like Vermont still require someone to be 16 years of age.

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 20, 2009 8:15 PM

"Joshua Cain Hardy, so I guess you want to make sure you control who get's help with your charity and can advertise yourself."

I doubt that anyone from my district visits this blog. I'm not likely to win anyway. I was merely making that point, as Anthony Flew in How To Think Straight, (before he went ID) that people often equate opposing a type of social reform with not caring or doing. People like Mark and myself stress earning because of its utilitarian benefit, not against its benefit.

I once read Bertrand Russel's The History of Western Philosophy he remarked that the early socialist never seemed to think that individual freedom might be a means to their end, especially as utilitarianism under girds social programs. We are all utilitarian "socialist" the question is, "How do we get there?"

What you should attempt to do in this discussion is ask - what style of doing things will lead to the net benefit of (good) people in our society. Be Socratic.

If you mean advertise myself when in office, then no - part of my campaign is to promise never to be at a ribbon cutting ceremony.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 8:35 PM

BTW what kind of ship did you serve on?

I was a Machinist's Mate in a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine. (You don't serve on submarines, it gets rather damp.)

Joshua Cain Hardy #434

I work with Masons who raise money for sick children. I know people that give generously to charity. I give money to homeless people and I will be running as the Libertarian candidate in Nashville, Tn in 2012. My father is a member of the Lions Club and he also delivers clothes to poor people in the Appalachians - from Illinois. These people, including myself, oppose the public option. I don't know what you or the person you are talking to do for charity - but you need to get off your high horse right now.

Hooray for you and your generousity. The deserving poor get old clothes from you and from your father. Don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back.

You still don't give a shit about the almost 50 million of your fellow citizens who don't have health insurance. That makes you a selfish asshole. Sorry if you don't like the truth about yourself.

I do applaud you running for office. The more the citizenry learns about libertarianism, the more it'll be marginalized. Your libertarian spokescritter, Ron Paul, did an excellent job of turning people away from libertarianism when they discovered what a racist he is.

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 20, 2009 8:54 PM

Arb, #418: When jackbooted stormtroopers kick in your door, your love of big government won't matter any more than my hatred of it, sheep.

That's right. Because health care reform always leads to fascism. Each and every time. There never was and never will be a free democracy that has universal health care available to all.

Oh, wait....

There is a moral hazard that comes from handing off power to ever smaller groups of people. I'm paraphrasing, but according to William L. Shirer, many Germans he spoke to during the Nazi regime said that, "At least I don't have the freedom to starve." In other words, dependence can give incentive to people to not speak against tyranny. That is not to say that the current government is anything like the horrible governments that we know within living memory, but we should recall who followed Marcus Aurelius - Commodus. Take also the message of the Lord of the Rings; that when the ring of power is forged it is more difficult to destroy than it is to create.

You also seem to imply that there is an end to society or governments. It would be more correct to say that free democracies are compatible with semi-universal access for now.

Posted by: OneHandClapping | September 20, 2009 9:20 PM

Welcome back, Mark! I see you've managed to continue to make an ass of yourself. So I have to wonder: what the fuck is your point with all your hoopla? Did you come to argue for libertarianism? Against health-care? I don't get it.

Oh, and "boner"? Years of military service and the best you can come up with is "boner"? Too many hours at high altitude for you? To many fuel fumes? I think you can probably do better than that, Marky.

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 20, 2009 9:28 PM

Thank you, Chris E, for the syntax. As for reform I would like to see health care benefits taxed as normal compensation to detach it from employers. I want you to get wages instead of health or medical care as a type of compensation. I would also like to have people able to buy insurance outside state lines (I know that certain exemptions allow for this sometimes - I just want it to be universal.) I feel it also worthy to note that a Johns Hopkins study showed that of Americans that are uninsured to wit, "Twenty-five percent are eligible for public coverage, 56 percent need assistance, and 20 percent can afford coverage. This varies across uninsured populations: 74 percent of children are eligible for public programs, and 57 percent and 69 percent of parents and childless adults, respectively, need assistance." In other words, the 45 to 50 million uninsured people in the U.S. are not out on the streets, rather many are eligible for current government coverage. The study did not take into account how many would eventually have coverage and how many could have it by giving up certain luxuries. And while the fact that the remaining not covered present an uncomfortable presence to us, we need not rush to adopt a system that would benefit the few at the expense of the whole, especially when charity is active. Just because someone is not "covered" does not mean free people will not rush in to provide for them.

Posted by: bonze | September 20, 2009 9:36 PM

Rocketboy #417

I swear, just change the working for govt to god on this thread and it's now a fundy blog.

Yeah, pretty much. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent... brutal wars, genocide, planned famines, institutionalized slavery, that's historical trivia. Probably disinformation planted by libertards. Or the fault of 1) religion or 2) corporations. Or alternatively, part of the inevitable progression of dialectical materialism towards a higher level of social harmony, working out kinks in the Social Contract, or something like that.

OneHandClapping

Second: For you libertarians out there, I have the perfect solution... I'm talking about modern day Somalia!!

You mean Scientific Socialist Somalia? Gosh, what went wrong?

strange gods before me: #252

bonze, it doesn't do you any good to lie and portray libertarianism as leftism.

Baloney. You're set in cement with your belief that "Libertarianism is first and foremost a contempt for the poor. Everything else is bait." == "No True Libertarian gives a shit about anything but himself."

"...you also favor letting poor people die in the streets." Which is why Milton Friedman supported a Negative Income Tax, right? OK, Friedman wasn't a purist Libertarian... and "All True Libertarians favor letting poor people die in the streets!" -- 1one1!

This keen psychological insight mirrors perfectly the wingnuts' keen insight into the true motives of liberals (e.g., "Liberal Fascism") and creationists' keen insight into the true motives of "Darwinists" (e.g., "Expelled"): They're all pathological liars whose psychological deformations ("They hate the poor!" -- "They hate freedom!" -- "They hate God!") blind them to the Self-Evident and Righteous Truth.

Jadehawk, OM #253

bonze, care to tell me how many progressives/liberals you know who are for those things you so verbosely ranted against? because I don't know any

Sure, there are plenty who aren't. But there are many who are...

Free Speech: various nemeses of "Hate Speech" or, horror of horrors, unpatriotic speech such as Woodrow Wilson.

Obama has surrounded himself with enthusiastic Drug Warriors: Joe Biden (mandatory minimum sentences), Rahm Emanuel, and Eric Holder, for example. Lots of self-proclaimed "liberals" fall into this category.

JFK: A Cold Warrior whose alarmism over the "Missile Gap" helped propel him into the Presidency. Gave the final go for the Bay of Pigs operation. Practiced brinksmanship in the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ: I won't elaborate.

Highways: This social and environmental nightmare is continually held up as the exemplar of the sterling accomplishments which can only be achieved by government action. Unfortunately, it's also a prime example of how private/corporate interests seek to exploit government powers to subsidize and regulate into existence their twisted visions of the future: see GM's 1939 Futurama video: "On all express city thoroughfares, the rights of way have been so routed so as to displace outmoded business sections and undesirable slum areas whenever possible."

Anyway, I am strongly in favor of health care reform, but I don't believe Congress is going to deliver a bill that will accomplish anything worthwhile. I think Hillary Clinton would have done a much better job handling this issue than Obama has. (I voted for both of them: QED I'm a selfish libertardian asshole.)

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 20, 2009 9:41 PM

I suspect someone who has never left the classroom to see how the real world works might think so.

Are you saying that teachers don't live in the real world? If you are, kindly fuck yourself.

You've refused to respond to any point I've made with anything substantial. You've denigrated me in myriad ways while failing to see your own shortcomings, and you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're an ignorant asshat. Now that you've insulted an entire profession, I'm going to ignore you like the insolent child you seem to be.

Enjoy the welfare benefits my taxes pay for.

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 20, 2009 9:42 PM

A public option as the One Ring? That's a joke, isn't it?

No it's not a joke. Liberty tends to be given up piecemeal. If life were really like the Lord of the Rings we wouldn't need the story. However, in a way it is like the One Ring. That is to say if we get it wrong again, or more so, it will be very difficult to revert to the old system. Be sure, is all I'm saying. Really Sure.

Also, I am not as opposed to State public options as I am to Federal public option. The original purpose of the Federal government was to keep the states from going to war with one another. The Articles of the Federation were too weak, and the current constitution is only slightly stronger - the reason for that being is that the highest level of government tends to pull power toward itself leading to, antiquated as the term is, tyranny. Insomuch as we load the Federal Government with more duties and responsibilities we increase the risk that it might fail. And while the failure of a part (read state) may not be fatal, the failure of the whole surly is.

Posted by: Travis | September 20, 2009 9:50 PM

Socialism [-esque] governments have their uses, but in the long stand of things, I'd much prefer a capitalist society to that of something else.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 9:51 PM

That is to say if we get it wrong again, or more so, it will be very difficult to revert to the old system. Be sure, is all I'm saying. Really Sure.

If it goes wrong then we fix it. Is that too hard for your libertarian brain to figure out? I realize you libertarians aren't too swift in the thinking department, but I'd've hoped that even folks like you could have been able to puzzle that one out.

Posted by: Bobber | September 20, 2009 9:58 PM

Asclepias said: 'Mark, as a few others here have noted, I am hearing you try to justify your opinion by stating that you were in the military and thus are somehow better than the rest of us.'

No, I'm not saying I'm better than anyone else, I'm simply saying I signed a contract which I duly executed, and for which I'm being duly compensated. It's no different from any other employment contract; it's very different from welfare where one receives something for nothing.

Mark Slatten said:

Take up a weapon, son, and stand to post for a tour, then you I can discuss the finer points of social contracts. 'Til then, go back to school.

Translation: You are not worthy of speaking to me about social contracts until you have walked on the wall... where YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH!" Are your pants on fire?

Bobber said: 'Citizenship is a contract plain and simple. Government programs provide a means to share risk, which is, of course, welfare.'

