Poverty and Welfare
I have listened to many people and many arguments about why the government needs to “help” the poor. Everything from “they have no choice” to “stratification”. All seem to be in support of the government assuming the responsibility for the poor people in our country. Not a single one of the excuses addresses the ability to fish. We all know that if you keep fishing for other guy, he will become dependent upon you for that fish and will do nothing to help himself. It would be best to teach him how to fish then to keep feeding him.
Every single political group (democrats, republicans etc) are all on the same page in their acknowledgement that the American social welfare program is an utter failure. The “war on poverty” started way back in 1965. Since then the US spent more then $5 trillion dollars in an attempt to ease the suffering of the poor. Everything from building them houses, providing them food stamps and even giving them cars. What did we get in return for all the money that was invested – basically – more poverty.
The system itself is unfair to begin with. Not everyone benefits from it the same way. The taxpayers pick up the tab for the failed programs. Helping making some of them into people that now need help (because they have less money to work with) where, if left alone, they would have been fine. Our society, with its churches, community volunteer organizations and family are all being pushed aside. The poor themselves, who the system is design to help, are stuck inside a system that actually destroys opportunity and hope for their children.
From a Libertarian perspective, it is high time for a totally new approach to fighting poverty. We need a program based unequivocally on opportunity for improvement, work and most importantly, personal responsibility. Not a single one of the current proposals offered by any conservative or liberal group is going to fix the fundamental problem of our welfare system. They all include reform, some sort of grant system, minor job training and other silly ideas that simply tinker with the failures of the system.
It is time that people and government alike recognize the fact that the welfare program cannot be “reformed”. It should be eliminated all together and replaced with nothing. Get rid of the AFDC, food stamps, subsidized housing and everything else associated with the program. People who are not capable of fully supporting themselves and their families through the job market must again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap instead of remaining a leech on the society as a whole.
The federal government, bogged down in so much bureaucratic nonsense, is a lousy charitable organization. Their dismal failure is readily apparent to anyone who wants to look at the records. Private efforts are always much more efficient and successful.
Everyone knows America is the most generous country in the world. We contribute more than $125 billion annually to charity, even after the government takes its 33% from our paychecks. When we get rid of the government involvement, private charities will need to step up and fill that void. To help this transfer of responsibility from the government to private hands, the federal government should give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for any contributions to private charities that provide social welfare type programs. After all, they aren’t doing the work any more and therefore don’t need that dollar.
Just about everyone thinks a job is better than some sort of welfare program, except maybe the people on welfare who get stuff for nothing. None-the-less, for many years America pursued tax and other regulatory type policies that are perversely engineered to discourage economic growth and decrease entrepreneurial opportunities. Now-a-days anyone opening a business needs a slew of people in order to comply with the extensive number of government regulations and agencies. There are zoning and occupational licenses to contend with and each of these are killing businesses that could help people work their way out of poverty if they didn’t exist.
To top it off, government creates minimum wage laws and mandates certain benefits must be given to all employees. These laws drive up costs of employing more workers. The government should repeal these regulations, taxes and licensing requirements that continuously sever the roots of our economic tree.
I will not make believe that changing our welfare system will be a piece of cake. Quite the contrary, it will be painful at first. It will certainly be difficult for the people already on welfare. Welfare was design to be a temporary relief and support mechanism during hard times. It is not being used that way any more. People take advantage of the system and it’s a drain on society.
A society that is compassionate about its people will find other means to help those in need. They will do it through churches, mission type institutions or other type of charity organizations. Each one providing a temporary solution that will not be allowed to be taken advantaged of.
Our government run charity system of welfare is drain on our society. It is costly to taxpayers. It is cruel because it keeps children born into poverty within a cycle of dependency and hopelessness. As Libertarians, we are the ONLY group that offers any kind of positive alternative to the failed welfare state we have become. We present a view of the future where society’s foundation is work, individual responsibility, and private charities. We offer a society established on opportunity, compassion and willingness. We offer a society that is built on liberty.
For any naysayers out there, please feel free to show me something more effective and I will be happy to show you where the faults lie in your system.
Yours in Liberty
JimK – Your description of the welfare burden is well put. You offer only one solution however, “To help this transfer of responsibility from the government to private hands, the federal government should give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for any contributions to private charities that provide social welfare type programs.”, …so you indicate a conditional recognition, if not support, of Federal taxes used for your idea and, while it seems out of place for libs, it is a recognition that pragmatism has its place before purism and for that I thank you.
