Welfare should be elmiinated

[Michael Hardner]

Then perhaps I did not make myself clear or misunderstand what you mean by balancing freedom. I agree that one individual's freedom needs to be balanced when it conflicts with another individual's freedom. It is what I meant when I said that freedom should be maximized. I do not agree that an individual's freedom should be balanced againt other goals unless it is done so voluntarily. For example the goal of increasing overall wealth should not be balanced against individual's freedom.

"Maximized freedom" is a meaningless phrase. It's as meaningless as "Maximized beauty".

"We believe that the city needs MAXIMUM beauty." "Yes, we agree." "Therefore, I have commissioned people to clean up the graffiti !" "What ? But I commissioned people to create MORE grafitti !"

So, again, this idea of maximum freedom is very abstract and therefore enjoyable to discuss, but when applied it's hard to see how it would be difficult from what we have today.

The situation you originally described where freedom needed to be balanced, was not a clash of freedoms between individuals, it was trading off freedom against some other goal. If I'm incorrect, please tell me what freedoms are being balanced because I don't see it.

My freedom to make noise versus your freedom to have quiet, for example. These things are balanced via laws. But please don't tear apart this example. If you've examined this question in your learning about libertarianism, then just give me the best examples you have.

Why is that a clear answer, because it is not clear to me that that it is correct.

Let's start with a tangible goal then. If your tangible goal is to "To build 100 km of road going north from Kingston on highway 3". How did the state arrive at that goal? To arrive at a goal, it must have a purpose beyond simply building for building's sake.

There was a project that the people of the area wanted to initiate. The project was framed around that objective.

Actually, I'm ok with it. Poor and hungry did all the time, they just happen not to be on Canadian streets. It seems that the Canadian society in general is ok with that happening, they just would prefer not to see it up close. Out of sight, out of mind.

Very cynical. Society in general wants to help out the destitute, not just to have them starve to death behind closed doors. If that weren't the case, why would we have social programs ?

I expect, none, unless it can be negotiated with others who also are custodians of the environment.

So, smoking isn't allowed then ? This libertarian society sounds quite restrictive so far.

I'm sure there are a whole host of differences but I'm not sure this is the thread for that. In short it minimizes the role of government to what is absolutely necessary. Minimizing fraud or misrepresentation is one of the few areas I see a role for govenment.

Yes, why not start a new libertarian thread where we can ask you about it. It's been awhile since we had one. A bad approach for this is to have me build what I THINK a libertarian society would look like, then have you correct me. It's your utopia - you build it !

[Shady]

Huh? Why do taxes "belong to the government before you even get paid"? The government forces companies to remit because they have the power to do so. The government seizes taxes because it can, not because it "deserves" it.

Exactly. Maybe it's his new government version of prima nocta?

[ToadBrother]

Wow, that's about the most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. I earn money in the private sector, in which government takes a portion in taxes. The money they take comes from me, and is earned by me. The government doesn't earn even one cent that it spends. They are completely funded by the private sector. And to say that government can do with it what it wants is also ignorant. WE are the government. And if a government spends taxpayer money in unpopular ways, they're removed from office. In other words, keep your grimy hands off other people's hard earned money.

If this is the case, then clearly welfare is acceptable to the large portion of the populace. And without government, your income would likely be much smaller. In fact, you'd probably be something like an indentured laborer in the early Medieval period, owing your security to your lord, and basically turning over a much greater portion of your income (however that is defined) to him than you do now.

You Libertarians always give me a chuckle. You guys are so out to lunch on just about every level. You actually think that you alone are responsible for that money you earn.

[Shady]

If this is the case, then clearly welfare is acceptable to the large portion of the populace.

That's exactly what I stated. That's for the review.

And without government, your income would likely be much smaller.

Actually, it'd probably be much larger. Actually, everyone's income would be much larger, if government stuck to upholding the law, and providing security and national defense.

In fact, you'd probably be something like an indentured laborer in the early Medieval period, owing your security to your lord

Why is that? That would be breaking the laws of our country. And your Medieval Lord example is also government! LOL.

[Renegade]

"Maximized freedom" is a meaningless phrase. It's as meaningless as "Maximized beauty".

"We believe that the city needs MAXIMUM beauty." "Yes, we agree." "Therefore, I have commissioned people to clean up the graffiti !" "What ? But I commissioned people to create MORE grafitti !"

So, again, this idea of maximum freedom is very abstract and therefore enjoyable to discuss, but when applied it's hard to see how it would be difficult from what we have today.