And what does that have to do with whether it's correct to define the government meeting the terms of my employment contract welfare?

The definition problem is your own. It's already been explained to you why the government hand-out you receive can easily be put into the category of welfare.

My military service does, however, give me a much clearer perspective on what it means to serve in the military

...which has NOTHING TO DO with the real conversation, the one that isn't so narrow as you want it to be. Shall I quote you again?

Take up a weapon, son, and stand to post for a tour, then you I can discuss the finer points of social contracts. 'Til then, go back to school.

Uh oh! Caught again! YOU are saying that we can't discuss social contracts until we've "taken up a weapon", and later, "walked in your shoes" - and yet there are people here who HAVE served, and who have told you your full of shit. Somehow, you still haven't refuted them, either. Your shoes... are a little... too tight. Must go with that narrowness of vision.

I do have a degree in adult education, so I might have an opinion about that as well...

I suggest attending a few.

Bobber said: 'This discussion is in the context of the actual social services you take for granted while making grandiose claims that "you don't need anybody else".'

It's certainly not a requirement to do so before (or after) making observations about condescending assholes who think they know something about that which they are totally ignorant of.

The irony. It's too much. "Son."

Bobber said: '...we have all signed a contract with our government - or rather, our government has made a contract with us - to see to our welfare...'

You are attempting to compare an ethereal, political 'ideal' -- one with which less than half the population of your country agrees -- with a concrete, written contract.

The Constitution IS a contract. Honestly, man, you have a teaching degree? Holy shit.

And thank you, I accept your (snide tho it was) observation of my self-reliance as a compliment. It's a trait which I value.

Betchya love you some Ted Nugent.

I'm perfectly able to survive as nature intended. I certainly wouldn't choose such an existence, but it's doable -- I've learned how.

Yeah, love the good old days, when people died around 28 or so. C'mon, man... "as nature intended". What kind of crap is that?

Bobber said: 'Oh, and, again - He-Man Qualification noted.'

You seem to have a fixation with that. Something you might explore with your therapist?

Could that be what I've been suggesting for you all along? Only your subconscious knows for sure.

Bobber said: 'You haven't stopped [complaining] from the moment you started typing.'

Wow, you also seem to have a comprehension problem. I've not complained once about my military service.

I never said you were complaining about your military service. Again - you do seem to be projecting a lot. Fascinating.

Rather, I've complained about PZ's suggestion I should forego the fruits of my labor,

And you should, and so should we all.

and the idea of a few ass clowns that my government's obligation to me is 'welfare.'

"Ass clowns"? Hmmmm. No, I am not going to delve into this part of your psyche. Nope. As far as government obligation... see below.

If you believe the government is required to fulfill written contracts it makes with private citizens,

...such as the Constitution...

then yes, it DID have to give me those things for my service.

...see below...

Bobber said: 'You receive those generous benefits because we, as a society, determined that the men and women who serve in the military are deserving of them.'

No, shit for brains, I receive them because my government PROMISED them to me for my faithful fulfillment of the terms of a contract.

Here's the disconnect for you. (Still can't believe they gave you the right to TEACH.) Basic civics, 101: we are the government. You, me, "society" - WE have determined that YOU should receive certain benefits as a result of your military service. If WE, as a people, through our Constitutional government, decide to extend health care universally and at the public's expense - then YOU, yes YOU, will pay your fair share, until such a time as when people who think like you change the laws. You receive benefits because I and millions of your fellow citizens think you deserve them. We've already thanked you. I think you can thank us by letting us not die from lack of money.

Bobber said: 'Looks like Germany and Japan won the Second World War - after all, we should never go into deficit spending.'

Deficit spending is not the same as borrowing money you can't pay back, dipshit.

I'm sorry... what? "Money you can't pay back." Who made you chief economist of the world? You do realize that under Clinton, we WERE paying it back? You realize it is possible to STILL pay it back - if citizens (and most especially corporations) would agree to pay their fair share to maintain the benefits civilized societies enjoy?

A couple of trillion of dollars in the hole (where we are now) is recoverable; hundreds of trillions (where we are headed) is not.

Citation needed.

I suspect someone who has never left the classroom to see how the real world works...

...says the guy who spent 20 years receiving checks each month from the government (public sector), and will do so for the rest of his life. Your ASSumptions are noted. Come to my farm, "son", I've got a few hundred bales of hay that need to be stored in the barn and a few acres of fencing to put up.

"Real world." Oh, man, you are FUNNY.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 10:18 PM

It's interesting. I'm a professional economist yet not once in this thread have I discussed the economic factors involved. That's because the libertarians never bothered to offer any concrete economic arguments (not surprising, since most libertarians are economic illiterates).

Note to libertarians: "It'll put us in massive debt and cost trillions" is not an economic argument, it's an unsupported assertion that your political masters told you.

Posted by: Chiroptera | September 20, 2009 10:27 PM

Joshua Cain Hardy, #447: In other words, dependence can give incentive to people to not speak against tyranny.

You're right! We can't make people too dependent! A people that die from preventable diseases, a people suffering from chronic but treatable diseases, people brankrupt from costly medical treatments, and people deathly afraid of having to find affordable insurance with "pre-existing conditions" are free and independent people!

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 20, 2009 10:35 PM

we are the government. You, me, "society" - WE have determined that YOU should receive certain benefits as a result of your military service. If WE, as a people, through our Constitutional government, decide to extend health care universally and at the public's expense - then YOU, yes YOU, will pay your fair share, until such a time as when people who think like you change the laws.

"We" didn't decide anything. Some cronies in Washington decided those things. "We" decided through an imperfect process who would represent us. You need to be introduced to Thomas Paine:
"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last is a punisher."

Also "fair share" should be substituted with, "what Federal Politicains determine to be your fair share."

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 10:51 PM

Yeah, Hardy, we know. You're a libertarian. You hate the government, you hate the fact that the government actually does things for people who aren't you, and you really hate having to pay taxes that benefit people who aren't you and who might not even be deserving of your money.

Look, why don't you move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia? Free markets, all the guns you can buy up to and including artillery, drugs, prostitutes, and best of all, no government to tell you what to do. Sure, there's an oligarchy, but that's what happens when the government vanishes.

It's interesting that people who have good government are the ones who complain about it. Most folks in Somalia would love to have a functional government, one that could protect them from the warlords. Seems to me that paying for a functional government is a good investment over paying for the feudalistic oligarchy that libertarians are pushing for.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 20, 2009 11:15 PM

If it is not more efficient for my community to have a fundraiser or an auction or to give to charity - then why would I argue?

Besides being economic illiterates, most libertarians like Josh Hardy here are historical illiterates.

Tell me, Hardy, do you even have a clue as to how the government got into the welfare business in the first place? Of course you don't, that's why you spout libertarian propaganda about how charities will take care of the poor, sick and aged.

The rest for government welfare is because charities couldn't handle the load. There were literally people dying in the streets because nobody would or could help them. So about 70 or so years ago governments, both federal and state, got involved. You have to understand that there was something going on called "the Great Depression. The majority of people back then were either out of work or worried that they would be out of work at short notice. They wanted someone to help them and private charities weren't up to the job. The only organizations that could help them were governments.

We're in a similar situation now with health care. One-sixth of the American population doesn't have a way to pay for health care. So emergency rooms get swamped, people are forced to decide whether to buy food or medicine, easily preventable or treatable medical conditions are not treated until they become serious, etc., etc. But assholes like you don't want the government to deal with this. Oh no, that would be taking a risk, that might mean taking money out of your pocket and spending it on someone who isn't you, that might even mean that an insurance company CEO doesn't make millions of dollars. No, you can't have any of that happen. The Insurance Company CEO Full Employment Act that we have today can't be overridden.

...people will die under any system that we so choose.

"If they're going to die, they'd better do so quickly, and decrease the surplus population." -Ebenezer Scrooge

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 20, 2009 11:54 PM

It is funny that you quoted Ebenezer as that quote is what I wanted to lead my speeches with so that I could show how that is distinctly how I did not feel. Damn you!! Now no one will think that I'm original!!

Tell me, Hardy, do you even have a clue as to how the government got into the welfare business in the first place? Of course you don't, that's why you spout libertarian propaganda about how charities will take care of the poor, sick and aged.

I'm perfectly well aware of the Great Depression. Crises conditions are perfectly well to consider. I would have preferred that the tariffs of that age been repealed but so long as the government was dealing with a crises it had all of the reason to provide at least a minimal assistance to the people on the street. After that period, however, it should have gotten out of the way to let society do its part.

Our "similar" situation with health care is not quite the same. There is charity, there are hospitals - here in Nashville actually, that turn no one away. Many who could get it, either through government assistance or otherwise simply haven't gotten around to doing so. As for the remaining - they haven't gotten it YET. Add to the fact that Tennessee has tried such plans and failed - lends no credence to your argument. What you're left with is nothing more than self congratulatory phrases like, "progressive" and accusations of my moral inferiority, which you are in no position to assess.

Posted by: Joshua Cain Hardy | September 21, 2009 12:14 AM

Progressive. As opposed to reactionary. As in, "I would like our social welfare system to progress into the 21st century", in contrast to "I would like our social welfare system to revert back to the 19th century."

Again, meaningless. Self-congratulatory. It's like saying, "I wish we Romans could progress into the middle ages. They're centuries ahead of us!!"

I believe that workers should have ownership of businesses and that essentials should be removed from profit-mongering private interests and placed in the hands of the public.

That would be great - with what method to you propose that they should buy the business?

What does profit-mongering mean?

Labor union protester - can't think of any. I'm from Illinois, labor unions in Illinois mostly killed black people and bombed newspapers. There isn't much to learn from that history except that people are aroused by heightened expectations.

Social activist - I have to go the Noam Chomsky route on that one. No figure totally represents the people. But if I had to choose it would be either George Orwell or Fredrick Douglas.

