Franken notes ‘absurdity’ of Rand Paul stance on funding senior hunger act

Wow. “a quick yet solid zinger”? More like an evasion of Sen Paul’s very valid point. If spending more = saving more, is there NOT an upper limit, a point of diminishing returns?

Way to evade, there Al.

Rand Paul is clearly correct in his point. Al Franken is clearly wrong here. Even though Franken is a gifted comedian, I don’t get it how what he said was a zinger.

One would hope Doctor Paul would understand both the health benefits and the cost effectiveness of preventative care. Does he tell his patients to save money by not seeing him for annual exams, risking both their vision and expensive treatments later? Maybe he does.

“He was born without the ability to consider others.” Ayn Rand, guiding philospher of Republicans/Tea Party, sociopath. From The Fountainhead.

“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.” Ayn Rand, on what she admired about murderer William Hickman.

I hope Paul’s let-charities-do-it stance starts applying to subsidies for corporations and agribusiness, and I hope his where’s-the-limit line of questioning also extends to goverment funding for NASCAR, religious institutions and the military.

It’s so refreshing (and rare) to hear a sitting senator talk these days about the “morally right thing to do,” as Sanders does here. Tea partiers and Republicans seem to want to claim religion as their own, but they don’t care one whit about morality. To do so would up-end their me-first mentality that, by necessity, places the common good and doing right by society’s most vulnerable as a distant second behind their own narrow interests.

“Sen. Rand Paul countered that “only in Washington, D.C., can you spend two billion dollars and claim that you’re saving money.””

This is an ignorant statement, but not surprising for Sen. Paul. It’s a commonplace bit of understanding in budgeting to analyze how greater money spent now can generate more revenue or savings in the future. There are innumerable examples of this in business and government.

Rand Paul’s solution of letting private charity deal with social problems is also ill-informed. How is it that a US Senator is so ignorant of public policy history as to not know the fact that private charity has been clearly inadequate to solve some basic problems of human need?

Rand said, “Some of us believe more in the ability of government to cure problems and some of us believe more in the ability of private charity to cure these problems.”

Believing something doesn’t make it true. The simple fact is that for some problems private charity does not have the resources and scope of government. This is not based on a mere belief, but evidence.

Let’s face it, Republicans and Tea Party folk simply want certain people to die and go away. Of course they won’t say this, but their actions speak the truth. In that case, not spending the money would save $$$ in the end. It would also be a huge boost for the mortuary business. So I guess this is their way to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

I love how all of these liberals use the same, completely absurd assumption in this debate:

‘The only way to save starving seniors (and everyone for that matter), is through the power of government. ONLY government can help people. Private charities? Ha, silly Republican!’

All Rand Paul is saying is that maybe private charities can help people better than the bureaucratic federal government. Think about it: If you had $100 to donate to fight hunger, would you feel more comfortable donating that money to the Red Cross or to the federal government?

I LOVE Eric’s comment, “The simple fact is that for some problems private charity does not have the resources and scope of government.” Yeah, thank your liberal high taxes for that!

Bopper, GP, P. Andrew, Eric, Kevin, I couldn’t agree more and I can’t say it any better than you have. Thank you.

Does Paul actually have any evidence that private charities would have the resources, volunteers or even desire to handle the influx of sick and dying elderly? I mean, if you’re going to advocate moving social services to charity it seems like you’d spend lots of time researching policies and logistics and developing a solid over-arching communications structure between them to coordinate care and to reduce the chances of overlapping — unless of course you believe their actual well-being is simply not your problem.
Paul is intellectually vacant and ethically bankrupt.

[...] Posted on June 24, 2011 by Kathy That’s Rand Paul, at least at the moment, and he continues to earn that [...]

WOW!
Even a 1st grader knows that an ounce of prevention is woth a pound of cure.
And this guy’s a doctor?
WOW!

The religious right won’t be satisfied until Americans in need have no where to go but religious organizations for help. Their strategy has nothing to do with charity but rather represents a cynical and very UN-Christlike power play with Theocracy the goal.

Dr. Paul, tell Doug Coe he IS the putative Antichrist.

Praise Jebus, God hates the sufferer, Amen.

The right tells us you’re poor because you are lazy or you just didn’t work hard enough. If you’re not a Christain, you’re not my brother,…..so charity from the Christian right is not an option for you. Get a job grandpa!

Our social programs and regulations to protect people exist because our government reflects our morals and values, not a specific religion. What are these new values of the right and tea party? The right needs to clarify if they worship God or Ayn Rand. It can’t be both.

“Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.” Ayn Rand

Jesus said, “Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me.” These will ask Him, “When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?” And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”

What Paul really wants to do is cut all funding that in any way serves an altruistic purpose because altruism is the cardinal sin of Ann Rand’s devotees. Self interest is the highest good in the world to these people. They are not their brother’s keeper. They do not believe in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

History has shown again and again that private charity can never heal all the wounds that the real world can inflict. There is a gap that must be filled if citizens do not want to step over the dying in the gutter.

Paul and his followers are pennywise and pound foolish. They will deny small help to the needy today and doom us to paying far more to repair the damage tomorrow. They are sociopaths without empathy, without feeling, without affect. They are repugnant to all who seek to live an moral life.