Ok let me rephrase to something you and I both agree on. In cases where the right to freedom that one individual has intrudes on another’s freedom then it is unavoidable that the freedom of one or both of them will be limited. Limitations put on restricting one individual’s freedom should be no more than necessary to preserve the other’s. Of course I acknowledgement in these cases some judgments need to made on to what extent each individual’s freedom should be limited.

My freedom to make noise versus your freedom to have quiet, for example. These things are balanced via laws. But please don't tear apart this example. If you've examined this question in your learning about libertarianism, then just give me the best examples you have.

Well I’m not really sure what example you are looking for. I clearly agree that when two individual’s rights clash rules must be in set in place to mediate between the rights.

In your example I don’t necessarily agree that one has the “right” to make noise nor to have a quiet surroundings, but assuming one did, then presumably a rule would be in place to set limits in each case.

There was a project that the people of the area wanted to initiate. The project was framed around that objective.

OK. So what is stopping the people in the area from negotiating with each other on how it is funded and from negotiating with land-owners for the required land. If negotiations cannot arrive at a settlement, the road doesn’t get built.

Very cynical. Society in general wants to help out the destitute, not just to have them starve to death behind closed doors. If that weren't the case, why would we have social programs ?

Being cynical doesn’t make me wrong. You personify “society”. Who is that? There are other reasons for social programs such as welfare. One reason is that by giving some tangible benefit to the poor, they are less likely to disrupt the system (through revolt, crime, etc).

Since you seem to use the existence of social programs as evidence of “society’s” will, perhaps explain why “society” is willing to let poor die behind closed doors overseas, but not domestically.

So, smoking isn't allowed then ? This libertarian society sounds quite restrictive so far.

I would expect that smokers and other polluters would need to negotiate the compensation they pay for the impact they have on the environment. If a smoker isn’t willing to pay such compensation, then no they don’t get to smoke.

Yes, why not start a new libertarian thread where we can ask you about it. It's been awhile since we had one. A bad approach for this is to have me build what I THINK a libertarian society would look like, then have you correct me. It's your utopia - you build it !

Maybe I will, but it is likely redundant to other threads I’ve seen on the subject. In any case I have neither the time nor the inclination to build a scenario for you to pick at. Perhaps sometime but not right now, thanks.

In any case Michael, no doubt you are familiar with Libertarianism and you don't need me to educate you. If you are not, then there is plenty of material available for your reading and a wikipedia artcle to get you started. Libertarianism

[Pliny]

Your response amounts to a statement that you don't trust government, and that you believe it will become more totalitarian. That's fine, but how do you frame your argument to persuade people that their lives will get better under libertarianism ?

George Washington said it best. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a reluctant servant and a dangerous master."

"Better" is a value term. Did you see the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith? If you did then you know the time when he reached happiness. I would say if people were happier they would be better off. When are they happy? When they have put the puck in the net. When they got the promotion they were working for? Happiness is not handed to anyone on a plate. A million dollar lottery win probably brings more misery than happiness. Somehow work has earned a bad rap and the think that prevails is that everyone deserves to be handed their lives on a platter believing that will bring them happiness. Getting off work early, a long week-end, shorter hours and more pay, more leisure time - these are all a fleeting relief and a promise of happiness. True lasting happiness comes with accomplishment. The time when you got that game winning goal or the promotion you put extra effort in to get. It is different things to different people, to an artist it is the final brush on his piece de resistance, to the policeman it is solving a mystery and finally bringing someone to justice, it is getting that University degree, to everyone it is in their accomplishments, not in favours and privileges provided them.

And how would it be adopted ? You might once have suggested a phased approach, by opting for conservatism and then moving forward from there. But our conservatives seem about as libertarian as the liberals lately.

The Conservatives have moved slightly right since their alliance with the Canadian Alliance but what you say is too true they are about as libertarian as the Liberals.

Where is Libertarianism on the political spectrum? Murray Rothbard a noted Libertarian said: "I have moved from the left of the political spectrum entirely over to the right without changing my political views an iota."

I would classify myself as more of a "classical liberal" with Libertarian leanings. Some libertarians are anarchists and I am not one although I understand it as an ideal and, in my view, a preferred one to it's dichotomy totalitarianism which is also an ideal and both are an end and thus solid and stagnant. But neither will ever prevail nor do I think they are desirable states. Middle of the road is probably too much government in my view when it removes the challenges of life from the individual and from society. Instead of enabling them to meet the challenges themselves it robs them of ever realizing happiness. But, I believe there is a limited role for government of which we must be ever vigilant. The average citizen does have to be able to see reason in it's laws, which provide force, and they must therefore not be incomprehensible to the general populace - let alone the very government than enacts the laws.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Then I can presume that since the government(s) is/are still sitting in office, that welfare is a popular way to spend taxpayer money. Is this what you are saying?