Woman's rights - Mary Wollstonecraft.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 2:20 AM

Charities do not work. In shrinking economies, people give fewer and smaller donations to charity. And bad economies are exactly when people are losing their jobs or taking pay cuts and needing support. From the first article, "Like most groups that help the needy, the food pantry says demand is growing at a time when donations are dropping. 'Anytime our economy goes down, even slightly, it puts us in that perfect storm'"

Government does not experience that kind of death spiral that charities do in a bad economy. Government can keep up a more consistent level of support precisely when charities cannot, precisely when support is needed. This is just one reason why charity can never replace government.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 2:57 AM

So you don't believe that British citizens have the right to make British laws. Brilliant. That makes things easier. We'll send Paul Bremer right over to start making your laws for you.

By the way, citing "imperialism" as one of the chief causes of poverty in the third world is just ludicrous. Nutty ludicrous.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 4:09 AM

It takes a spectacular sort of ignorance to be unaware that colonial and imperial powers have robbed trillions of dollars in natural resources from third world countries, or to think that this massive diversion of wealth has nothing to do with poverty today.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 4:45 AM

Charities do not work. In shrinking economies, people give fewer and smaller donations to charity

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 5:02 AM

Invasion? What the fuck are you talking about? You really are batshit insane.

What a literal-minded fool you are. You didn't understand the Bremer reference, and now you're tying yourself in knots from your ignorance.

My point, patently, was that you set up an extremely uncharitable caricature of Walton, and people who reject national boundaries in general.

Walton does not reject national boundaries. He disdains nationalism, which is a rather different thing.

then you're contradicting yourself just as bad by supporting minimum wage laws, or child labour laws, which could not exist in anything like their present form if capitalism were abolished.

You are comedic in your ignorance. Do you not realize that Cuba has minimum wage laws, and there is slavery and child labor in the United States today?

It takes a spectacular sort of ignorance to be unaware of the roads, railways, telegraph wires, laws, and various other indispensable modern improvements brought to the third-world by colonial powers. It takes a spectacular sort of ignorance to be unaware that before imperialism started, most of Africa was not just in poverty, but literally in the stone age.

So you are actually proposing that imperialism has been a good thing, and Africa would be in the stone age today without European intervention. Wow. That deserves no reply, but I note that you refused to acknowledge an unbiased UN assessment, instead preferring to spout racist rhetoric.

Posted by: Walton | September 21, 2009 5:07 AM

So you don't believe that British citizens have the right to make British laws. Brilliant. That makes things easier. We'll send Paul Bremer right over to start making your laws for you.

Ignoring your absurd strawman, you are otherwise right: I do not believe that "British citizens have the right to make British laws". People do not merit special rights and privileges based on the accident of where they happened to be born.

At present, I support the British state, and abide by its laws, because, at present, on balance, the continued existence of the British state does more good than harm. While far from perfect, Britain's political and legal system is, at present, relatively decent compared to others in the world. However, this does not mean that my fellow Britons have a "right" to impose on me whatever political system they choose. If the British people were to elect, say, a fascist BNP government, or a Stalinist government, or a totalitarian theocracy, then I would absolutely support the overthrow of the elected government by a foreign military. I'd rather be governed by a Paul Bremer than a Saddam Hussein, even if Saddam Hussein had been popularly elected.

"National self-determination" is a red herring. Morality, decency and fundamental rights are not culturally relative; I believe that the same moral principles apply everywhere in the world, regardless of national boundaries. And I believe that, if those moral principles are being ignored or overridden in a foreign country, we ought to do everything in our power to alter this situation. If that makes me an "imperialist" in your eyes, then fine, call me an imperialist. But I believe that whether a person was born in Britain, or Ohio, or Turkmenistan, or South Africa, or Iraq, he or she has certain basic moral entitlements; freedom of speech and of religion, freedom from violence and sexual coercion, the right to private property, the right to a fair trial and access to the courts, and equality before the law. Those rights are sufficiently important that they must be protected, in the last resort, by physical force; and I see no reason why we should restrict ourselves to protecting the rights of those people fortunate enough to be born in the US, UK or our allied states.

Individual people, and their individual rights, matter. National boundaries do not. In the end, nations are no more real than gods; they exist only because people believe in them.

But in fact, Walton, you do not believe in individual sovereignty. You instead believe that individuals do not have the right to not pay their taxes for fire protection and child welfare. Whatever this is, it is meaningless to call it sovereignty. This is yet another example of you relying on slogans and propaganda, laziness. That's my cue to stop engaging your non-arguments.

I was using the term "sovereignty" in the same sense that it is used by advocates of "national sovereignty". In the real world, no one can seriously view "national sovereignty" as absolute; national governments are self-evidently not entitled, either under the moral principles of international law or in practical reality, to do whatever they wish with total impunity.

Similarly, individual sovereignty is not absolute. But, at the same time, I believe in certain universal rights and freedoms which ought to belong, as of right, to all people, regardless of where in the world they happened to be born. Rights should not be contingent on the accident of birth.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 5:25 AM

What a literal-minded fool you are. You didn't understand the Bremer reference, and now you're tying yourself in knots from your ignorance.

Walton does not reject national boundaries. He disdains nationalism, which is a rather different thing

You are comedic in your ignorance. Do you not realize that Cuba has minimum wage laws, and there is slavery and child labor in the United States today?

Anyway, you can't get out of this on a technicality. The essential argument stands unscathed: In our contingent world, there's no contradiction at all in advocating laws that doesn't match up with one's dream society in which all one's principles are actualized.

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 5:36 AM

I was thinking about this today, that if this were a libertarian system then I would have not been afforded the opportunities I've had. That instead of being able to get an education, I would have been trapped in the cycle of poverty. That instead of getting health care when I needed it, I would have crippled what little finances my parents had. Yet now I have a degree and a decent job. I have a good potential future where I can give back more to society than was needed for me to get a start. Under a libertarian society, I would not have gotten any of that. My future would be contingent on my parent's wealth, and since I grew up relatively poor the things I take for granted would not have been afforded to me at all.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 5:50 AM

So you are actually proposing that imperialism has been a good thing, and Africa would be in the stone age today without European intervention. Wow. That deserves no reply, but I note that you refused to acknowledge an unbiased UN assessment, instead preferring to spout racist rhetoric.

To forestall inevitable caricaturing, I'm not proposing that European powers had the right to invade other cultures. There's nothing normative about wondering whether imperialism might in the long run have done more good than bad. And of course you have to be careful about taking partial derivatives. Perhaps the Ottomans would have taken over all of Africa if it weren't for the Europeans.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 5:57 AM

Wow, this post is really a great dissapointment by PZ.

I guess the kindest thing to say about PZ is that his mind lives in an alternate world where the word socialism means classical liberal democracy, and libertarianism means anarchism.

Meanwhile, in the real world (wikipedia):
"The best [9] or most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism[8] by advocating a right to private property, including property in the means of production,[10] minimal government regulation of that property, minimal taxation, and rejection of the welfare state, all within the context of the rule of law." (even this definition goes a bit too far, in Europe by libertarians we generally mean classical liberals such as Friedman and Hayek who do not reject the welfare state at all.)

"Socialism refers to various theories of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. In Marxist theory, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism characterised by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done."

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 21, 2009 6:04 AM

Kstamos writes "Meanwhile, in the real world (wikipedia)"

That's a snorter right there.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 6:07 AM

Be gentle with kstamos, who is having first contact with the concept of a mixed economy.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 6:10 AM

"I was thinking about this today, that if this were a libertarian system then I would have not been afforded the opportunities I've had."

Kel, again I think you imagine an anarchist, not a libertarian system. A favorite libertarian proposal on education is school vouchers, which actually works for providing better choice and opportunities for children stuck in low performing schools.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 6:13 AM

"Be gentle with kstamos, who is having first contact with the concept of a mixed economy."

Perhaps you are actually referring to PZ? His post doesn't seem to grasp the concept.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 6:40 AM

Kel, again I think you imagine an anarchist, not a libertarian system. A favorite libertarian proposal on education is school vouchers, which actually works for providing better choice and opportunities for children stuck in low performing schools.

Nowhere did Kel say that the public school system failed him. And the difference between a voucher and a private school's tuition is often still out of reach of poor families.

"Be gentle with kstamos, who is having first contact with the concept of a mixed economy."

Perhaps you are actually referring to PZ? His post doesn't seem to grasp the concept.

Clearly he gets it just fine, and the things like fire departments listed here are the socialist parts of the mixed economy. Nowhere did PZ say that the entire USA is socialist.

Posted by: Kendo | September 21, 2009 6:46 AM

Joshua Cain Hardy:

I'm perfectly well aware of the Great Depression. Crises conditions are perfectly well to consider. I would have preferred that the tariffs of that age been repealed but so long as the government was dealing with a crises it had all of the reason to provide at least a minimal assistance to the people on the street. After that period, however, it should have gotten out of the way to let society do its part.

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 6:56 AM

Nowhere did Kel say that the public school system failed him. And the difference between a voucher and a private school's tuition is often still out of reach of poor families.

What I would worry about in the voucher system (Australia already heavily subsidises higher education - those Kings College bowling greens need new gardeners if they are to keep the school's prestige) is that it wouldn't have made it any better for people like me. In fact, it would have made it worse. I grew up in one of the highest unemployment areas in the state. What would a voucher system have done to help me?

But this is not what I was talking about, and it seems quite a red herring to take what I was saying and move it in such a manner. The libertarianism I was rejecting was not one of social policy but of fiscal autonomy - which if you read this thread you'll see it's the one that is being advocated by many self-confessed libertarians, and a view that seems to be resonating from the far right in America right now. In terms of social policy, civil libertarian is probably the closest descriptor to my views. I'm not unsympathetic to the position, I'm just dead against those who take it to an extreme that you can't negotiate with.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 7:10 AM

Kel, why do you think a voucher system would be worse?
You would still have the choices you had. I also don't think high unemployment would be a factor, since all parents (even if unemployed) would have the vouchers, and therefore purchasing power, to attract good schools and teachers.

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 7:16 AM

Kel, the ones advocating taxation = theft are called anarchocapitalists.