Bopper, GP. P. Andrew and Kevin and Pickwick. You inspire. After reading so many harsh damning words about the poor and their inability to help themselves, your words are so comforting. The tbaggers and GOP allies including FOX are so harsh, inhumane and ruthless, and widespread, that is seems sometime that is all the world has to offer and that our country has really devolved into the stone age “survival of the fittest”. It really is comforting to know that liberals are alive, well and fighting back.
We cannot let the repugs get a hold of SS or Medicare. And Benton Harbor, MI is the poster child for TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The tbaggers are pretenders. They use LUNTZ formulated rhetoric, but act like the barbarians they long to be. The poor are not the enemy of the state, the workers are not the enemy. the true enemies of the state are greed and lust as promoted by the GOP and the plutocrats they serve.

Homer wrote,

“Think about it: If you had $100 to donate to fight hunger, would you feel more comfortable donating that money to the Red Cross or to the federal government?

I LOVE Eric’s comment, “The simple fact is that for some problems private charity does not have the resources and scope of government.” Yeah, thank your liberal high taxes for that!”

Ok, let’s think about it.

1) If private charitable giving were sufficient, then we wouldn’t be seeing increased need when the level of government social investment stayed the same. But, as is obvious, we do see increased need. The churches and charities aren’t picking up the slack.

2) Your question rests on a false conception, namely, that the government is something “out there” and we have nothing to do with it. Rather, in a democratic system the legislators are in some sense doing the will of the people. That $100 the government is spending on charity already reflects your decision.

3) Economists have already looked at the question of what people do with tax cuts. If every American receives $100 more due to a tax cut, their rate of charitable giving does not equal $100. I’ve seen the statistics on this previously, but can’t locate the article to give you some exact numbers. But one thing is absolutely certain, that $100 is not 100% donated to charity. Thus, tax cuts won’t ever equal the loss to government investment.

4) Lastly, you give the appearance of falling into a familiar economic fallacy. It’s the mistaken belief that taxes are a zero sum game. That is, every tax dollar you pay is a net loss to the individual. If this were true, then you’d expect that countries with the highest tax rates would have the lowest scores on measures of well-being (health, infant mortality, rates of mental illness, crime levels, teen pregnancy rates, etc.). In fact, just the opposite appears to be the case.

Government has no money – yet is spends incessestanly. How is this possible?

Well, when government passes a spending bill, it directs the US Treasury to order up credit from the Federal Reserve. So if Congress passes a $2 bln “feed the elderly” bill, the Treasury orders up from the Federal Reserve $2 bln worth of Federal Reserve credit. This increase in the credit supply diminishes the purchasing power of the entire credit supply.

By federal law, one unit of Federal Reserve credit must be at par value with the US Dollar. So everytime government spends, the purchasing power of the US Dollar is diminished. The cost of living increases.

The very aid that people like Franken advocates is the same aid that increases the cost of liiving for those that receive the aid. This is why people like Rand Paul and Ron Paul argue that charity should not the role of government. These two men do not advocate government aid to anyone: not to corporations, not to foreign nations, not to individuals.

It’s better for aid to come from the private sector. The private sector cannot order up large amounts of Federal Reserve credit, and therefore cannot diminish purchasing power of the money supply.

Gentlemen like Rand and Ron Paul contend that the core of everything wrong in America, including the inability for seniors to afford food and shelter, can be solved by first replacing the current monetary system of credit with the Constitutional system of gold and solver.

Recently, I spend about $65 to get my car an oil change, tires rotated, and a general check-up. The mechanic told me that one of my tires needed to be replaced, and I did it for about $100.

What DIDN’T happen was that my tire didn’t go flat on the way to work, causing me to miss a day’s pay. I also didn’t have to pay to have my car towed. Obviously, I would’ve had to have my tired changed anyway. But at least I didn’t have to worry about future damage from driving, no matter how briefly, on a flat tire.

It is hard to figure Senator Frankin out. While he is correct in backing the 1965 OAA, his Obama water-boy act in supporting the extension of the BUSH/OBAMA tax cuts for the wealthy and the Obama payroll tax cut (which will come right out of the Social Security Trust Fund) is hard to reconcile. No doubt Frankin will support O’s upcoming proposal to cut the employer payroll contribution to said fund as a jobs creator (tax cuts as a jobs creator?…where have we heard that before?). Mr Frankin, REALITY CHECK: Tax cuts DO NOT CREATE JOBS. This supply-side crap is what we would expect from Republicans, but you and Obama are supposed to be smarter than this. Well, at least that was the assumption when we voted for you guys. Years from now when the SS Fund is compromised by these payroll cuts the ’65 OAA will hardly make up the difference. Senator, put down the water…if Obama wants to embrace this failed Milton Freedman agenda, it’s time you and he part company.
leftbank

Senator Franken’s detractors would no doubt prohibit their own businesses from directing profits toward research and development since one cannot spend money to make it.

Praise Jebus, God hates a good business model, Amen.

Sanders comes across as a mealy-mouthed demagogue throughout this whole exchange, talking about the “threat” of hunger, and the “risk” of hunger, as if it were the same thing as the reality of hunger. At the very least he could have directly considered Paul’s observation that “folding” the money into a different program might be more cost effective. Perhaps a $2 billion tax credit for families with elderly relatives living at home? Not only would this “spend” the same $2 billion, but it would address the problem with dementia in the elderly who, despite Franken and Sanders assertion to the contrary, should NOT be living at home alone!

Charitable giving is already strained. Food shelves, tornado victims, flood victims, veteran support programs, medical programs, and so many more – money that goes into general economic stability, but not necessarily economic growth.