Privilege once won is not easily given up.

Deducing welfare is a "popular" way to spend taxpayer money is rather illogical. Some may think of it as beneficial and some may even think it a necessity, but I would never conclude it was popular. Charities could be rated on popularity and the perceived value of their service but government "know best" monopoly of welfare could never be called popular.

[Shwa]

Privilege once won is not easily given up.

Deducing welfare is a "popular" way to spend taxpayer money is rather illogical. Some may think of it as beneficial and some may even think it a necessity, but I would never conclude it was popular. Charities could be rated on popularity and the perceived value of their service but government "know best" monopoly of welfare could never be called popular.

Good points for sure. However if a comprehensively defined concept of welfare were tabled in a referendum, I am sure it would receive overwhelming support. Some posters are thinking of welfare only in terms of local social assistance and that only limits the discussion.

I am somewhat cynical about private or NFP charity versus government welfare even though the former supplements that latter. I don't think this mix has really improved things much.

[Shady]

Good points for sure. However if a comprehensively defined concept of welfare were tabled in a referendum, I am sure it would receive overwhelming support.

One person's definition of comprehensive welfare can be much different from anothers.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok let me rephrase to something you and I both agree on. In cases where the right to freedom that one individual has intrudes on another’s freedom then it is unavoidable that the freedom of one or both of them will be limited. Limitations put on restricting one individual’s freedom should be no more than necessary to preserve the other’s. Of course I acknowledgement in these cases some judgments need to made on to what extent each individual’s freedom should be limited.

I guess I agree, but again, it's an abstraction.

Well I’m not really sure what example you are looking for. I clearly agree that when two individual’s rights clash rules must be in set in place to mediate between the rights.

In your example I don’t necessarily agree that one has the “right” to make noise nor to have a quiet surroundings, but assuming one did, then presumably a rule would be in place to set limits in each case.

And our system is the result of thousands, millions of such negotiations albeit more cluttered and disorganized due to the scale.

OK. So what is stopping the people in the area from negotiating with each other on how it is funded and from negotiating with land-owners for the required land. If negotiations cannot arrive at a settlement, the road doesn’t get built.

The startup costs and costs of purchase make it prohibitive to do so. Although a government wont' be as efficient day-to-day, they will be able to provide permanent service in the area of transportation and therefore better overall efficiency.

Being cynical doesn’t make me wrong. You personify “society”. Who is that? There are other reasons for social programs such as welfare. One reason is that by giving some tangible benefit to the poor, they are less likely to disrupt the system (through revolt, crime, etc).

Since you seem to use the existence of social programs as evidence of “society’s” will, perhaps explain why “society” is willing to let poor die behind closed doors overseas, but not domestically.

Society is in fact less willing to let the poor die overseas than they were. Changing moral norms have increased our social awareness, simultaneously with the global conflicts we're involved in.

I would expect that smokers and other polluters would need to negotiate the compensation they pay for the impact they have on the environment. If a smoker isn’t willing to pay such compensation, then no they don’t get to smoke.

That sounds like a tobacco tax.

Maybe I will, but it is likely redundant to other threads I’ve seen on the subject. In any case I have neither the time nor the inclination to build a scenario for you to pick at. Perhaps sometime but not right now, thanks.

In any case Michael, no doubt you are familiar with Libertarianism and you don't need me to educate you. If you are not, then there is plenty of material available for your reading and a wikipedia artcle to get you started. Libertarianism

I'm familiar with the idea, and believe it or not I do think that in the very long term our society will appear more Libertarian. I think that management software and social integration will reduce the overhead required to administer civil society. But... over centuries not decades.

[Michael Hardner]

George Washington said it best. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a reluctant servant and a dangerous master."

"Better" is a value term. Did you see the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith? If you did then you know the time when he reached happiness. I would say if people were happier they would be better off. When are they happy? When they have put the puck in the net. When they got the promotion they were working for? Happiness is not handed to anyone on a plate. A million dollar lottery win probably brings more misery than happiness. Somehow work has earned a bad rap and the think that prevails is that everyone deserves to be handed their lives on a platter believing that will bring them happiness. Getting off work early, a long week-end, shorter hours and more pay, more leisure time - these are all a fleeting relief and a promise of happiness. True lasting happiness comes with accomplishment.