Additionally, you must know that there would have to be a government definition of “charity” and approved “charities” and then lawsuits by Planned Parenthood, ACORN, CAIR terrorists and the United Farm Workers to name a few. Theoretically, under your proposal, a taxpayer would only have to file a FORM 1040 indicating the “tax” owed and then list enough charities to offset the tax owed. “Save the Home Boys” fund is my favorite and it would be used locally to aid members of my local community, or household. I think you may see that the tax offset is not a perfect solution since it is most likely unworkable. There would be no money for any other government program, ….ever. While we may like the thought it must be noted that reality is a hard board check.
Ben Franklin said that to eliminate poverty it should not be made so comfortable. I think the solution for all government funding of all of the poverty, social welfare, social justice programs can be a freeze on budgets. Maintain spending at the current dollar amount, no yearly inflation adjustments, no yearly growth adjustments, just freeze the dollar amount then, over enough years, the Poverty Pimps and Wimps would eventually wither on the vine since “poverty” would be a less comfortable proposition. When we restrict budget growth we will allocate help for the genuinely helpless and no help for the truly shameless. It took years to build this; it will take years to eliminate it. The real charity organizations, such as the ones you mention in your article, would be allowed to do what they do best. They would differentiate. Over time we will return to the way that worked best for the most. ……….JimW
JimW
There seems to be plenty of other solutions in the article. All from a private point of view and getting the government out of the way. Looking at what jim wrote in the article. It appears that he added the idea of tax breaks as a way for people to get something the government stole from them.
I don’t think it was meant to be a solution to the problem just a way to shrink the government. In other words, take the money from them before they do something else stupid with it. Now I of course could be completely wrong. Jim will have to answer to be sure.
You did mention recognition of “taxes”. While it is true that pure Libertarian’s think all taxes are a form of theft, myself included, not recognizing that they exist is foolhardy. One must be extremely proficient in law, or else really lucky, in order to get away with not paying taxes.
To simply not pay them because one is a Libertarian will do nothing but get them in jail. If they didn’t recognize taxes, I guarantee they will recognize jail really quickly.
It might be nice to think there would be no money for the government. That just isn’t the case. Jim apparently is talking about income taxes where deductions and such can be allowed. He isn’t talking about all the other taxes (excise etc). Removing all income taxes today would only mean the government needs to go back to a budget like the one they had around the year 2000. The government would not dry up and the programs would not disappear.
You correctly point out as well, that it took years to get to this point and it will take years to unravel most of it, if ever. The government took it all away one piece at a time; we will have to take it back in the same fashion. I also like your idea of a federal spending freeze. I doubt that will ever happen anytime soon but it would be nice to see. I wonder how long it would take for them to whither on the vine vs. shutting pieces down. I dare say, it might be faster if we could make the freeze happen.
Demosthenes – I hold the same opinion that JimK had a number of additional ideas, perhaps a bit masked in pointing to the problem, and I recognize that the largest part of Fed Tax revenue is from sources other than the personal Income Tax. I seized upon that “Tax Credit” solution because we here locally always appear to have enormous difficulty in agreeing to support candidates who even identify or acknowledge the Income Tax, and the only acceptable position is to do away with the burden. For me it was very good to see JimK’s acknowledgement to “reform” the Tax at all. (Oh no, he is not going to like that reform word) But it is what it is … so I think that Tax Credits are for libs a giant step in the free direction and a position we should consider and not dismiss out of hand. I did say to him “it is recognition that pragmatism has its place before purism and for that I thank you” …and that was a bit of a jab. He hates Taxes more than any man I have ever personally known. But you were spot on with your comments.
You made the comment that we should/would return to the way we were originally funded. If I remember my American History correctly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) was set up initially to collect Fed revenue for help with funding the launch of our experiment. It led to the Whisky Rebellion that was subsequently suppressed by Washington with encouragement from Jefferson who was abroad at the time.
You said you liked the budget freeze suggestion as a practical matter that may work over time. May I ask what additional solutions you would offer to help remove people from the government plantation? …………….JimW
JimW,
There are any number of things that can be done. Taxes are obviously the biggest one that people see because it hits them where they see it, in the paycheck.
Many people don’t see the hidden taxes. Of course, we all know about inflation. A good sound monetary policy based on intrinsic value might be another thing we could do.
Another hidden tax people don’t see is the penalties they pay for victimless crimes. Things like speeding or wearing seat belts, where no one is injured and yet, the state collects money. Getting rid of victimless crimes could be another avenue toward freedom.
We have a multitude of reeducation centers called public schools. These places do nothing but teach what the government wants you to know. It would surely be beneficial for parents to teach their kids the truth behind the garbage of government school.
I am sure between us we can list many other things the government does incorrectly or inefficiently. We probably could be here all day going over them all as well. If I was to take your question and break it down for the smallest unit – an individual – the outcome might be different.