Thanks to stagnant wages, high unemployment, and tight credit, the capacity for charity and economic recovery at the same time is rather limited.

Because the problems that conservatives want to dump on the fickleness and limited resources of charity are problems that stunt economic growth and hurt the citizens of this country, it is appropriate for the government to deal with them under the “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare” mandates of the Constitution.

If society could solve these problems on it’s own, it would have by now. A government of, by, and for the people is the embodiment of society banding together to solve the problems that cannot be solved piecemeal. Conservatives call this socialism, and would rather defend failure than embrace responsibility.

Question to the polarizers out there, Carl specifically.

How do you explain that I, as one who is more libertarian-learning these days (and ergo, do not align with the religious right) also do not believe the capabilities of the bereaucratic behemoth exceed those of the private, razorly-focused, (secular and religious) charitable organizations out there?

Secondly, would not costs on the American people also be reduced if we didn’t subsidize other people’s health? Or at least not as drastically? Certainly there are a few people out there who need assistance, and a broad, last-resort safety net is certainly appropriate, but the _primary_ source of food and health care for most seniors, our government should NOT be.

Additionally, I do the difficult thing and take good care of my body. A slim figure is NOT in my genes and I’ve put a lot of work into exercise and nutritional discipline. It seems unfair that I am forced to subsidize other people’s bad habits. I give charitably, I want to help people, and I’m not adverse to gov’t programs as a last resort, but I feel like I should decide where my charitable giving lands. Taxes are supposed to be the working will of the people, after all, are they not?

@Clive,

Polarizer?

First, I’m not responsible for explaining your opinions, that’s your job. But specifically which “bereaucratic (sic) behemoth” would you replace and with which “razorly-focused” charitable organization? Charities are more subject to economic swings than our government, this puts people at greater risk exactly when they need help.

Second, Why do the countries with the healthiest citizens and highest quality health care systems have the highest tax rates? We ” subsidize other people’s health” no matter if they are insured or not through a variety of mechanisms you would know if you bothered to research the subject. Plus, try telling seniors they cannot receive retirement and health benefits from a system they have paid into their entire lives.

Additionally, yes Americans are an unhealthy lot. Good job maintaining your “slim figure.” But you DO decide where your money goes by directing donations yourself and voting for those that would use your money as you see fit. Yours, however, is not the only opinion and so government assistance becomes a compromise between conflicting wills rather than the monolithic “working will” you describe.

I, on the other hand, would like back the billions spent bailing out Wall Street, cleaning up after private industries, undoing the damage from religious zealots of all kind and the jobs sent overseas by so called patriots.

Praise Jebus, God hates conflict, Amen.

Mr. “War Monger” Al Franken.
Didn’t Al campaign against “war”?

All you, that voted for Al because he campaigned on the “Anti-War” model, must really feel like chumps….

Democrats: Mob ready fools, that stand for nothing.

Kirk, what’s the relevance of your comment to this story? Per our comment policies, please keep your comments relative to the topic at hand if you’d like to keep commenting here.

Just pointing out that Al Franken is a habitual liar.
What he says today, may not be how he truly feels.
Maybe it’s not Al.
Maybe it’s the party corrupting Al.

Either way, Al lies!

“Bureaucratic” – yeah, yeah, no need to point out my spelling error as a subtle implication of my intelligence, or anything. I’m not a walking dictionary, thanks.

The “bureaucratic behemoth” isn’t one entity. It the entanglement of all entities, inefficient and corrupt which slow down progress and waste our precious tax dollars. And they wouldn’t be replaces by any one charity or even handful of charities.

Smaller, local services are always going to better meet the needs of their local population. Hell, even if the “charitable” works were relegated to local government, I would be much more content because they would be completely transparent and my personal voice WOULD be heard… as opposed to fighting for independents and no-names who represent me but never get elected.

“Why do the countries with the healthiest citizens and highest quality health care systems have the highest tax rates?” — Correlation =/=> Causation. Europe tends to drive less, bike more, walk more, eat more natural foods, and have a higher activity-level in general… not that that proves anything either, but I bet if you took away the healthcare, they’d still be the healthiest around… and I doubt you could say the same thing, if you took away the walking, biking, etc… Just a thought.

RE Subsidizing other people’s health: I have read other material on the topic, and have yet to find one without some sort of flaw in logic – typically by displacing health care with some other government program/entity, and other times by talking exclusively about health issues that aren’t self-inflicted. Certainly there are some situations in which the unfortunate legitimately can’t afford XYZ, or their insurance company was a sonofabitch and unjustly yanked their coverage. That’s why I fully support a government safety net as a last resort – not as a primary mechanism of health insurance (and since you mentioned it, retirement).

“Plus, try telling seniors they cannot receive retirement and health benefits from a system they have paid into their entire lives.” — I didn’t imply this or anything close to it.

“I, on the other hand, would like back the billions spent bailing out Wall Street, cleaning up after private industries, undoing the damage from religious zealots of all kind[...]” — This is not “on the other hand.” I want those dollars back too. I was mostly wondering if there was anything more to your argument than a bash against the religious right.

Just as you want to eliminate church from state, I want to eliminate any sort of moral compass from the state. This includes chairtable work, demonizing personal behavior / victimless crimes, the definition of marriage altogether, etc… There’s a basic rule of law and level of social service that should be maintained (far, from anachry, mind you – I’m not one of those) yet a mere fraction of the mess we have today. I think we’re evolved enough as a society to take care of our own needs, and only in rare cases should we petition government to intervene. It’s the 21st century after all, yet we almost see the many arms of government as the roman gods of yore… Pathetic, really.