I don't necessarily agree. Happiness happens from many things for many people. I didn't see the film.

The time when you got that game winning goal or the promotion you put extra effort in to get. It is different things to different people, to an artist it is the final brush on his piece de resistance, to the policeman it is solving a mystery and finally bringing someone to justice, it is getting that University degree, to everyone it is in their accomplishments, not in favours and privileges provided them.

The Conservatives have moved slightly right since their alliance with the Canadian Alliance but what you say is too true they are about as libertarian as the Liberals.

I don't see how they've moved to the right. They haven't cut spending or made any large changes to how government is run. They haven't changed foreign policy significantly. They haven't enacted changes to social policy that amount to anything at all.

Where is Libertarianism on the political spectrum? Murray Rothbard a noted Libertarian said: "I have moved from the left of the political spectrum entirely over to the right without changing my political views an iota."

I would classify myself as more of a "classical liberal" with Libertarian leanings. Some libertarians are anarchists and I am not one although I understand it as an ideal and, in my view, a preferred one to it's dichotomy totalitarianism which is also an ideal and both are an end and thus solid and stagnant. But neither will ever prevail nor do I think they are desirable states. Middle of the road is probably too much government in my view when it removes the challenges of life from the individual and from society. Instead of enabling them to meet the challenges themselves it robs them of ever realizing happiness. But, I believe there is a limited role for government of which we must be ever vigilant. The average citizen does have to be able to see reason in it's laws, which provide force, and they must therefore not be incomprehensible to the general populace - let alone the very government than enacts the laws.

The challenges of life follow Maslow's heirarchy of needs, and as time marches on, we move up and up the pyramid. The top of the pyramid will always be there, and government won't remove that ever.

However, removing the lower levels of challenge is a very good thing. Otherwise, why would we mitigate public security via government ?

Your views reflect something that used to be called 'the protestant work ethic' and although there is truth in it, even socialists will tell you that they're looking to give people a leg-up and short-term help.

Posting with you and Renegade convinces me even more that we have arrived at the 'sweet spot' of government and don't know what to do with ourselves.

I say: let's review and reorganize ourselves to deliver government services at the same level as now, but more efficiently. Let's increase the visibility of the public into what government does. Let's figure out how to share productivity improvements, and encourage people to work harder and smarter for fewer hours, and develop themselves more.

[Pliny]

Good points for sure. However if a comprehensively defined concept of welfare were tabled in a referendum, I am sure it would receive overwhelming support.

As I said on another thread - Welfare is a gargantuan industry. I have no doubt you are correct. Supporters would not only include the few who receive welfare but the whole bureaucratic structure, plus any one employed or contracted to government, including the education and medical professions and suppliers of logistics to those professions, including pharmaceutical companies. The welfare lobby is very vocal and does not take well to cuts to it's budget.

Some posters are thinking of welfare only in terms of local social assistance and that only limits the discussion.

It is much more than that.

I am somewhat cynical about private or NFP charity versus government welfare even though the former supplements that latter. I don't think this mix has really improved things much.

Charity as it stands today should, I agree, be looked at with a cynical eye. Laws written for them state that only 20% of charitable contributions need be applied to providing charity. Most charity is run as a business today as a result of government regulation.

Most of them have well-paid staff comparable to the private sector as well as volunteers. Advertising and fund-raising events account for a majority of it's expenses. Jerry Lewis doesn't come cheap.

I agree also that the "mix" hasn't improved things much. So do you think a government monopoly on welfare is the answer? Charity seemed to work better before even if it minimally didn't swell their ranks and create a "welfare class".

[Renegade]

The startup costs and costs of purchase make it prohibitive to do so. Although a government wont' be as efficient day-to-day, they will be able to provide permanent service in the area of transportation and therefore better overall efficiency.

OK I'll acknowledge that and I'd be happy to examine solutions to make those negotiations or agreements easier. I'm sure a totalatarian state would be most efficient as it wouldn't require anyone's agreement to seize land and allocate costs.

BTW, the cost of building the road doesn't actually change. The difference is that land-owners are forced to subsidize the cost of building the road by accepting a reduced price for their land.

Society is in fact less willing to let the poor die overseas than they were. Changing moral norms have increased our social awareness, simultaneously with the global conflicts we're involved in.

What are they specficly doing to demonstrate that they are less willing? If I remember, the amount contributed to foreign aid has been reduced over the last 30 years, not increased. Society has the ability to aleviate dying overseas by contributing to charites, yet for the most part they have other priorities for their spending. So show me some evidence, because I see very little of what you claim.