Government deals with communities at large, the individual only needs to be responsible for his self. Here, at this level, is where all the freedom begins. At this level he must recognize that his freedom comes from within. The only way people can “take” it away from him is if he “allows” them to. When the individual realizes he is responsible for his actions than he knows the responsibility lies solely within him, he will begin to accept and act accordingly.
So long as the person does NOT recognize this fact, he will always blame others. Unfortunately for us, people don’t recognize this fact, that’s why we have governments. The more people that get educated to this simple lesson the less we need government. Utopia says 100% of the people are responsible for their actions 100% of the time. I certainly do not see that happening any time in the near future.
As such, I seriously doubt government will ever go away completely. In the current state of affairs, if it did, we would probably all be like Somalia. So while I don’t like government interference, I still see a need for government at this point in time.
JimK,
I have concluded that taxes can be used for whatever the government deems necessary for it function and services, however, political objections can me made if tax dollars are used for something deemed “uncalled” for. For example, people object to taxes funding abortion, stem-cell research, and entitlement/welfare programs, etc. oliticians like Congressman Dr. Ron Paul make the argument for this general concept by saying to force Americans who don’t believe don’t believe in funding a particular government initiative is immoral. As a caveat, Dr. Paul also makes the argument that the question that should concern Congress is whether or not the U.S. government has the constitutional authority to fund any form of proposed tax funded programs? The clear answer to that question is usually, no, in that a proper constitutional position would reject federal funding for anything not delineated in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. constitution (which are a lot of things now in play throughout the status quo), however, through different interpretations of congressional authority found in the constitution, such as the Necessary and Proper clause, one can make a case for some federal tax dollars.
Of course, we will be having this discussion in a vacum, in which all funds collected from taxes are from in fact, “legal” taxes. Further, these taxes do not involve the income tax, as the income tax is an unconstitutional tax. So, can tax dollars be redistributed to the poor? Would such a thing be considered as immoral?
Well, in the status quo, there does exist social programs (e.g. welfare, food stamps, etc.), and as such, I certainly see no moral degradation in society because of them. Thus ,if lawful taxes are collected by the government, can the government redistribute those tax dollars to be used for the poor? I would argue yes. The reason I argue yes is because I believe the founding fathers intended the government to provide for the general welfare of society. I feel the founders intended on the government providing for the general welfare of society by maintaining class stabilization. The federalist papers warrant this proposition.
Ahh – That pesky general welfare clause. The clause is not part of the Constitution anymore than the title of any law is part of the law itself. The clause is in the Preamble of course and I post it here for convenience only.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.”
That does not mean that the intent of the document as stated here isn’t clear, just not part of the law. Words change meaning over time so modern progressive thought can and will twist words to fit a different meaning.
Jonathan – I really do not want to engage on this topic until I know if you are playing a devils advocate or you really do believe, and therefore will defend, some of your propositions such as this one, “I feel the founders intended on the government providing for the general welfare of society by maintaining class stabilization.”, since I find nothing in the document itself to support such a claim. Are you serious? And this, “Of course, we will be having this discussion in a vacum, in which all funds collected from taxes are from in fact, “legal” taxes. Further, these taxes do not involve the income tax, as the income tax is an unconstitutional tax.” …which seems to be self contradicting to me.
But I only have the one question for clarification only – “Which Jonathan is here?” LOL ……..JimW
JimW,
As far as which Jonathan is here, I don’t know…I guess we shall see. I want to learn more about the matter before I make up my mind.
I said: “I feel the founders intended on the government providing for the general welfare of society by maintaining class stabilization. The federalist papers warrant this proposition.”
Thus, the Federalist Papers warrant (inter alia, the documents make it clear the intentions of the constitution and state of mind for government) the government provide class stabilization in the name of providing for the general welfare.
JimW,
Here is my response, taken from my comment reply from Jimk’s article – You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity. This response will answer your question.
“Here:
Jimk,
Sorry for the delay, but here is my response, researched from an amazing article here: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/barber704.htm
…
It can be argued very substantially that a “welfarist” or positive vision of governmental obligation, is protected under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS. James Madison’s belief that the “real welfare” of the people must be the “supreme object” of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work. Sotirios Barber (author of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION) uses very precise and economical prose, and a wide range of scholarly literatures, Supreme Court cases, and historical evidence to argue against the negative rights constitutional vision (you remember negative and positive rights), which he finds pervades the thinking of conservative and liberal scholars of constitutional law, history, and theory, as well as political and social theory. Most importantly for Barber, protecting the general welfare includes an obligation to provide the poor and uneducated with the wherewithal to develop themselves politically, socially, and economically.
Congressional authority trumps state power, whenever Congress attempts to meet its commitments to protect the general welfare.