“How do you explain that I, as one who is more libertarian-learning these days (and ergo, do not align with the religious right) also do not believe the capabilities of the bereaucratic behemoth exceed those of the private, razorly-focused, (secular and religious) charitable organizations out there?”

It’s only somewhat a matter of belief. There are some legitimate value arguments for and against government involvement.

But it’s also matter of evidence and pragmatic rationality. Indicators of human need can be measured, and so can the ability of service organizations, governmental or private, to meet those needs.

There are countless examples of how the private sector fails to address pressing problems. There are also plenty of examples of the private sector identifying and meeting needs that the government has not yet addressed.

The lesson? If you choose to believe ahead of time that you already have a solution to a problem before any information about the problem is in hand–the private sector is always to be preferred to the public–your libertarianism becomes a secular religious belief, a faith-based belief system.

Comment II

Clive,

You wrote,
“Smaller, local services are always going to better meet the needs of their local population.”

You just presented a verbal argument, not one based on any evidence.

Plus, why should anyone accept your assumptions? Why must a local service be smaller? What about the postal service? Why is smaller “always” better? What about economies of scale? At a deeper, level, what about the fact that through research we can make discoveries about universal patterns of behavior and thus respond on a large scale to these patterns? You claim that local and smaller is always better, and yet elsewhere in your comments you state support for a government safety net, which is by definition not local and not small. Do you see this as a contradiction?

“Just as you want to eliminate church from state, I want to eliminate any sort of moral compass from the state.”

Do you understand what you’re saying here? Every budgetary decision is a moral decision. If we spend $100 on building more roads, that is $100 we’re not spending on something else, like protecting an endangered species. Value judgments are necessarily involved in budgetary decisions. Therefore, if you want to “eliminate any sort of moral compass from the state” then you essentially have to be opposed to any government spending at all, since any spending will necessarily reflect moral judgments about what to spend money on.

@Clive

Clive wrote, “I was mostly wondering if there was anything more to your argument than a bash against the religious right(?)”

I sense this is the heart of your tension with me. My opinion is as I wrote above, namely that the religious right won’t be satisfied until Americans in need have no where to go but religious organizations for help. Their strategy has nothing to do with charity but rather represents a cynical and very UN-Christlike power play with Theocracy the goal. I’m not bashing anyone but warning that we in the US have our own religious extremists with their own agenda and it includes a religious state in America.

Clive also wrote, “Just as you want to eliminate church from state, I want to eliminate any sort of moral compass from the state.”

Clive, our Constitution bans government imposition of any religion in the first clause of the first amendment. So I am not alone. But how would one, “eliminate any sort of moral compass from the state(?)” Governments allocate limited resources and this requires making moral judgements. Hopefully these judgements are based on fact and reality rather than myth and voodoo but moral judgements they are. I don’t see how your preference is even possible.

As to the relocation and contraction of social services to local entities, please see Eric’s posts. Hope that helps.

Praise Jebus, God hates the poor and needy, Amen.

Dear God in heaven, why isn’t this a simple debate? Every sane person knows you need to apply money in a preventative, maintenance-oriented measure in order to avoid breakdown of a system later on, which will nearly always require more money to fix than it would have required to maintain.

Rand Paul’s response of “how much money is required, where does it end” is an abdication of responsibility as a member of government. Your JOB, Senator Paul, is to determine how much money is required, and then you can enact your role of fiscal responsibility by capping it at that. You don’t just throw up your hands and say no money should be provided at all.

“The lesson? If you choose to believe ahead of time that you already have a solution to a problem before any information about the problem is in hand–the private sector is always to be preferred to the public–your libertarianism becomes a secular religious belief, a faith-based belief system.”

1) I didn’t ask for your lesson. 2) I am not a libertarian, just more libertarian-leaning. Now that I’ve grown out of my wide-eyed, yay-government college phase and entered the “real world,” I’ve actually SEEN the failures of our federal government start to pile up, and I’ve become less convinced over time of their capability to actually solve problems… at least in its current form with the corruption and the partisan politics and the whatnot.

I didn’t say “smaller is always better.” I said smaller local companies (and I’d like to add “governments”) meet the needs of their local population better. They have to. In the case of a company that doesn’t resonate with its patrons, they won’t stay in business long! In the case of government, come the next election, there will be new representatives that better reflect the will of the people.

In contrast, large companies and government are more apt to employ a one-size-fits all strategy, in order to take advantage of those economies of scale. Some people will prefer the cost savings, sure, but if you want products and services that are catered to your needs, you don’t go to Wal*Mart.

The “economy of scale” argument begins to screech to a halt with government, as there is almost no effort to keep operations as lean as possible. Quite the opposite, in fact. In the eyes of a government worker, a fat government is a healthy government, and therefore, a service to the people. Little does our government know that it is morbidly obese.

BTW, not a great idea, bringing up the USPS. The postal service is going bankrupt, if you haven’t heard! They already outsource a significant portion of their parcel service to UPS and FedEx, who can deliver cheaper and faster! The flat-price first-class-mail stamp is destroying that business, but that’s a discussion for another day.