That sounds like a tobacco tax.

It's a lot like a tobacco tax. If I had my way there would be a pollution tax, however unlike current taxes the proceeds wouldn't go to general revenue but would go to reparing the environmental damage.

I'm familiar with the idea, and believe it or not I do think that in the very long term our society will appear more Libertarian. I think that management software and social integration will reduce the overhead required to administer civil society. But... over centuries not decades.

I agree with you here. I think that the population at large evolves their thinking at glacial speed so you could be quite right that it could take generations.

[Shwa]

Interesting that you pointed out how welfare is a gargantuan industry while charities are run as a business...

"I agree also that the "mix" hasn't improved things much. So do you think a government monopoly on welfare is the answer? Charity seemed to work better before even if it minimally didn't swell their ranks and create a "welfare class"."

The problem comes down to accountability which, I suppose, should be taken with a little grain of salt when we talk about the government or charities.

We know that what worked before stopped working and required - one way or another - government intervention. There was a shift in policy after the Depression and well into the 60's. So it was a piece-meal shift over a generation or so and has been delegated to all levels of government. However, this evolution is not proven as the final product of social assistance delivery even though it has basically remain unchanged over the past generation or so.

Any private outsourcing for government services regarding social assistance - outside of medicare - would require strict regulation - kind of like what the government does now with some employment services. Small scale, locally based, NFP. That would still require a bureaucracy to manage the entities. Would that be any cheaper as a cost per client overall? There might a cost benefit with regard to the costs of staffing, but there would still be the requirement for a regulatory body which might off-set any gains.

And that is only discussing the delivery mechanism. I still think workfare is a reasonable concept in the right hands, but getting it in the right hands is the problem...

[Pliny]

I don't necessarily agree. Happiness happens from many things for many people. I didn't see the film.

It is a personal thing, as I said Michael. It may be something as simple as getting a smile from someone.

It's an entertaining film and perhaps overdoes the point of stating what pain and suffering people are willing to go through to arrive at their goals and how that pain and suffering are, in hindsight, perceived as worth the effort. There is even an incident that shows the coldness of governmental bureaucratic intervention.

I don't see how they've moved to the right. They haven't cut spending or made any large changes to how government is run. They haven't changed foreign policy significantly. They haven't enacted changes to social policy that amount to anything at all.

They are a minority government so they are limited in what they can do. But certain elements of society like the marijuana lobby would tell you how fascist they have become.

It is true they haven't cut spending or made any large changes to how government is run. The global economy and the actions of national governments has been to follow the advices of their central banks and institute a policy of spending to stimulate their economies. In my view, hardly good advice. I am not of the opinion we can spend our way to prosperity.

The challenges of life follow Maslow's heirarchy of needs, and as time marches on, we move up and up the pyramid. The top of the pyramid will always be there, and government won't remove that ever.

However, removing the lower levels of challenge is a very good thing. Otherwise, why would we mitigate public security via government ?

Your views reflect something that used to be called 'the protestant work ethic' and although there is truth in it, even socialists will tell you that they're looking to give people a leg-up and short-term help.

Always the promise of government- a temporary measure a leg up and short term help.

The bureaucracies created are never intended to be temporary and have a tendency to grow.

Posting with you and Renegade convinces me even more that we have arrived at the 'sweet spot' of government and don't know what to do with ourselves.

I say: let's review and reorganize ourselves to deliver government services at the same level as now, but more efficiently. Let's increase the visibility of the public into what government does. Let's figure out how to share productivity improvements, and encourage people to work harder and smarter for fewer hours, and develop themselves more.

We, in Canada, have gone past the "sweet spot" in government. Europe passed it decades ago and the US government is apparently attempting to leap way past it in one fell swoop.

Canadians shouldn't have to worry about what government is doing in my opinion. They do have to be very vigilant about limiting it's mandate and that should be their only concern as long as they are honest citizens.

The pyramid will always be there as you mentioned in another post to Renegade. what I object to is not allowing fluidity to it's structure. One should if he so desires move up that pyramid and if he messes up fall down a few notches. It should upon his own determination and accountability or responsibility that he better himself or fall from grace. No one should force him, restrict him or repress into a particular class he cannot escape. I believe government structures society for it's benefit and the classes are made rigid. The Marxist solution to "class struggle" suggested the elimination of "classes" altogether. Marx's solution pretends a single class but in fact creates and limits society to two classes. Our form of government and engineered economy exploits the lower and middle classes and makes it very difficult for anyone to improve their lives. The majority have trouble just keeping out of debt and most live with debt all their lives. Education does not address how the economic system works so you can use it. It tells you how to keep records and a budget but does not give you a working understanding of the system to work it to your advantage - now there - you are on your own with much fear-mongering and warning but nothing tangible to help and a complex tax code that is not encouraging.