Here’s a thought: What if the Constitution may not be adequate because it is a rule-constituted instrument that depends upon historical context? If context changes dramatically, the Constitution might fall short, right?
FEDERALIST 45, which reasons that no institutional scheme has any other value than as it may serve the people’s welfare, would imply there being no reason why this should not exclude the welfare of the poor. Moreover, if protecting the natural faculties of the little propertied in ways that make them ‘sanguine about their chances’ should require food, housing, health case, education of the young, and restraints on power of corporate wealth in the labor market, and if these things do not happen without government, then government is obligated to do what it can.”
Hope this answers your question.
Jonathan,
Please define “to do what it can”.
In the context here, if I read it right, it means to do whatever it is capable of doing with what it already has. Is that what you interpret it to mean as well.
Or do you read something else into it like, the government can force people and businesses to do what it wants in order to achieve its goals?
There is a difference. Based on the ideas of the founding fathers not wanting an intrusive government, I would say my interpretation is fairly accurate. Do you agree?
Demonsthenes,
“Do what it can” is correct. The government has a moral obligation to do what it can to provide class stabilization. I believe iIf such efforts need to be done, a direct intervention by government to assit in food, housing, health care, education, etc. Now, this can be done without taxing the people to death. It can be done by simply cutting taxes and placing money back into the hands of the people, so that they can use it for they need. The poor class falls victim to overzealous government intervention that continuously fails, however, while the meaning of providing such services are faulty, I believe the intention is well warranted and constitutionally justified. We just ought to find libertarians ways, like cutting taxes, as a means of class stabilization.
Again, class stabilization is a necessary part of a necessary evil, government. There just ought to be heavy oversight by a vigilant populace, and as such, government efficiency will be high, as will be government accountability.
Demonsthenes,
Also, I would agree the founders wanted a non-intrusive government, but hell, we are even having trouble with government functioning with something so constitutionally clear, like say, the right to bear arms; However, government has continuously encroached on that. There is a fine line between government duties and government oppression. One would often have to examine the particular situation very clearly in the interest of achieving the most critical answer. Thus, would you like to present such a specific situation and take it from there?
JimW,
You claim: “Ahh – That pesky general welfare clause. The clause is not part of the Constitution anymore than the title of any law is part of the law itself. The clause is in the Preamble of course and I post it here for convenience only.”
Well my friend, you are wrong.
In various places within the Constitution, and in one amendment, there are to be found several clauses related to Congress’ power to tax and spend. These include both requirements for the apportionment of direct taxes and the uniformity of indirect taxes, the disallowal of taxes on exports, the General Welfare requirement, the limitation on the release of funds from the treasury except as provided by law, and the apportionment exemption of the Sixteenth Amendment.
General Welfare Clause: Article 1 section 8
“ …… pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ”
Also, for more clarification:
Wikipedia time:
{Of all the limitations upon the power to tax and spend, the General Welfare clause appears to have achieved notoriety as the most contentious. The dispute over the clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase “general welfare.”
The two primary authors of the Federalist Papers essays set forth two separate, conflicting theories:
the narrower view of James Madison that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax; and
the broader view of Alexander Hamilton that spending is an enumerated power that Congress may exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.}
Jonathan,
In class stabilization, the way government does it now, they take from the rich and give to the poor, thus make poor people out of the rich. Well in this case decreasing the middle class and increasing the lower class.
It is typical of the government to start something with good intentions but somehow they always seem to hurt the ones they want to help. If this continues we will have a society full of people dependent upon the government. I guess your application of apathy would then be apparent to everyone as we approach the final stages to the build up of revolution within the life cycle.
Demonsthenes,
True, we can expect revolution on the road this country is on. Class stabilization, like I said, is very tricky to get away with as the government is placed in a situation in which they can be honest and forthcoming, rather than corrupt and oppressive. Unfortunately, the latter senario is more of a reality than ever. With a good fiscal conservative in office, I’m sure some things can be done. Additionally, welfare isn’t a priority on any agenda, well…unless you want to count the public option – but that is just taking things to a new level, and hopefully Obama doesn’t have the political capital to pass it; however, with welfare not being that big an issue, we libertarians can capitalize on it’s surrounding silence, and perhaps raise holy hell about it, cause welfare is something that usually pisses people off lol.
Jonathan,
Rather then picking something out of the hat, let us stick with the subject matter of the article. My claim is that welfare systems don’t work when run by our government. Use that as an example and let us move forward with it.
If you think the government’s use of taxes to stabilize stratification is effective. Please show me evidence of such so we can talk about it. Just saying something from the federalist papers doesn’t make it right, it just shows that it was thought of at the time and the problem was recognized.
I content the way they do it is bad and it is hurting us. If you think otherwise, show us how and why please.