No, there’s absolutely no contradiction to supporting a last-resort safety net, despite preferring local businesses and government. I’m so perplexed at the illogic of that statement that I’m not even sure how to respond… Let’s say it like this. The optimal solution is for individuals to attain goods and services from the private business of their choosing. For those having a rough time, local charities should be the first line of defense. They will inevitably be unable to reach everyone in need, and those people should reach out to the services of their local government. Between these two avenues, 95% of those in need should be serviced. For the remaining 5%, there should be broad catch-all programs from a Federal-gov’t level as a last resort.

Also lacking logic is your retort to my separation of government and morality. Civil infrastructure is not moral decision at all, but a question of what is a practical and necessary construction. Protecting an endangered species, despite how important you and I believe it to be, is not a universally shared moral obligation and should not be forced on those who don’t agree with our viewpoint on the matter. Even though it may have an ecological impact and serious consequences, it’s not government’s job to champion any sort of planetary or societal “greater-good,” only carry out the will of the people it represents. For government to act on what is perceived as a “greater-good” necessitates a universal (or near-universal) moral code, which, simply, does not exist. To force that moral code upon those who disagree with it is no better than forcing a religion onto them. In a free society, this is simply unacceptable.

That’s not to say that government absolutely should not partake in actions that would be viewed as charitable. As you and I know, there are practical reasons for government to service the poor. I know very few people, liberal or conservative (and even libertarian), who are vehemently opposed to a government safety net. I also know many (if not most) people are indeed moved to help those less fortunate. Would this, then, imply a near-universally espoused moral obligation? One that government could act upon? Government is a vehicle of the people after all. If the voters agree to charitable action, then so be it… But there’s a caveat.

See, I’m not a total disbeliever or naysayer in the powers and abilities of government. I’ve been disenfranchised by big government, corruption, inefficiency, slimy politics, back-door deals, special interests, cronyism… and worst of all, no voice to stop it. I think a lot of people are disenfranchised by these things. I also think many people are confused by what libertarianism is (small “L” libertarianism, anyway): maximizing freedom.

Government involvement doesn’t necessarily decrease freedom, much to the contrary of what many conservatives (and even some other libertarians) proclaim. Marriage is voluntary two-person communism! So if a town of thirty people agrees that 80% of their income goes to government for charitable action, then it’s no harm, no foul. But should one person could disagree, he could argue for 70%, talk it out amongst the townsfolk, and reach a compromise that is mutually agreeable. Severe problems start to appear, however, when your voter-pool grows.

Consider a group of a million people, and let’s say that all might agree to a generous charitable donation somewhere between 50% and 80%, but where exactly is a point of fierce debate. Unless something mutually agreeable can be decided upon, there are going to be some disenfranchised people out there. Worse, against the crowd, they feel their voice is no longer heard. They get upset. They feel like their hands are tied and that they’ve lost their freedom of choice on the matter. Suddenly they don’t want to participate at all, and want to take charitable action into their own hands.

The bigger the umbrella of government gets, the more one-size-fits-all it becomes, and the less able it is to cope with the many diverse needs/desires of each unique person. Even a small government won’t be 100% capable of accommodating its constituents, but it will at least have the benefit of regional similarities, being leaner, more nimble, having more transparency and oversight, and being more responsive to voter-feedback.

Small, local, efficient government is “government done right.” If one doesn’t agree to the terms (s)he can _realistically_ work to change those terms, or easily move to a place where his/her beliefs are represented. Small government can be a platonic vehicle for those with a moral agenda, WITHOUT stomping on the freedoms of others.

Of course, the people who are most vehemently opposed to this viewpoint are most focused on imparting their moral compass on others through the force of a large centralized government. So if you found yourself saying, “but what about these issues, or these people, or these projects?” you are likely one of these people. In that case, please take a step back and consider the implications of imposing a moral code (i.e. a “religion”) on a population who doesn’t necessarily agree with you. This is supposed to be a country free from the oppression of other people’s beliefs.

-Clive

John R.,

I completely agree.

So, what’s going on when people like Ron Paul make silly statements?

I wonder if we’re witnessing a general decline in the ability of people to think critically. (Or, maybe it’s the case that the 24/7 news cycle and the always-on internet magnify ever misstep.)

Clive,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. My response follows.

First, let me say that even if you are only “leaning” libertarian, the nature of your arguments puts you solidly within the its pastures.

You wrote,
“I didn’t say “smaller is always better.” But then, how do you explain this quote from you?: “Smaller, local services are always going to better meet the needs of their local population.”

You also wrote, “I said smaller local companies (and I’d like to add “governments”) meet the needs of their local population better.” You didn’t actually specify “local companies.” I thought that was perhaps what you intended to write, but you didn’t.

You wrote,
“In contrast, large companies and government are more apt to employ a one-size-fits all strategy, in order to take advantage of those economies of scale.”

My sense is that you don’t understand what a gross generalization that is and how many counterexamples apply. You seem to be operating on the assumption that through some kind of pure reason you can figure out how the world works, that you can reduce it to simple verbal formulas that apply in all cases.

You wrote,
“The “economy of scale” argument begins to screech to a halt with government, as there is almost no effort to keep operations as lean as possible. Quite the opposite, in fact. In the eyes of a government worker, a fat government is a healthy government, and therefore, a service to the people. Little does our government know that it is morbidly obese.”

Here again is a greatly overstated generalization, almost meaningless. Examples of waste and inefficiency are legion at all levels and scales, public or private, as well as example of lean operational efficiency. You actually have to be out in the world and looking at how it works to see this. You can’t merely declare these things from unempirical principles on high.