Anyway, the whole discussion here seems to revolve around disagreement over the meaning of labels.

It just irks me that many commentators here and PZ want to caricature libertarians, when they actually have quite nuanced arguments (like Walton).

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 7:19 AM

even where a country's democratically elected government wishes to introduce protectionist trade policies, I absolutely believe that the international community should try to stop them from doing so. Clearly, the use of military force to achieve this objective would be disproportionate and excessive. But using other sanctions to force countries to open their markets, whether they like it or not, is IMO completely legitimate.

That said, as I've said before, I find it hypocritical that while we in the West support IMF and World Bank policies of eliminating protectionism in the developing world, we retain our own protectionist policies (the EU CAP, the US farm bill, and so on), meaning that the poor in the developing world are unable to compete. This is unfair. And this is why I consistently and vehemently speak out against Western trade protectionism.

Let's imagine applying this theory in the real world. How long do you think it will be before the United States gets rid of its agricultural subsidies? Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are even willing to talk about the issue; the farm lobby today is approximately as powerful as the Israel lobby. I can't imagine it happening before 2030, and even then I can't imagine how it might happen, so 20 years might be wishful thinking.

In the meantime, should third world countries be prevented from protecting their agricultural infrastructure and their own ability to feed themselves in the future, by having tariffs on subsidized US agricultural imports today? It's certainly possible to force small nations to comply. But nobody except perhaps China and Saudi Arabia can force the United States to do anything. Should small nations be pushed into dropping protectionism while large nations retain it?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 7:32 AM

We already know that you're bonkers-out-of-this-world, batshit-out-of-your-skull, stark raving mad,

We? You're the only one who's asserting this. Everyone who spoke up in Thread 9 disagreed with you. Oh wait, Hyperion, are you legion?

so it's really no surprise that you deluded yourself into believing the clear non sequitur argument that (1) your remark was fashioned in a sarcastic style, and (2) therefore it couldn't have been an egregiously dishonest strawperson.

Still so stupid. State your case explicitly for how my comment was not a reductio ad absurdum. My case is that it was such, because the statement 'I don't believe in "national sovereignty"' was stated without qualification, and Walton did indeed follow up by saying 'I do not believe that "British citizens have the right to make British laws".'

If you don't understand what I'm getting at, you haven't been following the conversation, and I'm not about to waste any more time acting as your psychiatrist.

You're doing quite well as my new ragdoll, though. Are you going to admit that you fucked up re "at present"? Are you going to admit that you have no case on which to say that Walton wants all nations to be gradually abolished?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 7:36 AM

minimum wage laws would have to be revised if there were for instance no private sector, or no private sector beyond self-employment and cooperatives, or equal distribution of wealth. People can advocate any one of those things while simultaneously supporting minimum wage laws tailor-made for capitalist societies like the US.

What a tautological and irrelevant thing to say. If that's all you have to contribute, you needn't have bothered.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 7:41 AM

Still so stupid. State your case explicitly for how my comment was not a reductio ad absurdum. My case is that it was such, because the statement 'I don't believe in "national sovereignty"' was stated without qualification, and Walton did indeed follow up by saying 'I do not believe that "British citizens have the right to make British laws".'

You're doing quite well as my new ragdoll, though. Are you going to admit that you fucked up re "at present"? Are you going to admit that you have no case on which to say that Walton wants all nations to be gradually abolished?

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 7:44 AM

Kel, why do you think a voucher system would be worse?

That's only talking about fiscal types, if it was a matter of choice in curriculum, then that's another matter entirely!

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 7:59 AM

"If you give parents equal buying power then you are going to have a system that's just like the public school system we have now."

I don't think that's true. A voucher system motivates schools and teachers since it creates losers and winners among them (based on parent choice). This by itself is a gain (that's however why teacher unions are understandably the greatest opponents of school vouchers).

Google about "Sweden vouchers"; it seem to work quite well there.

Nerd of redhead, it's you who hasn't read their posts. For example, in comment #112 Walton says he's in favor of a basic welfare state.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 8:11 AM

My "case" has already been stated,

Your case was an assertion. You assert that what I said was a strawman. I give a counterargument that it was a reductio ad absurdem. You refuse to engage the counterargument.

No, I think Walton's remarks indicate unambiguously that he wants nations gradually abolished.

Even though he unambiguously did not say that.

He doesn't believe there's any philosophical basis for nations,

That's not really what he said. He said "national boundaries have no objective, rational significance." He also said "in the end, nations are no more real than gods; they exist only because people believe in them." Well, that latter statement was rhetorical flourish. Nations and gods are different in an important way; if one person stops believing in gods, the gods will do nothing. But if one person stops believing in the nation, the nation can still affect the person's life. It's more accurate to say that nations are no more real than laws, but Walton does not want a world without laws.

Walton does believe that there's a philosophical basis for having a state, just not necessarily the particular states that currently exist. He wants impartial courts, police, child welfare, intellectual property laws and various other things, and he does believe that people have a legitimate right to secure that much for themselves by forming a state.

It's not my fault that you haven't paid enough attention to understand him, but I'm quite familiar with his views, and you've fucked up. I note you also won't admit that you fucked up re "at present," though you clearly did.

Posted by: Tulse | September 21, 2009 8:14 AM

A favorite libertarian proposal on education is school vouchers

Vouchers are not a libertarian approach to education, as they rely on the forceful confiscation of other's property (i.e., taxes) to provide the funds. They increase the liberty of those who spend the vouchers, but only at the expense of those who fund them, and are thus no more libertarian than the bank bailout. A truly libertarian position would only support vouchers distributed through a private charity, which received voluntary donations, and not money seized without consent.

Right?

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 8:25 AM

That makes me much, much, much smarter than those who spout libertarianism...

How do you explain the fact that libertarians in this thread, like ZeroCool, seriously said that taxation was stealing?

Posted by: mwsletten | September 21, 2009 8:26 AM

Boober said: 'Translation: You are not worthy of speaking to me about social contracts until you have walked on the wall.'

Again the moron attempts interpretation; this time from an internet post instead of a piece of paper. I've already told you you're interpretation is wrong. I explained the context in which I made my statement. It's real simple: Don't tell me I don't know what military service means unless you've served. But then you already know that...

The definition problem is your own. It's already been explained to you why the government hand-out you receive can easily be put into the category of welfare.

Boober said: My military service does, however, give me a much clearer perspective on what it means to serve in the military ...which has NOTHING TO DO with the real conversation, the one that isn't so narrow as you want it to be. Shall I quote you again?'

No, that IS the conversation. We were discussing whether or not the government's contractural obligation to me is welfare or not. Pygmy mumbled some silly comments about military service to which I was directly responding. I suggested that one who has never served shouldn't make value judgements about those who have. You see, that's the problem with butting in on a conversaion when you don't read the entire thread -- didn't we already go over this?

Boober said: 'YOU are saying that we can't discuss social contracts until we've "taken up a weapon", and later, "walked in your shoes" - and yet there are people here who HAVE served, and who have told you your full of shit. Somehow, you still haven't refuted them, either.'

Wrong again -- see above. You keep accusing me of narrowing the scope of the discussion, yet you keep stretching it like an old pair of socks that won't hold themselves up any longer. And I remember one other person who claimed to have served who agrees with you that payment by the government for services rendered is welfare. I wonder how many veterans would agree with you on, oh, I don't know, say, military.com?

Boober said: 'The definition problem is your own. It's already been explained to you why the government hand-out you receive can easily be put into the category of welfare.'

No, you and a few other idiots have shared an outlandish opinion which would be laughed at by anyone with a bit of common sense. I notice you failed to respond to my analogy of the post upkeep contractor. Are his contractural earnings welfare?

Boober said: 'The Constitution IS a contract.'

Yup, but the devil is in the details, son. If it was clear what the 'contract' meant we wouldn't need the judicial branch, would we? As such, your interpretation is no more valid than mine. As you think just compensation for services rendered should be considered 'welfare,' I'm rapidly losing faith in yours...

Boober said: 'Basic civics, 101: we are the government. You, me, "society" - WE have determined that YOU should receive certain benefits as a result of your military service. If WE, as a people, through our Constitutional government, decide to extend health care universally and at the public's expense - then YOU, yes YOU, will pay your fair share, until such a time as when people who think like you change the laws.'

Whaaaaa? When did we start debating this? Did I suggest I would not pay my fair share should such legislation be enacted? I don't believe so... Short attention span much?

Boober said: 'You receive benefits because I and millions of your fellow citizens think you deserve them. We've already thanked you. I think you can thank us by letting us not die from lack of money.'

No, shithead, I recieve a military pension and benefits as just compensation for twenty years and five months of faithful service rendered -- as dictated by my contract. YOU are in the same boat you just threw me in: If you don't like the contract made with my by your government, then vote the bastards out. Good luck finding anyone with the balls to renege on a contract with military veterans.

Boober said: 'You realize it is possible to STILL pay it back - if citizens (and most especially corporations) would agree to pay their fair share to maintain the benefits civilized societies enjoy?'

Holy shit are you lost... You realize, don't you, that of all OECD countries, only Japan's pay higher taxes than US corporations, don't you? No, of course you don't... You know, on second thought, I think you're right! Jack up those corporate taxes! Why should we let Japan beat us? They already make better cars than us! You're losin' it man -- come back to the light...

Boober said: 'A couple of trillion of dollars in the hole (where we are now) is recoverable; hundreds of trillions (where we are headed) is not. Citation needed.'

There is some $120 trillion in unfunded mandates between Social Security and Medicare. According to the CBO's (recently corrected) estimates, President Obama's projected budgets will add some $10 trillion to the national deficit in the next decade. Is this news to you?

BTW, I'm not writing a your paper for you; if you desire one, do the research and find your own fucking citation. My time is too valuable to research somthing I already know.

Boober said: '...says the guy who spent 20 years receiving checks each month from the government (public sector), and will do so for the rest of his life. Your ASSumptions are noted. Come to my farm, "son", I've got a few hundred bales of hay that need to be stored in the barn and a few acres of fencing to put up.'