Demonsthenes,
I am contending the way government is handling the welfare system is a bad as well. The only difference is I am defending that the motive for government to create…a form of welfare…in the interest of class stabilization, is justified (through the federalist papers, etc.). It is NOT a matter of how government uses taxes to stabilize stratification, I am saying, purely as a recommendation/solvency, it is a matter of how the government DOES NOT use tax dollars. If the money wasn’t being so heavily taxed in the first place, and not redistributed to favor the rich, then people would be able to hang on to the initial money and use it to pay bills, etc. PLEASE READ THIS: http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/barber704.htm
The former link is excellent on this issue; a real great piece of literature, appreciated by the most apt DAs lol.
Here is a particular section that we can talk about as far as THEORY:
{ The Constitution obligates the government to facilitate the real well-being of all its people, and there is no compelling reason to conclude that there is no approximate truth about the elements of well-being. Nor must we deny that a plausible interpretation of constitutional text and history can accommodate an approximation of that truth. But the complex, contingent, and unpredictable character of policies for facilitating any conception of well-being, together with the time-sensitive balance of needs involved in concrete funding decisions – and the ultimate need for public support – place most of the responsibility on legislators and their voting constituents. (p.152)
He then notes, “This is the bad news for those who see easy application to concrete cases or political practice as a requirement for propositions of constitutional theory” (p.152). There is a way out of this bind, however:
The Constitution, by its language and the object lesson of its founding, claims the fidelity of the population only in terms of the benefits it facilitates. The population must in principle be able to recognize the Constitution as an approximation of what it says it is, and that requires at least some evidence of progress toward its ends. The condition for fidelity to the Constitution is thus one and the same as the condition for its recognition as a coherent scheme. Officials who get paid to maintain the Constitution get paid to work for the conditions that can justify seeing and following the Constitution for what it claims to be, for that is essentially what it means to maintain the Constitution. Judges thus have a constitutional reason to construe the Fourteenth Amendment and other constitutional provisions accordingly, where they prudently can. (p.154)
Finally, Barber criticizes ideological conservatives, who oppose judicial action when elected branches fail to address social problems because they see it as circumventing the Constitution and democracy, and liberals, who grumble at government’s failures to secure social change. He concludes by asking both liberals and conservatives to consider the following: “A court or any political actor that believes itself to be in either of these constitutionally ungoverned situations can look to Lincoln’s presidency for examples of constitutionalist action without constitutional warrant. Where the Constitution is no longer effective law, there can be no constitutional reason for not doing what one can do to restore and achieve the conditions for the Constitution’s effectiveness” (p.155).
Although his heavy reliance upon the FEDERALIST PAPERS may be considered by some scholars as insufficient to support his argument, Barber does a superb job in demonstrating that protecting the general welfare is a primary obligation of government under the Constitution. He effectively contends that what constitutes protecting the general welfare evolves, while exploring the changes in the collective vision that produced the Civil War Amendments.}
Jonathan,
This writing is aptly put for what it contends. The problem is it contends the wrong thing. While I may not have memorized the Constitution, I do not believe it says anything about the welfare of the people – only the United States. Even when they quote the 14th amendment, they are not referring to everyone in the country but ONLY those that fall under the government jurisdiction.
The author took what he reads from the Constitution out of text and applies what should be for the country to the people. This has been unchallenged in court from this standpoint so there is no proof that it will stand up if actually challenged. The fact that a Constitution even exists is indicative of the need to CONTROL government and not let it run amok.
His references to Lincoln’s actions without constitutional warrant and where he states the Constitution is no longer effective law, shows his disregard for the rule of law in this country. It implies that he is willing to throw the constitution out the window by allowing government to overstep its bounds. You see, anything not governed by the constitution is reserved for the states and people respectively (yes the constitution states such). For him to arbitrarily cast that aside exemplifies his desire to have a controlling government instead of a free people.
You state that if money was not redistributed to favor the rich. It is not. It is redistributed to favor government. Government does not care if the person getting the money is rich or poor only that the government can control the person receiving it. Oh, they may put on a display saying it is for this person or that person, but we see the end results. It always goes where it does government most good.
Look toward the recent bailouts or even the health care debates. All the pork attached to the health care, like one state not having to pay Medicare or Medicaid any more in order to win the senators vote. You don’t have to search far to see this and I am sure I don’t have to list them all, you get the gist of what is being said here right?
As for the sited work being a favorite of DA’s…that aught to give you pause for alarm. DA’s are part of the judicial branch. The strong arm of the government to control citizens and bend them to government will. This type of stuff is what allows them to legislate from the bench. Too bad people are not familiar with the “Fully Informed Jury”. They could stop this sort of stuff from happening if they wanted to. They simply have not received the education necessary to do so and the judge certainly isn’t going to tell them they have that power.