[Pliny]

Interesting that you pointed out how welfare is a gargantuan industry while charities are run as a business...

"I agree also that the "mix" hasn't improved things much. So do you think a government monopoly on welfare is the answer? Charity seemed to work better before even if it minimally didn't swell their ranks and create a "welfare class"."

The problem comes down to accountability which, I suppose, should be taken with a little grain of salt when we talk about the government or charities.

We know that what worked before stopped working and required - one way or another - government intervention. There was a shift in policy after the Depression and well into the 60's. So it was a piece-meal shift over a generation or so and has been delegated to all levels of government. However, this evolution is not proven as the final product of social assistance delivery even though it has basically remain unchanged over the past generation or so.

Any private outsourcing for government services regarding social assistance - outside of medicare - would require strict regulation - kind of like what the government does now with some employment services. Small scale, locally based, NFP. That would still require a bureaucracy to manage the entities. Would that be any cheaper as a cost per client overall? There might a cost benefit with regard to the costs of staffing, but there would still be the requirement for a regulatory body which might off-set any gains.

And that is only discussing the delivery mechanism. I still think workfare is a reasonable concept in the right hands, but getting it in the right hands is the problem...

Well, Shwa..government, the intellectual class and the corporate world became enamoured with the concept and began in earnest the pursuit of an engineered society at the beginning of the 20th century. Various forms of socialist ideologies were sold to the public as a means to prosperity for all. Some socialist States were established through revolution with international ambitions and some were purely nationalistic. Other "democratic" states adopted some socialist concepts but the general populace in most of the world resisted the totalitarianism of entirely socialist governments. The adoption of socialist concepts in democratic society was heralded as progress in man's development of a compassionate and caring civilization. Most all of us are compassionate and caring, although partisanship will vilify opponents to particular concepts, and that is what promotes the growth of the State. It's failures are always lack of resources and never a failure of government itself. Government bureaucracy does not have a tendency to disappear even in the face of complete failure - all failure is attributed to not enough regulation or intervention.

Simply put, government will support what makes government appear important to it's citizens, and all those that benefit from government, whether as recipients or paid deliverers of it's welfare, will decry any lessening of it's importance - the caring-sharing populace is cowed into supporting it and growing it.

[Michael Hardner]

OK I'll acknowledge that and I'd be happy to examine solutions to make those negotiations or agreements easier. I'm sure a totalatarian state would be most efficient as it wouldn't require anyone's agreement to seize land and allocate costs.

And a republic where a single objector can halt the construction of a road or power plan is a freedom loving utopia.

I think what we're seeing here is that progress comes at a cost, which will never be borne evenly.

BTW, the cost of building the road doesn't actually change. The difference is that land-owners are forced to subsidize the cost of building the road by accepting a reduced price for their land.

Actually, they're paid market value but they don't have the option to say 'no'.

What are they specficly doing to demonstrate that they are less willing? If I remember, the amount contributed to foreign aid has been reduced over the last 30 years, not increased. Society has the ability to aleviate dying overseas by contributing to charites, yet for the most part they have other priorities for their spending. So show me some evidence, because I see very little of what you claim.

I'm thinking of the visibility that foreign strife has in our news, and the degree to which we have been getting involved in foreign conflicts based on ostensible 'humanitarian' goals.

Also, in the last 30 years, we've seen Live Aid and popular support for Tibet and Darfur. But your points are well taken with regards to foreign aid.

It's a lot like a tobacco tax. If I had my way there would be a pollution tax, however unlike current taxes the proceeds wouldn't go to general revenue but would go to reparing the environmental damage.

I agree with you here. I think that the population at large evolves their thinking at glacial speed so you could be quite right that it could take generations.

And to add: the technology will help this immensely. For that matter, we may even evolve to something like a totalitarian state, but one where the citizens don't want or need input. But I'm just blue sky-ing here.

[Michael Hardner]

It is a personal thing, as I said Michael. It may be something as simple as getting a smile from someone.

It's an entertaining film and perhaps overdoes the point of stating what pain and suffering people are willing to go through to arrive at their goals and how that pain and suffering are, in hindsight, perceived as worth the effort. There is even an incident that shows the coldness of governmental bureaucratic intervention.

I plan to check it out.