And, just to be clear, the size of government isn’t necessarily a reasonable indication of whether it is “bloated” or not. Making this analysis requires another set of criteria.

You wrote,
“No, there’s absolutely no contradiction to supporting a last-resort safety net, despite preferring local businesses and government.”

Of course there’s not. But that’s not the argument that you initially began with. You made the statement (re-read your own comments) “Smaller, local services are always going to better meet the needs of their local population.”

Now, if you’re going to be using absolute language like “always”, it’s easy as pie for someone to find counterexamples that will throw your views into self-contradiction.

You wrote,
“Also lacking logic is your retort to my separation of government and morality. Civil infrastructure is not moral decision at all, but a question of what is a practical and necessary construction.”

The way you phrased your second sentences implies that you’re ignoring the thrust of my argument. My argument was that budgetary decisions are always trade-offs, and that decision-making about how to spend a finite amount of money necessarily involves making a value or moral judgment about whether X, Y, or Z is more important and by how much. In your wording, you appear to miss this point and instead have shifted the point of my argument from a normative to a methodological frame. But even here you run into self-contradiction because there’s always an underlying ‘why’ question as to maintenance of civil infrastructure, namely, why do we repair roads (or bridges or water purification systems) in the first place, and what is the priority or road repair relative to providing health insurance to low income citizens?

You wrote,
“Protecting an endangered species, despite how important you and I believe it to be, is not a universally shared moral obligation and should not be forced on those who don’t agree with our viewpoint on the matter.”

So, if we’re to surface the underlying principle of your above statement–anything that does not enjoy 100% agreement of the population should not have tax revenue spent on it–then it’s fair to conclude that you would also support the following proposition: Since there isn’t one thing that government does that has 100% support, then government would likely entirely cease to exist, and this would be a good thing.

I might also point out that your statement here implicitly contradicts a previous statement of yours: “For the remaining 5%, there should be broad catch-all programs from a Federal-gov’t level as a last resort.” This is not universally agreed upon. There are many libertarians and objectivists who believe that the government has no role to play here. Thus, on your very own logic, there should be no government social safety net. So, which is it? Later you go on to write that compromise can be made with people who disagree. Sometimes this is true.

You wrote,
“The bigger the umbrella of government gets, the more one-size-fits-all it becomes, and the less able it is to cope with the many diverse needs/desires of each unique person.”

You don’t seem to realize that this is a viewpoint not based on evidence. It has some kind of vague self-evidential appeal, but that appears to be the case only on the basis of the verbal formula you are using which equates large scale with incapability of handling individual differences. If you repeat this enough it might take on a self-evident feel to you, but it’s far from obvious this is how the real world works.

You wrote,
“I also think many people are confused by what libertarianism is (small “L” libertarianism, anyway): maximizing freedom.”

Libertarianism has never been about maximizing freedom in the sense of freedom that most people believe in. Most people believe in the freedom to live in clean environments and to not have artificial barriers placed on their ability to receive an education or advance their careers. They believe in the freedom to access information and knowledge. They believe in being free from the threat of destitution if a catastrophic medical illness hits them.

Libertarians don’t advocate for this kind of freedom. They seem to think that the only freedom that matters is an absence of government coercion.

But there are a great many factors that militate against freedom that have nothing directly to do with government–traditional values, insular and dogmatic communities of belief (usually religious), poverty, ignorance, inability to think, custom, conformity, concentrations of corporate power, etc. Libertarians at the professional level–for instance at the Cato Institute–have no interest at the policy level in working against these forms of unfreedom. Ironically, it is often government that can break the steel grip of many of these forms of unfreedom.

Also ironically it is libertarianism that in many instances is one of the staunchest opponents of doing anything to reduce the level of unfreedom many people face.

The notion that libertarianism is the biggest defender of freedom among political viewpoints is pure fiction.

Congratulations, you can parse my quotations to catch me in a textual trap. I didn’t say “local companies” the first time. That means you win DEBATE GAME!

You clearly read where I said I wasn’t a libertarian (party), yet you immediately follow it by assigning libertarianism (party) upon me. Even when I point out there is a difference between ‘libertarian’ and ‘Libertarian’ (hint: one is a political party to which I do not subscribe, the other is a generic ideological philosophy) you blantantly chose the incorrect definition. Either you truly do not know what small-”L” libertarian philosophy is, or, again, you’re WINNING DEBATE GAME!

My favorite part was when you ignored the huuuuuuuuuge chunk of my post where I acknowledge that government does work (again, how less Libertarian can I get?) and instead, respond about how failed Libertarianism is in practice. IT’S BACK, BACK, WAAAAAAAAY BACK, AND GONNNNNNNNNE! HE WINS DEBATE GAME!

It’s easy to win Debate Game when you put words in my mouth (i.e. Eric: “…your above statement–anything that does not enjoy 100% agreement of the population should not have tax revenue spent on it…”) especially when I clearly said something entirely opposite (Clive: “Even a small government won’t be 100% capable of accommodating its constituents…”)

FAIL. TRY AGAIN.

First off I would like to say thank you to all people who participate here. I read the Hill as well and many of comments are neither helpful or a learning experience.

I do believe the 24/7 news magnifies the issue. As well Ron Paul new he was being up surd. Everyone is becoming so polarized people feel they have to push the limits often beyond common courtesy.

I would also like to point out many articles here a labeling. Far right, far left centrist etc. I know that all are not written here but are gleaned from other news sources. The point still stands.

Reporting is often insinuating more than informing.

