Printable View
I would like to open a discussion regarding the fact that big government and high taxes are best for society. I, for one, strongly support growing significantly the size of our government, especially at the federal level, along with a very strong hike in taxes across the board.
I believe in small government and fair taxes. The real price in expanding government is paid in loss of personal freedom. I do not want government running my life and I only want government to provide essential services like infrastructure, currency, protection from other governments, and protection from unfair commerce. Other than that I want the government to leave me alone. I want nothing from government but am willing to pay my fair share for ESSENTIAL services.
GOVERNMENT = OPPRESSION
I suppose you must have liked Bush Jr.'s expansion of government a lot. Or maybe you are only interested in a large government when its run by someone aligned with your political ideology? I don't know for sure, so please inform me. But even if Obama in all his glory expanded government even further than he already has, would you be giddy still if someone like Sarah Palin took full control of that power?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
I wouldn't like that too much.... Although it is our reality, isn't it? And your okay with this?
Thank you for your response.
Could you please explain how government equals oppression?
Thank you again
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Andy3:
I'm okay with what I saw in Europe when I sojourned there for 10 years (Denmark and Spain).
Also, I don't agree with not doing the right thing or not doing what needs to be done just because some consequence might happen or will happen. Not having the courage to change simply means that we are cornering ourselves into yet another political program that is also the wrong one, such as the Republicans' (or Libertarians', which you happen to be). Evidently, the other public policy would be something that is more in line with your vision and personal preference, right? Just so long as it isn't Obama or big government or more regulation or more taxes, right?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
I do not feel that any government should interfere with your personal freedoms unless those actions are harmful to others. Todays government does that to a large extent already and as government grows our personal freedoms dwindle in proportion.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
An example is forced diversity and hiring quotas. As a white male this action prevents me from being the best that I can be based on my efforts and education. It puts me automatically on the bottom of the list, thus I am being oppressed by big government.
On a smaller scale, when a city like San Francisco dictates how McDonald's markets its Happy Meals it is unnecessarily infringing on the business and the consumers and is oppressive.
Big government does not allow citizens to achieve their full potential and doesn't even allow a citizen to fail in many instances. Both actions are oppressive. I want a government that will leave me alone both in success and failure and everything in between. I don't want the government to act as a big brother or a nanny and intrude themselves in my life any more than is absolutely necessary.
But what Im really trying to say to you is that no matter which side is right or wrong, if we give too much power to whichever side it happens to be, we better be prepared to have the oppression reign down upon us when the wrong side comes into power. To me, the best strategy would be to have a small government, so that when the would-be-tyrannical-dictator (ie: Sarah Palin) comes into office, he/she wouldn't have any power to work with. To me this strategy of governing is much better for the people in the long run.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Also for the record (again), I am not a libertarian. Thanks for trying though. I don't understand why so many people on this bulletin board can't figure me out. :hmmm:
this attitude is common but it's based on too simplistic a view. Often the first part is expressed by quoting Heinlein's "my right to swing my arm ends at your nose". That's stupid on its face. You better not think it's your right to walk up to me wildly swinging your arms in front of my nose! Most actions are harmful to others in some way or another; we tolerate a lot of mild harm in the interests of freedom. For example, I can't nap in my lawn chair if your kids are playing loudly in the pool. So you're harming me, dammit. But that's acceptable. However, if I'm playing around in my yard with my friends on our dirtbikes while your kids are having a birthday in the pool, you'd probably call the cops! What's that all about????Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Andy3:
And the affirmative action issue has arisen because there are indeed many people who have been and presumably are still being harmed by a society that gives white males (like you claim to be) many advantages. Whining about the ones that harm you while being unable to see the ones that harm others just looks petty. I think it takes willful blindness to hold on to a feeling that white men have any significant disadvantage over -any- part of our society except richer white men.
I believe that all citizens should have equal access to education. If any person applies themselves and qualifies for upper level education there should be a pathway for them to receive that education. From that point on their success or failure should depend on what they do with that education.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I am in my 60's and have never called the police on my neighbors and would not call the police on my neighbors unless they were creating a danger to my family.