Ahhh, you think I haven't lived in the 'real world' you live in. You think I've been sittin' back on easy street collectin' that gummint pension check since I left the military nearly a decade ago. I see you're not above some ASSumptions of your own. Don't worry son, business is booming for me, I don't need the work.

Does it gall you to think someone that benefits so much from it just can't appreciate the largesse of his government? Someone who just can't see how generous his government is? Someone who just can't see how generous YOU are to have given me so much? It's very simple: I accept payment for service rendered. I'm no more grateful to my government for that than you are to your employer for issuing a paycheck at the end of the pay period; I'm grateful my government continues to live up to its end of the bargain, no more, no less.

Here's a suggestion, go back to your farm and EAT the hay, along with all the other asses. The resulting fertilizer should prove a lot more valuable than the horse shit you've been shoveling here.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 8:32 AM

It's not my fault that you haven't paid enough attention to understand him, but I'm quite familiar with his views, and you've fucked up.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 8:39 AM

I predict that Walton will vindicate me by confirming he would like nations to be gradually abolished, in line with his ideal that individual sovereignty, not national sovereignty, is to be respected. Different nations with different laws seem utterly incompatible with the principles he's described.

I know my comrade. I listen to him.

I can quote him already and in detail to demonstrate how wrong you are, but I will refrain for now in case he cares to say something more specific.

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 8:41 AM

However, how do you explain the fact that Walton, Tim, Mike and other self-described libertarians in this thread write thoughtful posts and do not seem to be anarchocapitalists, while some of their opponents often resort to childish name-calling?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 21, 2009 8:59 AM

Walton, you forgot to explain how taxation constitutes "penalising the wealthy for their success".

Posted by: Walton | September 21, 2009 9:07 AM

Hyperon,

I predict that Walton will vindicate me by confirming he would like nations to be gradually abolished, in line with his ideal that individual sovereignty, not national sovereignty, is to be respected. Different nations with different laws seem utterly incompatible with the principles he's described.

Yes and no. I believe, as you say, that individual liberty, rather than national sovereignty, is to be respected. Ideally, I would like the same human rights, fundamental freedoms, and principles of justice to be accepted and enforced everywhere in the world, regardless of national borders. I would also like, as I have said, to see the total and unrestricted free movement of goods, capital and labour across borders. Ideally, the country in which a person happens to be born ought to make no difference to his or her level of individual freedom. And, as I do not believe that "national sovereignty" or "non-interference" are desirable goals, I think it is absolutely legitimate to interfere with another nation's system of government if that government is not respecting individual rights and freedoms.

At the same time, I'm also a localist. Questions of taxation, public spending and resource allocation should be decided on the most local level possible, by democratic local communities. I believe that there is a distinction between, on the one hand, issues of fundamental liberty - freedom from violence, freedom of expression and religion, the right to a fair trial, equality before the law, and the like - which should be the same everywhere, and, on the other hand, issues of policy and resource allocation which can, and should, differ from place to place according to the wishes of local voters.

Obviously, all of the above is a hypothetical utopia, not an immediate realistic goal. But since you were asking about my ultimate goals, I felt I should clarify what I advocate.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 9:21 AM

In the UK we have something called the dole. It prevents people from starving and from going homeless.

Ha! Spoken from the privilege of never having had to actually face homelessness.

Posted by: Alex Deam | September 21, 2009 9:30 AM

With 47 million Americans uninsured, and many more with inadequate insurance, what exactly are these charities doing that the Libertarians keep raving about?

Obama proposes more government involvement in the health care system. So the Libertarians respond with "But charity will work". If charity will work, why isn't it working NOW?

Posted by: Walton | September 21, 2009 9:33 AM

Good point here, although there's a problem with this answer. What makes you think nations of today strike the optimal balance between global and local priorities? The entity we call "UK" might today be fairly unrecognizable if some events in history were to transpire different ways. There's nothing in the origin of the UK that leads us to believe it's mathematically optimal in any sense. So it seems to me that the nations you're in favour of almost certainly aren't nations as per the present meaning (America, Britain etc.).

I absolutely agree. Present national boundaries are the result of historical accident, rather than any kind of coherent scheme; and the UK, specifically, has a power structure which is far too centralised. Hence why I'm in favour, within the UK, of devolving power over resource allocation away from Westminster and Whitehall to local communities. While such matters as human rights protection and the judicial system should remain standardised, I would argue that decisions about taxation, service provision and public spending should be taken at the most local level possible.

Ideally, those powers currently exercised at the national level should either be transferred "downwards", to be exercised by local and regional governments, or "upwards", to be standardised across the international community. The former category should include decisions about taxation, services and public spending. The latter category should include fundamental human rights and liberties, freedom of trade and free movement across boundaries.

Posted by: Tulse | September 21, 2009 9:39 AM

Not my fault if you're too parochial to realize that there's a wider world (and no, it's not a vast wasteland called "Canada").

Geez, what did Soviet Canuckistan ever do to you?

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 9:43 AM

Regarding the "taxation is stealing" comments, I think you should read the libertarian comments again. My understanding is that most libertarians by far take the "necessary evil" stance: i.e. taxation is "stealing" in the sense that property is taken by force, but some taxation is necessary for a civilized society.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 9:44 AM

Hence why I'm in favour, within the UK, of devolving power over resource allocation away from Westminster and Whitehall to local communities.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 9:52 AM

What the fuck is wrong with you, Hyperon? How can you say that 25,000 families living on the streets is "quite reasonable"?

Posted by: Rocketboy | September 21, 2009 9:56 AM

strange gods before me: "Rocketboy, you are hilarious. Your buddy bonze there is another libertarian like you. You actually took bonze's strawman seriously, and thought it was a liberal saying those things. You two should get a room."

Wow, really?

Amazing, because I've only had time to skim things, and responded to a comment that was directly to me.

And unfortunately, I'm not a libertarian. If anything, I'm a moderate that has conservative and libertarian leanings. The gov't should exist to protect you from some things (including your own stupidity at times), but you're on your own for the rest of things.

And just to blow your mind even more (because, gasp, who would not want to identify with a group and engage in group-think, right?): I support the right to abortion; I support giving someone the chance to succeed; I support giving someone the chance to fail; I believe in evolution; I believe that in many cases a private industry can and will do things better then the gov't sector; I realize that the gov't was intended to act at MY beck and call, not the other way around; I realize that states were intended to be more than ecnomic entities, but were to have their own rights; I believe that the federal gov't taking money from me, and giving it to local projects is nothing but highway robbery, because if the feds didn't take and redistribute the money, the locals would be able to take the correct amount; I support a shared economic contract between two grown adults; I don't support redefining the legal definition of marriage; I support equal rights, not special rights; I am (for the most part) anti-union; I am for the overhaul of the public school system; I think it's appalling that gov't workers are unionized (as they technically work for the public, why do they not negotiate with the public, and not a politician looking for votes?); I support don't ask, don't tell, as the only other alternative is full integration between men and women (but the punishment should fall down just as hard on the asker as the teller. More-so actually).

(And to stave off the next mud ball slagged my way, I am in no way a homophobe. I could give you the reasons why, but really, you've already made up your mind about be, and honestly, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.)

So, am I a libertarian? No. Conservative? Nope. Liberal? Not even close. Because you know why? The best solution is one arrived at after weighing in all opinions. Not group-think.

But of course, I'm sure you'll just call me a follower of Ayn Rand (even though I do not really buy into her philosophy, nor have ever read any of her books).

Or, just call the whole thing a strawman, just like a fundy will argue that if it's not in the bible, it's not a valid argument.

Posted by: Walton | September 21, 2009 10:01 AM

What the fuck is wrong with you, Hyperon? How can you say that 25,000 families living on the streets is "quite reasonable"?

25,000 homeless families, out of a population of 60 million, is not all that bad, in comparative global terms. In general, people who are temporarily made homeless can get temporary housing and assistance, and most eventually get back on their feet.

Ultimately, there will always be a few people who, however much help they receive from others, end up slipping again and again into drugs and alcoholism; and those people tend, in any society, to end up living on the streets. Don't get me wrong - I'm not taking a judgmental "it's their own fault" attitude. In general, it isn't their own fault; we're talking, for the most part, about people with serious mental and emotional problems which make it impossible for them to support themselves. But it is nevertheless generally true that the power of government to help is limited. And - harsh as it sounds - society does not, in the end, owe everyone a living.

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 10:04 AM

Is there any political position that is not based on some moral assumption?

Purely rationally, we are just a collection of molecules so nothing we do or think makes any difference anyway. But I am sure that's not the way you or anyone thinks (except nihilists?)

Like I said earlier, it's a sign of extremism to use such language. And then the extremists wonder why they get such a hostile reaction from others...

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 10:07 AM

kstamos, you can't even read.

25,000 homeless families, out of a population of 60 million, is not all that bad, in comparative global terms. In general, people who are temporarily made homeless can get temporary housing and assistance, and most eventually get back on their feet.

No, Walton, look at the article. These are the number who do not have temporary housing and assistance. It's another 75,000 who do.

Ultimately, there will always be a few people who, however much help they receive from others, end up slipping again and again into drugs and alcoholism;

So you're unable to talk about poverty without characterizing those who suffer most as drug addicts.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 10:21 AM

"When you add in the 380,000 'hidden homeless' - those living in hostels, squats and other places - there are nearly half a million homeless people in the UK today,"

http://www.crisis.org.uk/page.builder/Expose_the_truth.html

Crisis sent ‘mystery shoppers’ posing as single homeless people to expose the truth on what happens when people ask their local council for help.

As the research briefing shows, the levels of help were so poor that if these had been real cases many of them would have ended up on the streets. ...

Gatekeeping: In at least 13 instances the mystery shopper did not even get to talk to a housing officer, being turned away by a receptionist, told that they were ‘not a priority'. None of our mystery shoppers, or homeless people in similar circumstances, would appear in the official headline homelessness figures.