Clive,

You may feel this is a debate “game”, but I’m just trying to have a discussion with you.

You wrote,
“You clearly read where I said I wasn’t a libertarian (party), yet you immediately follow it by assigning libertarianism (party) upon me.”

Incorrect. I’m identifying and critiquing libertarian arguments that you make. Whether that makes you a camp follower of the Libertarian Party or whether that makes you a believer in some of their views, or both, or neither, is immaterial. Your tendency is to make arguments that only libertarians would typically make. That’s what I’m criticizing, and that’s the only germane issue here.

You wrote,
“My favorite part was when you ignored the huuuuuuuuuge chunk of my post where I acknowledge that government does work (again, how less Libertarian can I get?) and instead, respond about how failed Libertarianism is in practice. IT’S BACK, BACK, WAAAAAAAAY BACK, AND GONNNNNNNNNE! HE WINS DEBATE GAME!”

If you re-read my post you’ll realize that I was criticizing the libertarian arguments you were making. I have no disagreement with the notion that government can work, obviously, which is why I didn’t bother responding to those claims.

You wrote,
“It’s easy to win Debate Game when you put words in my mouth (i.e. Eric: “…your above statement–anything that does not enjoy 100% agreement of the population should not have tax revenue spent on it…”) especially when I clearly said something entirely opposite (Clive: “Even a small government won’t be 100% capable of accommodating its constituents…”)”

I’m quoting you in order to draw attention to the mutually contradictory statements you had in your comments. If you don’t parse your own viewpoints sufficiently to notice the apparent internal contradictions, please don’t shoot the messenger.

Just nod to Paul’s logic.I know, Some more “compassionate conservatism” at work.With Paul’s logic It’s cheaper to let seniors who no longer have resources or family get hungry, ill, etc and ship them off at huge expense to warehouse them rather than to keep them at home as long as possible and make sure they are getting the nourishment and attention they need at home.

I am appreciative of the dialogue between Clive and Eric. I read now and then about libertarian politics; Eric’s comments helped me to finally understand why despite keeping an open mind, I just couldn’t embrace any aspect of libertarianism due to my sensing those contradictions including ignoring the reality of the many “unfreedoms” that we still experience.

As for “Interesting Debate,” his comment is hogwash. Government spending is funded by taxes, fees and borrowing. Borrowing is accomplished by selling various instruments such as bonds and securities with ongoing interest payments and redemptions. Accounting systems track this with proper, diligent auditing preventing manipulation of numbers. I also am not aware of any funny money pulled out of thin air.

This is totally separate from the Federal Reserve System which is charged with managing the money supply.

I am skeptical that the “constitutional system of gold and silver” would meet our economic needs in this digital, global economy with fluctuating currencies that respond to a variety of factors such as trade, national debt, government borrowing and sometimes defaulting, availability of credit and how it is managed, employment levels and so on. A gold dollar coin is the same “legal tender” value as a paper dollar; we won’t get into the increased likelihood of that coin being shaved for the valuable, precious, relatively scarce metal … and I don’t want to lug around bags of coins and experience long checkout lines as customers and cashiers count out the coins and …

If the value of gold/silver in the coin is more than the par value of that coin, people WILL hoard/melt down that coin. This will cause a shortage of legal tender currency which will dampen economic activity.

The population increases. Economic activity increases. Suppose either or both exceeds the growth in gold/silver supply from mining to make more coins to keep up, what happens? A shortage of legal tender currency which will dampen economic activity.

These further explain my skepticism.

Switching from federal reserve notes to gold/silver certificates redeemable at any time for metal would not solve anything. For one thing, most, if not all, of our metal reserves would have transferred to drug lords or countries where we’ve incurred trade deficits. Less metal translates to either a shrinking supply of legal tender currency to facilitate economic activity or more printed dollar certificates per unit of metal i.e. inflation …

In other words, there is nothing so tangible as the word “faith” when it comes to money whether it be federal reserve notes, gold/silver certificates, bonds, securities, wampum and 1′s/0′s on computerized bank accounts.

Lane,

I’m honored I could add to your evolving perspective.

I’m also grateful for your comments about money and the gold/silver standard. Concepts of money have always left me a little baffled. Your comments help clear some of my haze.

-Eric

Eric,

I think you need to reassess what you wrote. Much of your comment is, in fact, in retort to libertarian (party) philosophies that I never espoused, and in some cases I even POINTED OUT that libertarians would disagree with me. While you admit that you did not reply to the parts of my argument to which you agree, you also fail to factor them into your assessment of my political ideology.

So let me lay it out there for you so your next comments are not so party-compartmentalized: I am an independent. (As I mentioned,) I used to be a liberal big-government cheerleader. Over time, seeing the failures of our Federal Government and the corrupt, pontificating, overreaching, satellite buffoons in congress, I’ve instead endorsed small, tangible, malleable government. Not the near-anarchy that Libertarians (party) endorse.

Even during my days as a solid liberal, I have always believed that the private sector can do things cheaper and more efficiently than government 98% of the time. There are a few situations (the remaining 2%) where this is not true (ironically, those 2% are the ones we hear about 98% of the time) where private industry has become corrupt or monopolistic, or simply has no reach or incentive to act (i.e. civil construction, welfare). These are the situations where government should intervene.