Needless to say, all of this is off topic. The point was that the welfare system is bad and it needs to go away. Your claim that it or something like it is justified is once again the same thing as the school argument or the privacy argument. The justification was not my point, the fact that its not working is. And you already agree with that fact so to quote you “I win” – LOL, just kidding.
Jonathan,
Take your stratification argument and throw it out the window. In our previous discussion on stratification we have shown that has the government tries to solve that problem by giving money away to the poor it only increased the number of poor in society. Let us not return to the stratification argument and stick to the original point.
The original point being, government intervention is NOT working and we need to do something about it. If you want to play devils advocate with this one prove it wrong. Don’t say they have the obligation to try. I don’t care about their obligation to “try” I care about the result.
JimW
Sorry for being away from the blog for so long. Sometimes being a slave really does take away ones time to do the more pleasurable things eh? LOL
I am certainly a purist at heart, realization is a different story. I would most definitely like to get rid of all taxes since I see them as government legalized theft. Talk about a Federal Mafia – sheesh.
There are plenty of things we can do; I addressed a few of them as being handled from the private end rather then the government end. The idea of the taxes was to just get the money I paid back in my pocket instead of the governments hands. Why should the government have the say as to which charity gets my dollar instead of me.
Of course, we all know that government money never gets to the charity intended; it is always spent where it will do the most government good not the most economic good. If everyone does as you point out, good for them, I hope they get all their money back.
I do not believe that there will not be any money for any government programs. Income taxes are not the only way government makes money. The limit you can receive back is the amount you paid in. You cannot collect more then you paid in.
Of course, in our current system you can. That is one of the flaws of the current system. Total different subject matter so we won’t get into it here.
As for eliminating poverty, why bother doing so? Here in this country, 73 percent of the people living in poverty own their own homes. Poverty in this country is NOT like poverty in other countries. Poverty in this country is based on an arbitrary figure set by the government. All the government does is raise the base amount of their standard of living to keep stratification at a certain level.
They have no intention to solve the problem. If they did there wouldn’t be a problem for them to solve. It is in the government’s best interest to keep poverty going. As I said, government will put money where it does the most political good. Do people not see this?
Demosthenes,
You forgot a very important thing in your list; you forgot that we can put people into office to begin getting all the other stuff done.
While you listed a bunch of things that can be done, you left out how to do it. To accomplish such feats you need one of two things. You need to either put people in office that will do those things or you need to have MASSIVE demonstrations by the general public.
Without these, you will never effect change; we will always have the same problems we have now.
Jonathan,
Why do you avoid answering questions? Demosthenes asked if the “do what it can” was limited to what was available or whether the government should use force to get more resources.
By not answering the question you ruin the conversation and take it off on some tangent somewhere.
Answer the question.
Jonathan,
You link and description shows me that the author does not care about the people only that he wants a controlling government of some sort. I don’t know, haven’t looked up anything about the author, but he sounds almost socialist.
It was my understanding that the Constitution was supposed to be the supreme law of the land. To disregard its content seems to me that he wants to get rid of it and make a new one in favor of a stronger more centralized government.
You want to use this to justify stratification? So what you are implying is that you think government should use force to stratify the people. While you have not out right answered Demosthenes question this is what you are implying by using this citation as your reason for doing so.
LOL – sorry buddy, if the government wants to keep “X” number of people in the “lower class” all they do is raise the standard of living number and whamo – it is done. So if there were 1,000,000 people making 10 thousand or less per year and that was the poverty line. Next year, the government wants more people in poverty so they increase the number from 10,000 to 20,000 per year and smackola. Now the 30,000,000 million people making between 10,000 and 20,000 are suddenly living in poverty.
Your argument for justifying the attempt at throwing money for the need to maintain stratification is useless when all they have to do is change the amount of money needed to measure poverty. Get real here.
This discussion is sooooo moot. I feel as though I have typed volumes of content on this site about these topics and one more comment will not fix the wagon.
Jonathan,
OMG, are you conceding and saying that we “win” – LOL
I would have thought you might relish the chance to jump at the opportunity and go after the method the government uses when changing the poverty level. Guess it is kind of hard to argue with the truth though. That’s the problem with it, it is true and there is no refuting it.
Maybe that is what we should be after in these conversations rather our personal opinions. Uh-Oh – does that mean we now go after the third reason for having a devils advocate?
JimK,
You bring a good point here that buries the idea of throwing money at people to control stratification works. That does not, however, make Jonathans point incorrect. Morally, the government would be justified in maintaining stratification. You are arguing the method and he is arguing the justification. Get on the same page and see where it takes you.