We, in Canada, have gone past the "sweet spot" in government. Europe passed it decades ago and the US government is apparently attempting to leap way past it in one fell swoop.

Don't get me wrong - I think we're inefficient, but I do think we have found a framework for social support that we can move forward from.

Canadians shouldn't have to worry about what government is doing in my opinion. They do have to be very vigilant about limiting it's mandate and that should be their only concern as long as they are honest citizens.

Worrying is a strong word. Nobody really needs to worry too much, unless they're a worrier. They just need to be vigilant in asking for good information about what they're doing. That's all.

The pyramid will always be there as you mentioned in another post to Renegade. what I object to is not allowing fluidity to it's structure. One should if he so desires move up that pyramid and if he messes up fall down a few notches.

But our economy allows for us to provide social insurance so as to keep anyone from falling to the lowest notches.

It should upon his own determination and accountability or responsibility that he better himself or fall from grace. No one should force him, restrict him or repress into a particular class he cannot escape. I believe government structures society for it's benefit and the classes are made rigid. The Marxist solution to "class struggle" suggested the elimination of "classes" altogether. Marx's solution pretends a single class but in fact creates and limits society to two classes. Our form of government and engineered economy exploits the lower and middle classes and makes it very difficult for anyone to improve their lives. The majority have trouble just keeping out of debt and most live with debt all their lives. Education does not address how the economic system works so you can use it. It tells you how to keep records and a budget but does not give you a working understanding of the system to work it to your advantage - now there - you are on your own with much fear-mongering and warning but nothing tangible to help and a complex tax code that is not encouraging.

Marxism was a reaction to the industrial revolution. We have no such structure today, it's already fluid. We should be educating people to plan ahead economically, as that is how we're configuring our systems to work.

[Shwa]

"the pursuit of an engineered society"

This is semantics though. Practically every government throughout all the ages - with maybe the exception of simple hunter-gather subsistence societies - have pursued some form of societal engineering. It is just a matter of degrees and language. Thus your posting could be applied to Imperial Rome, Elizabethan England, Communist China or Taliban Afghanistan. And even though we would not class those examples as 'modern welfare states' they did have a hand in the welfare of it's citizens through one mechanism or another. I suppose I lean to heavily on social contract theory, but you know what I mean.

One really good experiment might have been the anarchists in Spain before Franco, but we all know what happened there. But can this form of localized or specialized anarchy substitute for welfare of its citizens nowadays? That would be a risky social experiment nowadays I think.

Even still, if the masses are duped by government centric propaganda (as it has always been) they are still the masses. Our masses. And whether we try to help them open their eyes or help them with their rent or medical bills, it is still their welfare we are looking out for yes?

"government will support what makes government appear important to it's citizens"

I kind of have to disagree with this, but only on definition. The "government" is made up of its citizens and while it is true that their image must be important, I think it has more to do with the school-of-fish mentality than pure policy. There is a hierarchical effect at work in the bureaucracy (and parliament) where it is very difficult to introduce any sort of radical change. That has its advantages and its disadvantages you know?

[Renegade]

And a republic where a single objector can halt the construction of a road or power plan is a freedom loving utopia.

Granted, however even where ideal and practice clash, they should be treated as exceptions to be handled, not dismiss the ideal.

Actually, they're paid market value but they don't have the option to say 'no'.

IMO being paid market value is not enough. In the end the state has something of equal value to the sum they have paid, but the unwilling seller has lost both his property and his freedom. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but perhaps one way is to force the state to pay a significant premium over market where land is expropriated to compensate the seller for the unwilling sale. Even companies who wish to acquire via a hostile bid, realize that they need to pay a premium, why shouldn't the state?

I'm thinking of the visibility that foreign strife has in our news, and the degree to which we have been getting involved in foreign conflicts based on ostensible 'humanitarian' goals.

The goals in most cases were never humanitarian. They were sometimes painted that way as thin veneer to disguise more self-serving goals. In any case you can guage for yourself the public support for all this foreign strife to achieve "humanitarian" goals.

Also, in the last 30 years, we've seen Live Aid and popular support for Tibet and Darfur. But your points are well taken with regards to foreign aid.

Sure, every now an again an event occurs which tugs at the heart and the public donates. One recent example is the Tsunami. The public is ocassionally willing to give voluntarily. I would bet that same public would be opposed to a forced taxation to support a welfare program overseas.

[Michael Hardner]

Granted, however even where ideal and practice clash, they should be treated as exceptions to be handled, not dismiss the ideal.

I suppose I do agree with you here. Real estate expropriations in Canada and the US are managed badly and with questionable motivations.