Lack of resolutions to homelessness: Even if they did get as far as seeing a housing officer they were often given unhelpful, incorrect or misleading advice, and the mystery shoppers left demoralised and with no solution. For instance, some were given a list of hostels in completely different areas. A 17-year-old was told to return to her family home although she said feared sexual assault there.

Homelessness applications discouraged: Of the 45 visits, in only nine were the shoppers given the opportunity to make a homelessness application or did it appear that they eventually might have been.

Priority need overlooked: At least two of our nine mystery shoppers did clearly fit the ‘priority need' criteria to receive emergency accommodation; one woman was pregnant, another was under 18 and had left the family home due to sexual harassment. Neither received accommodation.

Suspicion: Unreasonable levels of proof of circumstances were requested, the purpose seemingly to ‘catch out' the mystery shopper or establish that they did not fit the ‘priority need' criteria. One mystery shopper who said he was sleeping rough was told to come back with six months' pay slips and bank statements.

Lack of empathy and poor service: While some advisors made real efforts to assist, in the main, mystery shoppers felt they were treated like ‘second class citizens'. They were asked to explain their stories again and again, often in very public settings, with little empathy shown.

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 10:29 AM

However, I do not understand why you object to describing taxation as a "necessary evil".

The only way I could see how it could be considered "evil" is if one beliefs in the absolute autonomy of the individual. I don't, and I think it contrary to human nature to think of us that way. And this doesn't mean that I think that the government should just tax and spend on arbitrary processes either. But while I'm for a basic level of welfare and human rights afforded to all citizens, I can't consider taxation evil.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 10:33 AM

kstamos, the minister is not speaking literally (or if he is, he's lying, but I'm going for the more charitable interpretation). He was comparing the problem in general as "very different from the problem left by the last Conservative government". As in "now" there's more people getting off the streets. Not all, but more. I don't know if that's true. In any case, actual numbers are that over 3000 people slept on the street in London last year.

Aw, pointing out the fact that a libertarian in this thread called taxation "stealing" is bad faith, is it?

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 10:37 AM

None of this means people are forced into their jobs, which was my original point.

Obviously it does mean that people are forced into their jobs, if dealing with this shit is their alternative.

You just can't deal with reality. You cannot admit that being forced to choose between the wage on offer and homelessness is not a free choice. But that's the facts. It's not a free choice, no matter how many times you lie.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 10:40 AM

Not all, but more. I don't know if that's true. In any case, actual numbers are that over 3000 people slept on the street in London last year.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 10:43 AM

Obviously it does mean that people are forced into their jobs, if dealing with this shit is their alternative.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 10:46 AM

I have friends who have no compunction to sleeping on the street when they're sufficiently plastered. It doesn't mean they're without lodgings.

You're a fool, Hyperon. Your friends are not going to agencies that deal with the homeless to be counted.

Personally I'm surprised the statistic is a mere 3,000.

It's not. That's how many the agencies actually counted.

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 10:52 AM

You do realize that this is in very, very poor taste, don't you?

Posted by: bonze | September 21, 2009 10:55 AM

Rocketboy #516

Wow, that's exactly what the fundies would say.

And the second part of your comment is such groupmind thinking it disgusts and frightens me.

Say wha?

I'll suggest you check out irony and the No True Scotsman fallacy.

strange gods before me #522

Rocketboy, you are hilarious. Your buddy bonze there is another libertarian like you. You actually took bonze's strawman seriously, and thought it was a liberal saying those things. You two should get a room.

strange gods before me #526

Ha! People cuss for their own entertainment. It has no bearing on the validity of their arguments.

Yeah, and some guys fling shit in public for their own entertainment. And there are people who are really impressed by that kind of thing. Strange Gods and Joe Wilson share the keen psychological insight that enables them to penetrate the shrouds of the psyches of those who have the gall to disagree with them and shout it out: "You're a liar!"

The problem with being an ideologue is that you develop tunnel vision. People who are different all start to look the same: they're all bloody heretics, or wreckers, or Stalinists.

The Name of the Rose (p. 174):

"Please," William said, "do not mix things that are separate! You speak as if the Fraticelli, Patarines, Waldensians, Catharists, and within these the Bogomils of Bulgaria and the heretics of Dragovitsa, were all the same thing!"

"They are," the abbot said sharply, "they are because they are heretics, and they are because they jeopardize the very order of the civilized world, as well as the order of the empire you seem to me to favor."

Posted by: Kel | September 21, 2009 11:01 AM

The thing is, nothing of the above should be done light-heartedly. The benefit should be obvious. Some people sometimes tend to forget this, and that's why labeling them "necessary evils" (instead of just "good things") serves an illuminating purpose in my opinion.

Is taxation to give people basic medical treatment and education a problem? Is it the same as funding art or sport? Is it the same as funding a military for defence? To fund wars of aggression? To help build towards sustainable energy consumption? To subsidise "green" technologies? To fund technological endeavours like flying to the moon or the Large Hadron Collider? To give aid to those in a foreign land? To fund bureaucratic institutions? To build roads and telecommunications networks? To crack down on drug use / distribution? and so on...

Point is that each question should be asked on its relative merits, so to regard the entire underlying process as inherently immoral or a necessary evil undercuts the real discussion. i.e. the idealism gets in the way of actually having a serious conversation. As 'Tis Himself mentioned up thread, there's been no discussion about the specific economics. This is why I get so annoyed at libertarians, because it almost always rests on an ideal and that ideal has a foundation of moral outrage. It's like trying to argue with members of PETA. And while I may support animal rights akin to how I support the promotion and goal for civil liberties, I'm going to get pissed off at the manner by which the case is presented and how the adherents to the ideology treat others.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 11:08 AM

You seem to be confused as to the meaning of "homeless" in the articles you quote. It refers to those without permanent accommodation, not people living on the streets.

No, I'm quoting directly from the article:

As the research briefing shows, the levels of help were so poor that if these had been real cases many of them would have ended up on the streets.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 21, 2009 11:13 AM

Am I alone in thinking that it is telling that Hyperon claims to have friends who think nothing of sleeping in the gutter if they get to pissed and cannot remember where they live ?

Posted by: Hyperon | September 21, 2009 11:26 AM

Am I alone in thinking that it is telling that Hyperon claims to have friends who think nothing of sleeping in the gutter if they get to pissed and cannot remember where they live ?

Posted by: DanN | September 21, 2009 11:33 AM

Pygmy Loris, my original point is all states have some regulations regarding open carry.

Not all citizens can do it anywhere they want at any time with any type of gun. There are regulations, even in Vermont which has the most leant gun laws.

And my link isn't dishonest if you actually clicked t and read it:

http://www.usacarry.com/vermont_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Concealed Permit: It is lawful to carry a firearm openly or concealed provided the firearm is not carried with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man. There is no permit required to carry concealed.

Requirements:
1. Be of age. In the state of Vermont, that age is 16 or older. You must be at least 16 years of age to legally purchase a gun and keep it loaded on your person in public.
2. Obtain permission from a parent or guardian to carry a gun if you're under the age of 16. Failure to do so may result in being deemed a delinquent child by the state.
3. Have a clean record if purchasing a firearm. Things like felony convictions and dishonorable military discharge will show up during the federal instant check, and prohibit purchase.

Informing Law Enforcement of Carry:

Automobile carry:
Rifles and shotguns carried in a wehicle must be unloaded; handguns may be carried loaded and concealed.

Places off-limits when carrying:
1. School bus or school building or on school property.
2. Courthouse

3. US Federal Buildings (including US Post Offices)

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 11:40 AM

So "taxation is theft" assumes what the glibertarian needs to establish: that the state can never have the right to levy taxes.

Knockgoats, taxation violates a fundamental human right (the right to allocate one's body and labor without coercion). So does amputating an unconscious person threatened by gangrene. It's just that sometimes society does have to violate these rights. It does not negate their nastiness though.

I don't think there is much the libertarian needs to prove here: human liberty is just an axiom, I am aware of this (I just hope you also subscribe to it).

So the real-world questions are: how much tax should be raised? from whom and in what way? how should it be spent, and the results monitored and assessed?

No disagreement here either with you or with Kel.

In that context, calling taxation a "necessary evil" is just a rhetorical device, attempting to establish the "tax only when you absolutely must" position as the default without argument.

That's right, the "tax only when you absolutely must" position should be self-evident. Would you advocate taxing people just for the sake of it?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 21, 2009 11:48 AM

Knockgoats, taxation violates a fundamental human right (the right to allocate one's body and labor without coercion). So does amputating an unconscious person threatened by gangrene. It's just that sometimes society does have to violate these rights. It does not negate their nastiness though.

So do you not think people who gain from society should contribute to the running of that society ?

Would you allow people to opt out of paying tax if they then get confined to a reservation with no support at all ? I mean just barren wilderness, with not even the clothes they stand up in. Bollock naked, in the middle of nowhere, no matter what the weather, left alone to fend for themselves. No way back either, they live or die totally on their own abilities. If they break a leg, chances are they die. They well not be contributing a thing to society, but then they well not be getting a thing either.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 11:56 AM

Matt, I have said numerous times that I am _for_ taxation for basic welfare etc. as I see no other practical way to provide it.

My whole point is just as Knockgoats put it to label it a "necessary evil" so as to remind people that we should only "tax when we absolutely must", not "tax just because we can", nor "tax because society in previous times recklessly borrowed".

Or perhaps I just did not understand your question?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 21, 2009 12:01 PM

Matt, I have said numerous times that I am _for_ taxation for basic welfare etc. as I see no other practical way to provide it.

My whole point is just as Knockgoats put it to label it a "necessary evil" so as to remind people that we should only "tax when we absolutely must", not "tax just because we can", nor "tax because society in previous times recklessly borrowed".

Or perhaps I just did not understand your question?