As I said before, I’ve been disenfranchised (as many of us have) by big government, corruption, inefficiency, slimy politics, back-door deals, special interests, cronyism… and worst of all, no voice to stop it. The solution, I believe, isn’t to strip government out of the equation, but to chop it up into smaller, more manageable bits. That way, there is more transparency and oversight, and less of this big hulking singular and far-away Federal entity, forcing everyone under it to adhere to a single, not-easily-agreeable set of policies.

Since this scenario doesn’t exist in practice, OF COURSE I have to speak in broad theoretical statements. The sentiment that [larger entity] => [more one-size-fits-all], for example, is not a universal law as you point out, but it is generally the case. All beliefs are built on axioms, and my belief in smaller, local government is based on this axiom (amongst others).

So now I will let you try again to respond to my comments. I hope you can show me some legitimate criticism to MY arguments, and not libertarian (party) philosophy.

-Clive

@Lane,

Thanks to you, as well from me. Money (more importantly, “value”) has been difficult to truly grasp the concept of. So, in your view then, would you say that the only thing that will reign in the “value of the dollar” be a finite global currency? BitCoins FTW???

-Clive

Hello Clive,

Please allow me to suggest that you’re still not grasping one of my points. That point is that it’s irrelevant if you are a libertarian or are not a libertarian. You were in fact making textbook libertarian statements, whether or not you were aware you were doing this. Other statements of yours were not libertarian, which prompted me to point out the contradiction.

I should also note that you’ve failed to respond to a number of my criticisms.

Just because part of the American Flag is blue and other parts aren’t doesn’t make the flag’s color a contradiction. Likewise, there is no contradiction in having an ideology that has some liberalism, some conservatism, and some libertarianism.

…unless you believe a political ideology is a light-switch where either you’re all libertarian or you’re not.

I will respond to your criticisms when they apply to my arguments/ideology.

Yes, the concept of “value” that money represents is difficult to grasp, much less envision.

The Chinese renminbi may soon take its place alongside the dollar, euro and Japanese yen as fully convertible reserve currencies depending on whether Beijing adopts of some of the necessary free-market changes to its current tight currency policies.

To go on would violate the comment policies as this particular discussion doesn’t really tie in with the article. Suffice it to say that for me, money is but a tool; it does not make a person.

Compared to how federal reserve notes are issued and managed, one would think there would be a similar if not greater uproar at the business community issuing out of thin air billions and billions of dollars worth of coupons every year, not always honoring those coupons presented for redemption. Coupons is but another form of currency.

Okey doke.

To answer Clive’s question, the greatest single impact more than anything on the continued soundness of the dollar is how we Americans deal with the ongoing federal deficits, trade imbalances and the national debt. Sometimes we can be our own worst enemy.

Okey doke. For real!?!

..and as Former Congressman Alan Grayson (D) stated,…the GOP Health Care Plan = DIE,and DIE quickly

@Lane,

Pardon me for asking, but isn’t that kind of like saying, “the only way to reign in the dollar is to reign in the dollar.”

Maybe that’s what you meant earlier when you mentioned “faith…”

To rein in the dollar …

Clive, I am not sure what you are trying to get at. Government finances is separate from the value/soundness of the dollar even as the former can affect the latter.

Spending cuts must be prudent and justified so as not to cause undue harm. Increased revenue will be necessary to balance the budget – and to start paying off the national debt. (Interest payments alone already take up a huge chunk of the federal budget which limits our flexibility …) The issue is whether we have the political will to do the right thing – and that calls for a certain amount of “faith,” wouldn’t you agree?

Given the size of our national debt and our irresponsible government financings, the debt holders are placing a lot of “faith” right now that the U.S. government will not default on its obligations. If there is any reason to question that “faith,” the U.S. government may see increasing inability to continue selling bonds and securities – and be forced to pay higher interest commensurate with the higher risk – which will put more pressure on the federal budget and increase the likelihood of default with all its ramifications and wave effects (not ripple effects) … assuming the debt holders won’t rush in to redeem all the securities out of fear of losing all that “value” which will force the Federal Reserve System to print out more money which of course will lead to inflation/hyperinflation … and on it goes.

Anybody who has been forced to file for any of the bankruptcies – whether personal or business – will intimately know what I am talking about.

> The issue is whether we have the political will to do the right thing – and GIVEN THE CURRENT HIGHLY-POLARIZED POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, that calls for a certain amount of “faith,” wouldn’t you agree?

@Lane

While I completely agree with what must be done to dail down the debt, but you speak like our hands are tied and faith is the only thing we have!

Really, we need to elect political leaders who will better balance fiscal prudence and stinginess. So far, neither Democrats or Republicans have shown they can do that, and I’m not sure I trust voters to elect someone who will…

In other words, I’m running low on faith, these days… :(

Clive, I hear ya.

Just to let you know, “faith” is the dirtiest word in my book. I wouldn’t go so far as to say our hands are truly tied; after all, it was Winston Churchill that observed that we Americans can be counted to do the right thing AFTER we’ve tried everything else. That is the basis of my faith in us rebels and colonials.

BTW, a fiscal house in disarray is a prime example of “unfreedom.”

What “Doctor” Paul fails to absorb is the fact that there is no charity to which the elderly can turn and why should they? They’ve earned a dignified retirement after a lifetime of work and dutifully paying their taxes… something I figure Silver Spoons Paul would know very little about, seeing as his bread is buttered with public funds derived from Medicare and he’s not big on paying taxes. In case tea party posers don’t know it, the public coffers aren’t theirs to plunder for the benefit of the wealthy or to line the pockets of posers like Paul and his cohorts.