Personal freedom means everything to me. Along with personal freedom comes personal responsibility and consequences. Government should not interfere with any of those without a very good reason.
If someone wants to live on fast food and sit at a computer all day and weigh 300# that is not governments business. They have no right to interfere with that citizens lifestyle. Along with that lifestyle comes the personal responsibility eat balanced and to not become obese because of health issues. The governments response should be that the public will not pay for health costs related to obesity and that if you are obese you either pay your own insurance, pay out of pocket or go without treatment, those are consequences.
Failure and consequences are as important to a persons development as success. Our nanny state is taking most risk out of people lives, supporting them when they fail and not allowing them to face the consequences of these poor decisions. In many instances if a person is allowed to fail and hit bottom they will bounce back, live better, have self esteem and become productive. If government intervenes before they hit bottom and provides for them then that becomes an acceptable lifestyle, they never gain self esteem and they do not progress. People need to experience all facets of life, good and bad, to be whole. Big government unfairly interferes and I find that oppressive.
I used the eating thing as an example so don't take it literally.
you paint a good picture of your personal philosophy. One thing I find interesting because it's a bit unusual to mix societal (government) support for anything with what sounds like a primarily libertarian viewpoint. But you're willing to have society provide universal education. It's an interesting perspective. Thanks for expressing it.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Andy3:
I agree with you that as a culture we've moved toward what can be caricatured as a nanny state. I also agree that there's a lot of negative consequences that come with that. But it's a ship that's sailed. Personally, I actually would be willing to think of a society that showed little care for its weaker or unsuccessful members as an ethical one. That's the way most of nature operates. Our own experiment often seems very odd to me. However, it seems that most human societies have instead built support networks for the members of their populations that need it, and that trend seems stronger as human societies evolve. I think that most of the problems that arise (like the big one you hint at - how do you have the freedom to run your body mass up to multiple hundreds of pounds, while everyone else has the obligation to keep repairing the damage?) are due to the fact that you can't get this stuff right the first time. Thus the 'culture wars'. So since (sadly?) I think it's a given that we're going to try to provide not only opportunity but protection to people, we have two obvious ways to go about it: instill responsibility in the individuals to act in ways that don't burden the rest of us, or add rules to try and control behavior. The nice thing about instilling responsibility is that it removes explicit outside compulsion (the most obvious infringement on "freedom"). And in fact everyone acknowledges the need to try and induce some specific system of ethics into our population, at least to some degree - which seems like a bit of infringement on freedom too. But until that effort takes hold, we're either gonna live with some enforced limits or have members of society flagrantly violating the individual rights of the rest of us. It's going to take a lot of discussion and arguments and debates - and time and random evolution - before some of these opposing tensions get resolved.
I think that education should be a primary function of government. There needs to be quality, public education through high school and there needs to be student loans available to everybody that qualifies for a higher education. Education is everything and is essential to the continued success of our country.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I also think that temporary welfare needs to be available to citizens in need. What I am against is that it becomes a lifestyle. I also believe that this assistance should not make life painless and should provide only basic necessities. It also should not be hidden. When people were standing in the grocery line paying in food stamps there was a stigma and that stigma may be enough to motivate them to move forward. Sonoma County used to issue vouchers for goods and services to welfare recipients and never gave cash. I think that was a good idea.
I believe that all citizens should receive medical care when they are sick. I am not opposed to a single payer provider being run by government that works on a fee basis. You pay based on income. It should not be designed to replace private insurance and should provide only basic care.
I am not aligned with any political party. I grew up Democrat but have issues with the direction the party has been headed and am now a registered independent. The Democratic party of today is not the same party I belonged to when I was out pounding the turf for JFK. It's not the same party it was when we'd pack up the family and go to Joe Rattigans picnics on Sunday. A lot has changed but not for the better for this old Blue Dog Democrat.
I will talk about one or two of the details of your comments but first I want to address the overall general principles that you are espousing.