The problem with saying it is a "necessary evil" is that it ignores the fact there is a price to be paid for being part of a society. It condones the view that it is alright not to pay your share if you can possibly avoid it whereas people should be regarding paying their share as their duty.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 12:04 PM

SGBM, if the system for providing homes to homeless people were working well, would you drop your "no choice" argument? Because in the end the discussion seems to boil down to "we should have a good working safety net" and I think we can all agree on that.

What I call libertarians (people like Friedman and Hayek) understand this very well.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 12:12 PM

Well Matt it's very difficult (I would say impossible) to calculate how much you are gaining from society and "pay your share".

At best what you advocate would mean that there should be more services charged (like more road tolls) instead of being provided for "free" (paid for by general taxation). I find the idea attractive (and fair), but it can only go this far.

My argument is that even the individual living at the wilderness should pay taxes, not because he has gained anything from society, but because taxing him is necessary in order to educate children born by poor parents, feed incapacitated people etc.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 12:31 PM

Alright, I'm done with the dancing fool for a while.

Walton, you need to read this econ paper on 'kicking away the ladder.' The author, Ha-Joon Chang, has co-published with former Chief Economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz, and is a consultant for the World Bank himself. One of these days I'll run out of capitalists to cite.

The thesis is that even if we got rid of all tariffs tomorrow, you'd still be asking third world countries to compete on an uneven playing field.

Posted by: kstamos | September 21, 2009 12:50 PM

SGBM, all that the paper supports is that industrial nations have relied on protectionism in the past.

The overwhelming consensus (supported by tons of facts) is that free trade is a net gain.

(Btw the author has studied under a Marxist professor and is described as a "heterodox economist" - so much for citing capitalists).

Posted by: solinferius | September 21, 2009 1:56 PM

kstamos #607: I have to disagree with that vehemently. It's a social *contract* - there have to be benefits both ways. If you're willing to tax those who receive no benefits from society is acceptable, what's to prevent taxing the citizens of other, militarily weak, nations - taxation without representation? That's what we fought the American Revolution over...

The right of children to an education cannot trump the right of all humans to be affected by government only under the terms of the social contract. Negative rights (not to be messed with - i.e. right to life, right to free speech, right to property) always trump positive rights (right to an education, right to healthcare...)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 21, 2009 3:05 PM

SGBM, if the system for providing homes to homeless people were working well, would you drop your "no choice" argument? Because in the end the discussion seems to boil down to "we should have a good working safety net" and I think we can all agree on that.

no, unless you're suggesting that it would be at all feasible to create a welfare-system that could support all people who are currently working on sub-standard wages indefinitely; which is pretty much impossible.

the reason I say "all people" and "indefinitely" is because the choice to quit a crappy job exists in non-extreme cases, but is only temporary; no one has the choice to stay unemployed forever if all the jobs available to them are paying too little. Thus, all people who were able to choose to quit one crappy job will sooner or later be forced to find another. thus, businesses are under no pressure to change their policies; there is a never-ending supply of cheap labor even if the turnover rate is huge.

most people are aware of this, so unless the conditions are abnormally bad compared to other local jobs (i.e. other crappy jobs available to them will still be significantly less crappy than the current one), they don't even bother quitting their current crappy job even if they wouldn't end up homeless and starving immediately; because they know that sooner or later they would, so it's a temporary patch and their next job will suck just as badly.

point being, the choice to quit a crappy job is not a realistic one, even for people not immediately in danger of homelessness. to claim otherwise is to artificially limit obstacles to choice to contractual ones, and ignore environmental/situational ones. (which is what started this argument in the first place)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 21, 2009 3:15 PM

Walton has made some interesting comments about nationalism, localism etc., on which i'd love to comment. Unfortunately, i've been neglecting work too much and need to focus on that first. maybe if this thread doesn't move on or die entirely, i'll get around to commenting...

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 21, 2009 4:21 PM

The right of children to an education cannot trump the right of all humans to be affected by government only under the terms of the social contract. - solinferius

Yes it can.

Negative rights (not to be messed with - i.e. right to life, right to free speech, right to property) always trump positive rights (right to an education, right to healthcare...)

No they don't.

You see, solinferus, there I'm doing exactly what you did - but more openly: making assertions without giving any reason why they should be accepted.

I will now give a reason your assertions should not be accepted: doing so will leave many children without an education, specifically, those with poor parents. This will reduce their chances of a good life, damage their countries' economies, and possibly delay the stabilisation of world population. I consider it well worthwhile and morally right to oblige everyone financially able to do so, to contribute to avoiding these consequences. There is no such absolute, natural or sacred right to property as you assume: we have to decide as a society what property rights to allow for, taking account of the likely consequences.

I'm curious as to what the socialist/progressive/liberal position is here. Is it, "Free trade is fine, but developed countries should drop their protectionist policies first?" Or is it "Realistically, this prisoner's dilemma will never be resolved in the right direction and it would be best if developed and developing countries stuck to protectionism?"

Or perhaps it's something else altogether? - designsoda

A good question. I can't speak for all lefties, of course, but I think most would think trade has great potential to help poor people and countries, but it's fair and sustainable trade rather than free trade that is needed. Some would say this is possible within capitalism, others that it is not; and of course agreeing what is fair (or better, fair enough) and determining what is sustainable is by no means simple.

In unregulated ("free") trade, the rich have a great advantage: they can usually better afford not to make a trade at a given time, because they have greater reserves and more alternative partners; they are also better able to influence the rules of trade. Thus, further concentration of wealth will occur unless there is some countervailing process. This applies to countries as well as individuals and firms. A more succinct way of putting this is to remark that capitalism naturally lives by the Golden Rule, viz: Those who have the gold, make the rules.

So far as fairness in trade is concerned, it's probably more useful to list specific conditions fair international trade must not violate - e.g. it should not involve low pay, poor conditions, ill-treatment of or undue risk to workers or denial of union rights; it should not tie small firms into exclusive arrangements that are hard to get out of; it should employ local people; it should not cause damage or annoyance. All these points can be and are spelled out in detail in current voluntary codes.

Unregulated trade also results naturally in environmental damage: it is, generally, cheaper to release waste liquids, gases and smokes into the environment than to avoid doing so - so firms ready to pollute, and countries ready to let them do so, have a competitive advantage. Of course the biggest example of this at present, and hence the most urgent need for internationally agreed restraints on trade, concerns greenhouse gases. Hence the frequency with which glibertarians turn out to be AGW denialists.

Posted by: Knockgoats | September 21, 2009 5:06 PM

designsoda@620,

A good point. I didn't say (or mean) only local people - but if it employs few or none, there should be a very good reason for it. There's a lot to argue about in just what should count as fair and sustainable trade, and how it should be encouraged or enforced; but the goal, for me as a lefty, is a trade system that helps us build a more peaceful, free, equal and sustainable world - not one that meets some arbitrary fiat about which rights trump which.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 21, 2009 5:48 PM

Walton #490

'Tis, you ought to know by now that this is an absurd caricature of my position.

My comment was addressed to someone other than you, Walton.

Yes, Somalia is a mess. So are all other nations throughout history that have lacked a functioning government. This is why I am not an anarchocapitalist. Anarchocapitalism, and other forms of individualist anarchism, are completely disconnected from reality.

I know you're not an anarcho-capitalist. But there are other libertarians commenting on this thread besides you.

I take back something I said previously. There are thoughtful libertarians and you're one of them.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 6:09 PM

SGBM, all that the paper supports is that industrial nations have relied on protectionism in the past.

And therefore have a tremendous advantage, because massive state intervention is how a real economy is developed, and asking third world countries to develop without the same benefits is to force them onto an unfair playing field.

The overwhelming consensus (supported by tons of facts) is that free trade is a net gain.

A statement from dogma, not facts. You know what's a net gain? Massive state intervention and protectionism, as Chang showed.

(Btw the author has studied under a Marxist professor and is described as a "heterodox economist" - so much for citing capitalists).

Oh my gosh! Does economics have a One Drop Rule?

I love your absolutely mindless recital of duckspeak, kstamos. You really made my day.

Posted by: Kendo | September 21, 2009 6:20 PM

Joshua Cain Hardy:

FDR campaigned to remove the tariffs but never did. They were finally repealled after WWII. What basically happened after these tariffs were put in place was a global trade war.

I'll have to admit to being ignorant of the finer points of the Great Depression. But let me ask you this. Do you think it's fair for corporate executives to receive a bonus based on the claim that their efforts were responsible for the company's profits? If you think it is then, by the same logic, it's fair for those same executives to pay an 'anti bonus' when the company makes a loss, no? Why then do we taxpayers get to bail out the economy while the executives (who have ways of avoiding their taxes) get to keep their bonuses? Those are the greedy arseholes to whom I referred.

Posted by: Alex Deam | September 21, 2009 6:48 PM

Apologies if anything below has already been covered, but I've only read until #550 so far.

If the British people were to elect, say, a fascist BNP government, or a Stalinist government, or a totalitarian theocracy, then I would absolutely support the overthrow of the elected government by a foreign military.

Does Walton therefore think the BNP should be banned?

I believe that, if those moral principles are being ignored or overridden in a foreign country, we ought to do everything in our power to alter this situation. If that makes me an "imperialist" in your eyes, then fine, call me an imperialist. But I believe that whether a person was born in Britain, or Ohio, or Turkmenistan, or South Africa, or Iraq, he or she has certain basic moral entitlements; freedom of speech and of religion, freedom from violence and sexual coercion, the right to private property, the right to a fair trial and access to the courts, and equality before the law. Those rights are sufficiently important that they must be protected, in the last resort, by physical force; and I see no reason why we should restrict ourselves to protecting the rights of those people fortunate enough to be born in the US, UK or our allied states.

Is Walton evolving into a neoconservative? This seems mighty close to it. Where do you propose we invade first? "Equality before the law" is a mighty wide reason to invade another country. The "right to provide the property" would seem to me you would have wanted the Cold War to become hot.

It is noble to want to defend the rights of others around the world, but certainly not practical. You would have us in a perpetual state of war. Do you also not see the contradiction in that your libertarianism means you find most tax detestable, yet would freely cripple the country funding wars?