Demosthenes,
I did not bring stratification into the mix here, Jonathan did. My article was about how the government welfare system is NOT working and its time to shut it down in favor of private initiatives. Jonathan appears to bring the stratification argument into the mix to say welfare is good. I disagree and the article says why.
I also see that Jonathan never clearly answered your question about what “to what it can” means. I am guessing that by refusing to answer he does not have to take a stand and he can switch between sides as it works to his favor in the argument.
If he says they are limited to only do what they can with what they have it means he recognizes there is a limit. If he says they can use force he realizes he will be in a whole different argument because then he would be for a totalitarian government not a free people.
By not committing, he maintains a stance of neutrality where he can jump from one side to the other at will. Of course, this will never conclude the conversation unless someone just decides to give up and move on.
JimK, I did answer the “to what it can” question:
“Jonathan Raof
March 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Demonsthenes,
“Do what it can” is correct. The government has a moral obligation to do what it can to provide class stabilization. I believe iIf such efforts need to be done, a direct intervention by government to assit in food, housing, health care, education, etc. Now, this can be done without taxing the people to death. It can be done by simply cutting taxes and placing money back into the hands of the people, so that they can use it for they need. The poor class falls victim to overzealous government intervention that continuously fails, however, while the meaning of providing such services are faulty, I believe the intention is well warranted and constitutionally justified. We just ought to find libertarians ways, like cutting taxes, as a means of class stabilization.
Again, class stabilization is a necessary part of a necessary evil, government. There just ought to be heavy oversight by a vigilant populace, and as such, government efficiency will be high, as will be government accountability.”
And for the record JimK, you did bring up stratification in the context we are all referring too. Your article was talking about Welfare, yet Stratification is a direct cause of the welfare system. Do you think if the poor class was not in the double digits, the welare system would as big as it is? I say NO, with little other causalities to take into consideration. Welare is an attempt to maintain stratification at acceptable levels, however, I agree it is a crappy way of doing things. I provided alternatives which you guys overlooked:
“….Now, this can be done without taxing the people to death. It can be done by simply cutting taxes and placing money back into the hands of the people, so that they can use it for they need. The poor class falls victim to overzealous government intervention that continuously fails, however, while the meaning of providing such services are faulty, I believe the intention is well warranted and constitutionally justified. We just ought to find libertarians ways, like cutting taxes, as a means of class stabilization.
Again, class stabilization is a necessary part of a necessary evil, government. There just ought to be heavy oversight by a vigilant populace, and as such, government efficiency will be high, as will be government accountability.”
Other than that, I don’t know what eles to say, I feel like we are talking about a 1000 things that been taken about 1000 times.
Jonathan,
Jim was referring to my questions
In the context here, if I read it right, it means to do whatever it is capable of doing with what it already has. Is that what you interpret it to mean as well.
Or do you read something else into it like, the government can force people and businesses to do what it wants in order to achieve its goals?
The question was simple enough and you did not anser it. Let me try a different way to see if it makes any better sense.
If the government only has 1,000 dollars to work with, does “do what it can” mean that they ONLY work with that 1,000 dollars specifically or do they use force to acquire more?
Here is the reason I asked. If you agree that they are limited to ONLY use that 1,000 dollars that they already have in their possession, I am inclined to agree with you. However, if you are saying they should go out and TAKE more to achieve the goal then I am not inclined to agree with you.
Does it make sense to you why I asked the question now?
So, no, you have not yet answered the question. You did say the government was justified in trying and you sited things in other articles as well to build your case. The question was not aimed at whether they were justified but whether they are limited in what they do or not.
The limit is what I am asking about and yes, I would like an answer if you don’t mind. Preferably YOUR answer, not a devils advocate answer and a reason behind why you responded that way.
I think this conversation while very interesting misses the point. “What I focus on expands” seems to be a law of the Universe. If we continue to focus on “the poor” and/or poverty guess what? We get MORE of it. Let us instead focus on the creation of wealth. Every human living in the US today is already wealthy compared to the vast majority of the earth’s population. Obama’s own brother lives in Kenya where the average income is said to be less than a dollar a day. Think about that. Let’s educate ourselves to be thankful that capitalism and democracy as we currently know it, has created the wealth we all enjoy. Can we improve on what we have? Absolutely. In my opinion the way to do this is to expand in areas where we are creating wealth. Remove the obstacles from innovation and expand our economy with a focus on benefiting risk takers and entrepreneurs. If a person chooses to be “poor” that is OK however to use force of arms to take from a wealthy person and give to a “poor” person is unjust, unproductive, and unfair to the “poor” and the “wealthy” as well. Let us all focus on increasing wealth through increasing productivity as we have in farming and manufacturing and other indevores. The so called poor in the US will take care of themselves if we simply leave them alone.