I don't doubt that you are sincerely expressing your opinions because they are quite common here in the United States. But I also don't doubt that you are gravely mistaken. You fear a welfare state or "nanny state," as you mentioned. All of this is based on unfounded fears.
The true reason for your concerns are based on the age old American fear of the British monarchy lording over its American colonies (not that you will recognize this). As history went hissing by, the British "boogieman" was replaced with the Communist boogieman. More importantly than the fact that the American people are path dependent, just like the people of any nation.
But the most important reason is that the rich don't want to pay taxes because they are essentially selfish. The wealthy and the business community don't want to pay taxes because they honestly believe that they are being robbed by the state. A person's economic standing has enormous influence on their political opinions.
The bottom line is that the errant philosophy that you have been espousing here on this thread is basically barbaric, cruel, and uncivilized. It is unfair, wrong and unenlightened. Any advanced society must have public services and in the United States, the well-to-do have waged an incessant war against taxes, against government, against social services, against regulations, and so on. In the process, the right wing has been stripping aways Americans' citizenship and transforming them into mere "customers." All this while reinforcing the legal definition of corporations as "persons." The list of anti-government attacks is much longer.
We need a Socialist society, where human being live in dignity and not in squalor, which is what your ideology keeps them in. Look closely around our country, my fellow American; it is in shambles thanks to 8 years of your philosophy in power, wrecking this country. Now we need MAJOR government intervention to fix the mess that your attitudes and the public policies that your attitudes have wrought on this nation and its people.
Please don't give me the spiel that you are a Democrat. I don't care which political party you do or don't, or kind of agree with. Go back and read carefully the reprehensible things that you have asserted on this thread. Your positions are clearly reactionary no matter what your political party affiliations are, or sort of are, or may have been in the past.
Now, to take on a specific point that you talked about, healthcare:
There must and will be free public healthcare in this country (eventually) whether you like it or not. It is the only right thing to do and it is the only thing that a truly civilized society can do. Our European counterparts have enjoyed a free healthcare system for a hundred years. But NOT here, in the US, the wealthiest country in the world, thanks in large part to primitive arguments like yours.
Wake up, Andy. You really need a kick in the pants.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Andy3:
The ideas you're putting together here can be separated. They're not of a single piece. We do indeed live in a society that's moving toward being a "nanny state". Strangely enough, it's at odds with other directions we're moving, and certainly isn't necessarily tied to socialism.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
I didn't excerpt any of your comments on taxation or the willingness (and obligation) of the wealthy and powerful to support society as a whole, partly because I completely agree with them and partly because they're largely irrelevant to the professed desire for freedom that so many make. We'd probably be better served to take that desire at face value, and find ways to deal with the essential limitations on such freedoms. There's no reason that the oil companies should be 'free' to trash the environment, or to exploit effective monopolies in order to keep wages low. But the issue of gun control is different - there we're constraining freedoms to proactively limit potential injury to innocents. It's a more debatable trade-off. And then there's motorcycle helmet laws. That restriction on freedoms is only justifiable in two ways. One is to limit the expense to society incurred by medical costs when someone's injured and the other is pure nanny-state, we-know-what's-good-for-you.
Part of the way support for a progressive society has been undermined is that those with selfish goals have found allies who fear nanny-state limitations on their personal choices.
Good stuff guys. At first I didn't have much interest in this thread because the level of abstraction in the question asked by Edward/Valley Oak didn't look conducive to a discussion of the real concrete issues involved. And the first responses caused me to think I was correct. But then things got more specific, and good points are being made.
Edward/VO, What does, "path dependent", mean? As in, "Americans are path dependent, just like the people of any nation."
PodFishy, Did you mean, "accept"? Or did you really want to say, "excerpt"? I was a little confused. On rereading it seems clear you meant, "excerpt". I guess it's your syntax that threw me.
On a Moderation note: Last late winter Barry asked me to keep an eye on Talk and Reader. Lately I haven't been deleting extant, not excerpted (!?), quotes from the previous post. That's because I've asked Barry to remove, or at least bury/make less convenient the "Reply Publicly" option which automatically includes the entire previous post as a quote.