President Obama's projected budgets will add some $10 trillion to the national deficit in the next decade.

You mean national debt, not deficit.

Big number fallacy. In per cent of GDP terms it looks fairly manageable. Do Italy or Japan look like they're about to default on their debt?

And of course there's always tax rises once unemployment starts turning around.

Boober said: 'A couple of trillion of dollars in the hole (where we are now) is recoverable; hundreds of trillions (where we are headed) is not. Citation needed.'

There is some $120 trillion in unfunded mandates between Social Security and Medicare.

Do you even know what "citation needed" means? I also add my voice for the need for a citation, since I am highly skeptical of any monetary number that's higher than World GDP. And what time frame is this?

And another reason for health care reform, so the cost of Medicare can be kept down.

Progressive taxation is not "penalising the wealthy". If you make your money legitimately, you benefit at every step and every moment from living in a functional civilised society. Did you have to teach your employees to read? Or your customers? Did you have to build the network of roads on which products are distributed? Can you rely on contract law so that your commercial and employment arrangements are meaningful and enforceable? Did you have to provide the health care which kept your customers alive? _Getting rich is a benefit of society and you will pay your fair share for the upkeep of society_.

Even if none of that were true, there are other reasons why progressive taxation does not "penalize the wealthy". It seems obvious to me that £1000 is worth more to someone on the minimum wage, than to someone raking in millions each year. Also, 10% of the first person's wage is again more important to him/her, than 10% of the second person's to him/her. Taxing everyone at the same rate would therefore not be fair, as it would hit the poorest hardest.

This also leads to the fact that money is quite literally power. A wealthy man may well have earned his fortune, but now that he has earned it, he quite clearly has a an advantage over his fellow citizens in any future capitalist pursuits, whether he directly competed with them to earn his fortune and is now competing with them in future, or whether his future competitors haven't even been born yet. This seems to lead to a concentration of wealth, and a barrier to entrepreneurialism. Libertarians are quite right to be skeptical of government since it can curtail their freedoms. But what they don't seem to understand, is that private wealth also can be used to curtail people's freedoms. There's the obvious economic reasons such as "wage slavery" etc, but there's less obvious examples like Rupert Murdoch's wealth meaning he has some control over the very ideas and lenses with which people see the world. Progressive taxation helps prevent some of that.

Moreover, it seems to me, that if you tried to pay for all the functions of government that are necessary with a flat rate tax, either you wouldn't cover the costs, or you would maul those on lower to middle incomes. Progressive taxation is therefore necessary to avoid this.

Posted by: Alex Deam | September 21, 2009 7:05 PM

SGBM, the minister quoted in the article says:

Now the homelessness is not about people living on the streets, it's living in proper accommodation, some of it private, some of it council housing.

"Basically, what it means is they don't have a settled arrangement."

But you display such bad faith that arguing with you seems futile.

Why is a libertarian trusting a quote from a government minister?

Posted by: Alex Deam | September 21, 2009 7:23 PM

They also already get an "anti-bonus" if they fail (sometimes) it's called "no bonus."

You fail at maths.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 7:36 PM

Even if none of that were true, there are other reasons why progressive taxation does not "penalize the wealthy". It seems obvious to me that £1000 is worth more to someone on the minimum wage, than to someone raking in millions each year. Also, 10% of the first person's wage is again more important to him/her, than 10% of the second person's to him/her. Taxing everyone at the same rate would therefore not be fair, as it would hit the poorest hardest.

More on this:

Wealth is not an end in itself, it is a means to other ends. What good is wealth except insofar as it allows the pursuit of happiness?

Empirically, wealth does not have a strong correlation with happiness except for poor or sick people. If you're poor, you're likely to be unhappy, because of the stress of making ends meet, paying bills and putting food on the table. But once your needs are met, a lot more money brings only a little more happiness.

Put another way, wealth itself has a diminishing marginal utility. So a progressive tax does not hurt people as much as a regressive or "flat" tax does.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | September 21, 2009 7:39 PM

I'm another lefty that supports fair trade, not free trade. Free trade results in the impoverishment of the working class, and increasingly the middle class, on a global level. As the USA has experienced with job loss to China, there will (nearly) always be someone willing to do your job for less. That someone may live in a place where the overall cost of living is lower, so their lower wages will still buy more. They may be so poor that even a low wage is more attractive than no wage.

In the past, this fact has mostly applied to low-skill labor, but increasingly jobs requiring highly technical skills are moving where labor is cheaper. Tech support in India is a good example. Before education in the developing world started to catch up to ours, people in the developed world were the only ones who knew enough about computers to do tech support. However, increasing levels of education, specifically education in technological fields, has led to a growing pool of inexpensive labor in developing countries around the world. Thus, when you call tech support you're likely to be talking to someone halfway around the world. Though we talk about Americans doing the highly skilled, technologically advanced jobs and leaving the menial tasks to others, there is no reason an Indian can't learn to program a computer, design a building, practice law or accounting, or any other work. We're all humans and Americans aren't inherently better at these jobs. It's all education. Here's the rub, because the cost of living in India is so much lower, that guy doing your tech support can work for less than an American (or a Brit, Swede, German, etc.), and be just as good at it. It's this situation that will destroy the already endangered American middle-class.

Right now China and India are two big suppliers of both skilled and unskilled labor for American corporations. As the standard and cost of living rise in these countries, employees will probably demand better wages and benefits, and working conditions, which will drive up the cost of business. But there's always another China or India, a place where the people are poorer than elsewhere and are willing to work for less. Who knows, maybe in 30 years the cheap labor pool will be in South Africa or Rwanda or Liberia. In 50 years, it might be the USA.

So, I support fair trade. Free trade would encourage corporations (the true multi-national powers) to exploit the poor of the world to produce massive profits that serve to concentrate wealth in an increasingly smaller group of people.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 21, 2009 7:48 PM

In so far as it would make the economy more efficient(which compared to what we have now it almost certainly would), it could actually make many things cheaper.

only if the price for essentials dropped to pennies would a flat tax help against poverty and the associated misery.

Posted by: Bobber | September 21, 2009 7:51 PM

I've given up trying to get through to Mr. Sletten. I am, however, just reading the posts, basking in the warmth of so many excellent, progressive thoughts! I even put on my comfy slippers. I know PZ doesn't like the libertarian hijinks, but this has been way too much fun.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 21, 2009 7:55 PM

pygmy, there's a chance he'll be getting one for August, but if not, I already decided to vote for him based on this and the unpatriotic texans thread :-)

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 7:58 PM

Also, the "rich" would still pay a greater amount as they tend to make more transactions.

Not a greater portion of their wealth, though. You are trying to divert the discussion to absolute totals rather than percentages of wealth. That's very dishonest, like saying "omg Bill Gates pays liek a million $$$ in taxes that's sooooo class warfare!"

Your flat tax is still unfair, for exactly the reason Adam Smith mentioned in The Wealth of Nations. Compare a middle class family and a rich family. A larger percentage of the middle class family's income is spent on necessities, food, rent, utilities. They have a smaller percentage left over to pay taxes, so their discretionary income is being taxed at a higher rate than the rich family's discretionary income.

This is why there's no such thing as a flat tax. There are only two kinds of taxes, progressive and regressive. So-called "flat" taxes are regressive, designed to benefit the rich disproportionately.

Not only all of that but Russia switched to a flat tax. They had difficulties using a tax system similar to ours (just like we do). In less than a year the income raised under the flat tax was about 25% higher and voluntary compliance went up.

Libertarian duckspeak. Facts:

"In the six quarters leading up to January 1, 2001, when the ‘‘flat tax’’ reform came into effect, Russia’s GDP grew at an average annual rate of 10.6 percent. In the six quarters immediately following the introduction of the new tax, it grew at a 4.7 percent annual rate.

Putin accompanied his exhortations with a public relations campaign to raise the profile, prestige, and power of tax enforcement agencies. A typical measure was his decree in early 2000 designating March 18 as a brand new ‘‘professional holiday’’: the Day of the Tax Police. The tax police began asserting themselves regarding both corporate and individual taxpayers. Oil companies were threatened with denial of access to export pipelines if they failed to pay taxes. In June 2000, six months before the 2001 reforms took effect, the tax police began assembling from government departments detailed personal data on taxpayers in Moscow. In comments reported in the Western press, senior tax officials stated that the campaign was part of ‘‘an effort to clamp down on the widespread practice in Moscow of wealthy individuals sheltering income’’ (Jack, 2000). It was later reported that tax police in Moscow remitted double the amount in 2001 from tax evaders (as opposed to increased voluntary compliance) than they did in 2000 (ITAR-TASS, 2002).

Probably even more important than changes to the structure of taxation were the enforcement and administrative changes that continued the efforts noted in the pre-2001 period. First, the 2001 reform provided for the introduction of a common taxpayer ID number. Second, the law allowed tax authorities to assess tax liabilities indirectly — for example, when they could not secure entry to a taxpayer’s premises. Third, the law authorized tax audits when sufficient evidence of a tax or nontax crime was available. Each of those changes seems fundamental to the operation of a modern tax system. Regardless of rates and structure, it is hard to imagine how a modern tax system could have operated in the absence of such rules and information.

Describing the 2001 reforms as ‘‘Russia instituted a flat tax’’ distorts and oversimplifies what happened. The tax rate on capital income was not zero, and in fact was higher than the 13 percent rate in the PIT. Many deductions, exemptions, and loopholes were closed. Social insurance taxes and turnover taxes, the latter a particularly damaging levy from an economic perspective, were cut dramatically. Other taxes were changed. A major effort at improved tax administration and enforcement, featuring the installation of some of the most basic tools of compliance and enforcement in a modern economy, occurred at the same time."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 21, 2009 7:59 PM

Hear that, PZ? Give the man his Molly!!!!!

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 21, 2009 8:01 PM

Contraband vodka, on the other hand...

Posted by: Bobber | September 21, 2009 8:06 PM