Confessions of a Former Republican

[carepov]

It sounds like FAS, malnourishment, abuse and neglect are the problems. I'm all for removing those obstacles..

A major point that I did not successfully get across is that my focus is on the PREVENTION of these problems not so much dealing with the problems afterwards.

Government never is about common sense. It is about force.

This is your ideology getting in the way of reality. Eradicating polio is one example of a good government program. Many large infrastructure projects make sense too, for example James Bay. There is also more common sense than not in Central Banks, hospitals, schools, etc....

The war on poverty started in 1965 with Lyndon B. Johnson the poverty rate was about 14%. After spending about 2 trillion dollars from then til now the poverty rate is still about 14%. Nothing has been gained.

How are you measuring poverty?

The UN wants happy people to support the UN and its programs. It isn't too concerned with education.

Of course we want happy people. The UN is very concerned with education. One good measurement is literacy rates.

Things have to evolve. But if there is one thing that is easy to understand it is respect for the sanctity of life. If you can get across to someone that the security of person and property is a right then you will have made some progress. That is a wide sweeping concept and many qualifiers will be attached to it which must be removed before it is understood for its simplicity. It means that no dictator has more rights than anyone else and your station in life is no guarantee of privilege or immunity from not respecting that right for everyone.

It sounds like you support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as I do, and the UN of course.

I don't think the studies are conclusive. How does it save ambulance and police and other resources? By having the problems centralized?

I don't think either of these things are great ideas.

In the example I gave of “housing first”, money is saved by preventing 911 call to pick up homeless people. I cannot say that they have been conclusively proven but potentially these are ideas that would save the taxpayers money – again it looks like your ideology is prematurely ruling out potentially good ideas.

Is having government decide what opportunity should be available to who, what you are advocating? I mean deciding what's best for everyone, society and the nation?

No not at all. In this discussion I am advocating for government programs that prevent major obstacles in peoples lives (especially children).

It seems to me that you like our society and it should be a certain way. We have a few social problems that are simply a lack of opportunity for some of our citizens and that needs to be corrected.

Yes I do “like our society” and think that it can be improved in many ways. Ideally, I would like to be able to say “the probability of a having a successful life depends mostly on the choices a person makes for themselves (merit) and not on the family that a baby is born into (luck).” I see many Republican policies as counter-productive towards the vision – similarly to the article in the OP.

Thinking that correcting them by throwing money at them and trying to get people to live the same life as everyone else is not the solution.

I agree.

[Pliny]

A major point that I did not successfully get across is that my focus is on the PREVENTION of these problems not so much dealing with the problems afterwards.

This is a bureaucratic way of saying government will be doing both. Prevention is touted as the cost efficient way to deal with social problems. Only, prevention programs are the war on drugs, the war on poverty, Education for all, etc., The only successful government prevention program seems to be education. It prevents that quite well.

This is your ideology getting in the way of reality. Eradicating polio is one example of a good government program. Many large infrastructure projects make sense too, for example James Bay. There is also more common sense than not in Central Banks, hospitals, schools, etc....

George Washington said it best, "Government is not reason. It is not eloquent. It is force. Like fire, it makes a reluctant servant and a fearful master."

With today's EPA would the Hoover dam have been built? Is food crop based ethanol a real good idea? Is schooling better than an education.

And central banks are not a good idea nor is debasing the money to fiat paper tokens.

Some government is necessary but in order to remain the servant of the people it must remain limited.

How are you measuring poverty?

Guess. Government statistics which show the necessity and importance of continuing the war. The prevalence of food banks in most major cities.

The homeless problem.

Why do you need to ask?

Of course we want happy people. The UN is very concerned with education. One good measurement is literacy rates.

The UN is concerned with schooling not so much education. Not allowing children to work is denying them part of their education. Not allowing abuse is a government's correct mandate but to entirely restrict their participation in society is just as criminal.

It sounds like you support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as I do, and the UN of course.

We do have to know, as humans, we have rights. I don't agree with all the points in the UN document but I agree we need to be made aware we have rights. The right to security of person and property being violated by others is the biggest problem in third world Dictatorships and countries that do not hold life to be sacrosanct.

In the example I gave of “housing first”, money is saved by preventing 911 call to pick up homeless people. I cannot say that they have been conclusively proven but potentially these are ideas that would save the taxpayers money – again it looks like your ideology is prematurely ruling out potentially good ideas.

Unfortunately, they will fall victim to the next great idea.

We really have to improve our love of our fellow man in order to come up with good ideas. Government tends to think people are stupid, incapable and criminally inclined. Although politicians, never seem to include themselves in this description.

not at all. In this discussion I am advocating for government programs that prevent major obstacles in peoples lives (especially children).

Yes I do “like our society” and think that it can be improved in many ways. Ideally, I would like to be able to say “the probability of a having a successful life depends mostly on the choices a person makes for themselves (merit) and not on the family that a baby is born into (luck).” I see many Republican policies as counter-productive towards the vision – similarly to the article in the OP.

I see many Republican policies as counter-productive to that as well. If you are going to restrict Republicans then you have to restrict Democrats as well. They both wish to replace luck and merit with their own ideas of who deserves a break.