IMO being paid market value is not enough. In the end the state has something of equal value to the sum they have paid, but the unwilling seller has lost both his property and his freedom. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but perhaps one way is to force the state to pay a significant premium over market where land is expropriated to compensate the seller for the unwilling sale. Even companies who wish to acquire via a hostile bid, realize that they need to pay a premium, why shouldn't the state?

You could look at it that way, or look at it as it would be almost impossible to move forward negotiating with individual landowners. And these cost differences are only part of it. Administrative costs, and set-up costs are much easier to handle with a permanent government entity.

The goals in most cases were never humanitarian. They were sometimes painted that way as thin veneer to disguise more self-serving goals. In any case you can guage for yourself the public support for all this foreign strife to achieve "humanitarian" goals.

I disagree. This starts to sound like the "all acts are selfish" argument. If I help you selflessly, and it makes me feel good then I have still committed a selfless act IMO.

Sure, every now an again an event occurs which tugs at the heart and the public donates. One recent example is the Tsunami. The public is ocassionally willing to give voluntarily. I would bet that same public would be opposed to a forced taxation to support a welfare program overseas.

Except that foreign aid is almost exactly that.

[Renegade]

You could look at it that way, or look at it as it would be almost impossible to move forward negotiating with individual landowners. And these cost differences are only part of it. Administrative costs, and set-up costs are much easier to handle with a permanent government entity.

As much as I would like to, I don't see a way around having some kind of state entity, however the use of force to expropriate land should be a last resort and it should be difficult or cost a premium to discourage its use.

I disagree. This starts to sound like the "all acts are selfish" argument. If I help you selflessly, and it makes me feel good then I have still committed a selfless act IMO.

I think it is naive to believe that most interventions in foreign conflicts are due to selfless motivations as you seem to propose. I'm not saysing all acts are selfish, I am saying that based upon my interpretation of the motivations of the powers involved, it doesn't seem to be for humitarian reasons.

Except that foreign aid is almost exactly that.

Sure, but what is the popular support for it. What is the popular support for increasing it?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Renegade

[Michael Hardner]

As much as I would like to, I don't see a way around having some kind of state entity, however the use of force to expropriate land should be a last resort and it should be difficult or cost a premium to discourage its use.

I'm suspicious about the government's eagerness to appropriate land as well.

I think it is naive to believe that most interventions in foreign conflicts are due to selfless motivations as you seem to propose. I'm not saysing all acts are selfish, I am saying that based upon my interpretation of the motivations of the powers involved, it doesn't seem to be for humitarian reasons.

They're neither 100% selfish or selfless. But it's pointless for us to try to investigate what is inside a person's heart. We need to address the arguments directly, and in a public forum where people can buy in to the process. Currently, the House of Commons is the best place to debate such things.

Sure, but what is the popular support for it. What is the popular support for increasing it?

Popular support is enough to continue.

It seems to me we've argued this to a point of mutual understanding.

To recap: I would characterize my position as being sympathetic to the philosophical purity of libertarianism, and I agree that it's a noble goal, and even think that eventually, in the long term, it will come to pass.

I don't think, though, that it's at all practical a solution for the near term, and in fact I think that if we could imagine how a libertarian solution would unfold today, it would likely result in a situation similar to ours anyway, albeit more efficiently managed.

[Oleg Bach]

Unfortunately they don't. What they do contribute to, is the government taking more and more of my income to supply services to these people. Not to mention their monthly cheque. And what they also contribute to is the government spending more and more resources it doesn't have, building higher deficits and higher debt. But nice try.

Buy stocks in some pharma company that generates syntha-opiates and anti-nutbar pills ..You will do well. Look at the idea of stimulus spending. The welfare low life instantly puts money back into the economy - they don't have enough or are they allowed to save - small buisness everywhere in Canada get an influx of hard cash during the first week of every month. Maybe the typical suburban person who will max out credit cards contributes to higher deficits..and contributes to the banks getting bigger and bigger and having more influence over government and YOU>

[Oleg Bach]

Lets be honest here. What does welfare actually accomplish? Those that hate those on welfare should not wish this system to end. Those full of resentment, contempt and hate should be over joyed with this system. It is highly refined and by design meant to slowly kill those that partake in this evil. If you want the poor,unruly and scarey to disappear off the face of the earth then don't mess with the system or attempt reformation in any manner - it is working just fine - be happy that we have a genocidal system that is so slick and incrimental that you can slowly bleed these low life to death and no one will notice the mass murder... In all seriousness..this system is designed to destroy.