Always remember the advice the old farmer gave his son; “Son don’t worry about the mule going blind just load the wagon” We can all “load the wagon” in our particular area of experience. The key is to stay on target. You want a helmet law removed guess what 37 states listened to a very small group that stayed on target. As libertarians we need to pick a POSITIVE target and stay focused. Is it welfare? I think not. Is it creating “wealth” (how ever you define it) for all our citizens? Now there is something I can and will get behind. Let us figure out ways to create MORE Wealthy people. Every Time the productivity of the citizens goes up we are doing EXACTLY that. We are loading the wagon for us all. Let us stay focused on what we want.
Don
Demosthenes,
You ask this grave question:
“If the government only has 1,000 dollars to work with, does “do what it can” mean that they ONLY work with that 1,000 dollars specifically or do they use force to acquire more?”
Government, in acquiring “more”, DOES NOT use force. Why do you assume force will be used? Also, why do assume the government will need to collect “more”? Coupled with that, you assume government collects the same amount of money in taxes as it does on it’s set budget (or the 1,000 dollars you referenced)…there are such things as tax surpluses.
Your explanation was no sufficient to solve back the above.
Jonathan,
You missed the point of the question. Take force out of the equation if you want, I really don’t care. The point being, does the government do what it can within the 1,000 dollars or does it go out and get more from somewhere else.
If it does “what it can” within the 1,000 dollar limit then I can agree with your stipulations. If it goes out and gets more then I cannot agree with it, because when it gets more it is taking it from someone else.
If you want to argue that it can print its own money, then it is still taking from the populace in the hidden tax of inflation.
Taking from Peter against his will to pay Paul is not right. But if you believe it is, give me your address and I will have some people come over there and collect a tax from you to help my family.
Jonathan,
Sad to say Demosthenes is correct. All governments use force to collect taxes. If you fail to pay in the US the government sends out men with guns and you are incarcerated initially and finally after a “trial” sentenced to a prison term. All governments rely on force to extract tax. The mafia just does it Demosthenes way, goons come to your home and beat you or kill you.
Demosthenes,
The government does do “what it can” within the 1,000 dollar limit per your example.
Donald Sheldon,
Did you read the comments with Machiavelli? And the constitutional taxes discussion? These discussions solve back your critique.
Jonathan,
If the government is limited to their budget, how do you justify their actions for this sort of stuff when they are running a deficit?
Doing what they can with ONLY what they have, is one thing. Doing what they can with what they DON’T have is a totally different thing.
If they ONLY deal with what they have then redistribution probably is not bad. It would be no different then you taking money out of your pocket and giving it to some charity. However, if you went and took or borrowed money from someone else to give to your charity, sooner or later that bill will become due.
When it does, how do you pay for it? In all likelihood, you would have saved up and made payments according to the payment you arranged. Not so with the government, they gout and borrow more and make the debt larger.
To get that debt down the government needs to collect more. How does it do that? By force, there is no other way. Your own articles indicated such and said they were morally justified to do so. I don’t see it.
If they break their moral code of staying within the budget, how are they morally justified to use force to fix the problem they created? Usage of one moral to countermand another moral seems a bit hypocritical to say the least. Had they stayed within their moral bounds of the budget to do what they can, you and I probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
I hope now, that you can see, the government using their current methodology to “do what they can” is wrong.
Demosthenes,
In your original example, you never said the government was “running a deficit” and not living within it’s means. So, what the heck are you talking about?
In the original example, I could not get to it because you never answered; you went out of your way to NOT answer the simple question. It was implied that it works within a budget when the words “to do whatever it is capable of doing with what it already has”. But again, you refused to engage in the conversation correctly.
You only wanted to stay on your train of thought rather then talk about what that thought really was or really meant. Kind of makes for a useless conversation when two people are talking at the same time and neither one of them are listening to each other.
Yes, a useless conversation if neither of us are listening to each other; but the fact is, your original misunderstanding of my argument has led us both a tangent, and has made you present a straw man argument. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.
To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Reading back on this thread…and when you say ““to do whatever it is capable of doing with what it already has” as some sort of question, unveiling the answers to the world, you my friend, are a blogging straw man.
Re-Read the thread broseph.
Jonathan,
I don’t see how you can call him a straw man here. He didn’t refute your argument, he asked for clarification which you refused to give (for whatever reason).
I don’t know what to say to these straw men readers…
Jonathan,
When you have nothing to say, say nothing. Many arguments are lost by “saying” too much.
Don
Donald Sheldon,
Did you just loose?
JimK,
Demosthenes has accused me of not engaging this conversation incorrectly; this is his straw man argument.