My sense of neatness, order, spare frugality, graphic aesthetics and the desire not to look at the same block of text again (or perhaps I'm simply Anal/OCD?) results in an aversion to clutter. But no change has been made. Maybe it's coming, I know the graphic redesign is a priority.
So, instead of pickily deleting all extraneously quoted text, I'm once again making a plea for regular posters here to use the "Reply To Thread" icon at the top left hand of the last post in a thread, and not the "Reply Publicly" icon at the bottom right hand with all the other options.
Unless you really want to, or see some need for, quoting the entire post you're responding to. Obviously, if you're going to then edit it down to the relevant text that is needed to make your reply comprehensible, that's the convenient option.
I'm just asking here, not telling.
But doing this simple thing, you would reduce the text volume on our screens. Whether we read this online (as I only do, I get plenty of other email and now with Facebook, Fuhgedaboudit!) or if you receive it by email digest.
Please cut your readers some slack! (As if I should talk...)
And Rock On with your bad old selves....
Thus Endeth the Moderation.
Valley, I respectfully disagree with your concept in its entirety. I believe strongly in Capitalism and would fight to the death to defend it, even against my own countrymen. I do not see enough common ground to even continue this dialog as I will never change your opinion nor will you ever change mine.
Good day
really??? "Capitalism" is that central? I'm not going to make any attempt to argue with you, especially given your last claim. But I'd encourage you to try to rethink what concepts you're lumping together as "Capitalism". I bet that your definition is too broad and that there are principals you would die for, as you say, that aren't really tied to an economic system. For example, freedom isn't particularly bound to Capitalism. This is relevant because by tying too many ideas together you end up defending bad ideas and opposing good ones unnecessarily.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Andy3:
Andy, I challenge you to a duel.
Let's meet at sunrise at the beach in Bodega, with no seconds, only witnesses.
We will settle this once and for all.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Andy3:
Edward,
A question. What do you consider to be an equitable tax rate? And would that rate simply be the percentage you pay to the Federal government, or the overall rate which would include all taxes?
During the last 8+ years of my working life (I retired in July 2003), I was lucky to see $.30 of every dollar I made, after factoring in federal tax, state tax, Social Security tax, disability tax, medicare tax, property tax, sales tax, utility tax, automobile tax, capital gains tax, gas tax, etc., etc., etc. Are you saying this was too little and that I should have been paying higher taxes?
My overall rate of taxation is now lower, as my income today is 100% Social Security, supplemented by savings; however, I am still paying all the taxes mentioned above.
W
LOL, Although I admire your humor and respect your opinion I have no concern that your dream will ever come to pass so I am not overly concerned. Outside of a few pockets in this country, most citizens would find your notions unacceptable. I think that will be apparent in the next election. I have voted in every election since i turned 21 and have at most voted outside the Democratic party 5 times. In November I will not vote for any Democrats. It's time to level the legislature and slow down government.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Like I said, we have no common ground.
Path dependence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependent):
"Path dependence explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant.
In economics and the social sciences path dependence can refer to either outcomes at a single moment in time or to long run equilibria of a process (Page 2006). In common usage, the phrase implies either:
(A) that "history matters" - a broad concept, or
(B) that predictable amplifications of small differences are a disproportionate cause of later circumstances. And, in the "strong" form, that this historical hang-over is inefficient.
The first usage, (A): "history matters" is trivially true in the explanatory context; everything has causes. And, in these fields, the direct influence of earlier states isn't notable (compare "path dependent" options in finance, where the influence of history can be non standard).
It is the narrow concept, (B), that has the most explanatory force."
I hope this quote from Wikipedia answers your question. The wikipedia article is long; I simply copy pasted their short introduction.
Regarding the ambiguity of my thread-starting post, I deliberately designed it that way to be a backwards initiated debate. In other words, I decided to choose what I felt would be the best possible conclusion to this topic of discussion. That necessarily makes it ambiguous. By doing this, it helps keep the argumentation on topic.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles: