Question For Lefties

[Burke]

Michael,

Rand believed that govt could be financed without taxation. She wrote a piece about it.

You have to remember, though, that her govt would be much, much smaller than the govt we have today.

The important thing to realize is that the only proper function of govt is to protect individual rights.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by Burke

Michael,

Rand believed that govt could be financed without taxation. She wrote a piece about it.

You have to remember, though, that her govt would be much, much smaller than the govt we have today.

The important thing to realize is that the only proper function of govt is to protect individual rights.

I am going to go in a slightly different direction than this. The role of government is for the common defense, which is pretty limited since we are all different. Where I disagree with the above is that is isn't for government to protect individual rights as it is limited, by the constitution. Where we have really gotten off track is that we have turned the constitution from one that spells out where it can not go to an activist one. Very different than what the founding fathers wrote. But since life gets complicated we didn't think a little "tweeking" would be any harm. And here we are.

And that isn't an Obama bashing, it has been going on for quite a long time.

[Burke]

Providing for the common defense is protecting individual rights.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Burke

People deal by trade or they deal by force.

Dealing by trade is capitalism, more specifically, laissez faire capitalism.

Since you all hate capitalism and you (mostly) deny that you are socialists, what are you?

Whatever you call yourselves, you are, by simple logic, people who choose to deal with others by force instead of by trade.

What are you doing when you use govt to (supposedly) "rein in the abuses of capitalism"?

To force the lives of people who are doing nothing but producing and trading.

And creating the prosperity of the modern world.

If people who produce wealth and keep it are "greedy," what are people who take it away from them with the govt gun?

By your definition I'm a leftie, but I also own a business and have for 30+ years. Your premise is wrong.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Not really. Burke has always claimed that there should be no required taxation. No zoning. That roads should be owned by private enterprise. That there should be no public land, no state parks or national parks.
And,of course, anyone who disagrees with him is a leftist.

What you just asserted as a necessary role of government is not shared by all. Certainly the military, the courts and the police force are all necessary parts of government. While I agree that the government building of roads and bridges has been a good thing, not all agree with that view. Burke being one. Most strict libertarians share that view too. But even though I am a libertarian, I think those are valid government activities . That kind of infrastructure spending is, IMO, one of the few kinds of government spending that will actually have a multiplier affect on the economy.

As for parks and such, that is debatable. I hike, hunt and fish on a lot of state and federal land, so I am sympathetic with the view about public lands. I could not afford to do that on my own and do not have a huge issue with some of my taxes funding those things. But that is just my opinion.

That said, I read somewhere one time that if the federal government sold parks and lands and buildings for lease back, we would eliminate a substantial part of the overall deficit. Not the yearly deficit mind you, but the cumulative debt which is around 16 trillion.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Burke

I understand that a more completely rational society is a prerequisite for some things.

What you propose is a fantasy that is not part of human nature. And it is somewhat like the underlying assumptions socialists and communists use.

The best societal structures are ones that recognize both the good and bad parts of human nature and still manage to allow the circumstances where the most humans do the best.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

What you propose is a fantasy that is not part of human nature. And it is somewhat like the underlying assumptions socialists and communists use.

The best societal structures are ones that recognize both the good and bad parts of human nature and still manage to allow the circumstances where the most humans do the best.

For once I agree with you, though no doubt the application of the principle is likely in dispute and the devil is in the details.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

What you just asserted is a necessary role of government is not shared by all. Certainly the military, the courts and the police force are all necessary parts of government. While I agree that the government building of roads and bridges has been a good thing, not all agree with that view. Burke being one. Most strict libertarians share that view too. But even though I am a libertarian, I think those are valid government activities . That kind of infrastructure spending is, IMO, one of the few kinds of government spending that will actually have a multiplier affect on the economy.

As for parks and such, that is debatable. I hike, hunt and fish on a lot of state and federal land, so I am sympathetic with the view about public lands. I could not afford to do that on my own and do not have a huge issue with some of my taxes funding those things. But that is just my opinion.

That said, I read somewhere one time that if the federal government sold parks and lands and buildings for lease back, we would eliminate a substantial part of the overall deficit. Not the yearly deficit mind you, but the cumulative debt which is around 16 trillion.

No opinions are shared by all. The question is whether or not Burke's stances are extreme. I'm saying they are.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Michael,

Rand believed that govt could be financed without taxation. She wrote a piece about it.

You have to remember, though, that her govt would be much, much smaller than the govt we have today.

The important thing to realize is that the only proper function of govt is to protect individual rights.

Whoa. By your own definition, YOU are a leftist. What do you think minimum wage, taxation and regulation of businesses, regulation of the work place and the markets, free access to public education, anti-discrimination, and so many other species of regulation is born of, but "protecting individual rights"?

The proper role of government is a loaded philosophical question that pivots largely on interpretation and application of what it means to 'protect individual rights', among so many other questions.

IMO, minimally, a government's role (national level), in descending order, is to:

1. Secure its own borders (i.e.--national defense, or def. against foriegn invasion)--if your borders aren't secure, then everything else is rendred vulnerable, and potentially for naught.

2. Protection of private property rights. Private property is THE cornerstone of freedom. Compromise on PPR's, and virtually everything else that passes as freedom, is jeopardised/compromised.

3. Permit--and in fact, foster--private commerce within its borders.

4. Provide a fluid infrastructure--part and parcel to the above.

5. Provide/maintain a national currency--" " ".

Lastly, would be to:

6. Protect individual rights. The best source for guidance here, IMO, is the Bill of Rights.

Beyond the first five, a government's involvement can become intrusive and violative of individual rights (and often is). Even within the first five, involement can and often is, intrusive of individual rights. But less than those, would be negligently deficient of a national government.

But protecting individual rights is not the sole function of government--in fact, it barely makes my minimum list (and I'm conservative). The rights stem from the people, through the states, to the federal level. The federal government's involvement in this sense then, should therefore be limited to establishing minimal standards, and enforcing them through the states. BUt to concede that it is the federal government's proper function to protect individual rights, is to declare yourself a leftist.

...unless you have some completely innoucuous, useless definition of what it means to protect individual rights.

[NB--I believe it is appropriate for the federal govm't to have bypassed state government in many cases to protect individual rights--as in many 'civil rights' cases--where I confess a degree of liberalism--but it also is illustrative of why I make it a point to distinguish between classical liberalism (or just liberalism), and neo-liberalism, which tends favor a regular almost complete disregard of states' rights by the fed'l govm't, in the name of 'protecting individual rights'.]

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Providing for the common defense is protecting individual rights.

It wasn't prior to the civil war. Common defense of the borders defended the institution of slavery--and therefore was not 'protecting individual rights'. Also, the draft--in application, AND in principle--prior to and including 'the Viet Nam conflict' (yes, including WW II)--was not 'protecting individual rights.' It was taking individuals' rights away, in order to protect the common good. That's hardly 'protecting individual rights'. Sounds more like fascism, or even communism--"for the greater good, comrade".

Note again, I am not critiquing our involvement in those wars--but let's not kid ourselves--national defense is not about protecting individual rights--it's about protecting national soverignty.

When national soverignty happens to be aligned with protection of individual rights, that's fortuitous--but not necessarily hand in hand.

e.g.--Germany's build up of its national defense leading up to WWII, and USSR's during cold war, could hardly be construed by any stretch, as 'protecting individual rights'.

[Burke]

Govt exists properly for the protection of individual rights. It does this mainly by protecting us from domestic criminals and foreign threats, each of whom seek to exploit us by force. The fact that some get control of govts and pervert their resources to the exploitation of some or all of their citizens doesn't change the fact that govt is supposed to be protecting us and that providing for the common defense is a proper function of govt.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Govt exists properly for the protection of individual rights. It does this mainly by protecting us from domestic criminals and foreign threats, each of whom seek to exploit us by force. The fact that some get control of govts and pervert their resources to the exploitation of some or all of their citizens doesn't change the fact that govt is supposed to be protecting us and that providing for the common defense is a proper function of govt.

The opinion that that is govt's only function is just that - an opinion.

[Burke]

92,

"Whoa. By your own definition, YOU are a leftist. What do you think minimum wage, taxation and regulation of businesses, regulation of the work place and the markets, free access to public education, anti-discrimination, and so many other species of regulation is born of, but "protecting individual rights"?"

All paid for by taking wealth away from productive people and/or using force to prevent some from acting in ways that violate no one's rights, thereby violating their rights.

Do you realize how ridiculous your comment is?

[wgbgator]

Yes, security protects individual rights. You do realize this is also the left's argument when it comes to gov't ensuring a basic level of economic security or regulation (that it enhances & protects rights and opportunity), right?

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Govt exists properly for the protection of individual rights. It does this mainly by protecting us from domestic criminals and foreign threats, each of whom seek to exploit us by force. The fact that some get control of govts and pervert their resources to the exploitation of some or all of their citizens doesn't change the fact that govt is supposed to be protecting us and that providing for the common defense is a proper function of govt.

So basically you want nannie govm't to protect your indy rights--just not anyone else's--like poor, under educated slobs that have to work for 'the Man'--or even less fortuanate souls who can't work at all, or otherwise carry their own weight--that's fine--that's your opinion--just stop trying to pass it off as 'conservatism'.

Conservatism is primarily concerned with keeping the balance of powers between the states vis a vis teh fed'l goverment--with individual rights to be addressed through this balance.

You seem to want a government that will protect the borders--and the individual rights of the producers' to take advantage of the 'parasites'--without taking anything from the produces to provide for the protection of the borders, or making any provision for commerce, infrastructure, currency, or the like...

I believe there are quite a few countries in Africa, which might fit your bill, sir!

(except for the part of not taking anything from the produces--I'm afraid you'd have to go to 'fairy land', for that part).

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Burke

92,

"Whoa. By your own definition, YOU are a leftist. What do you think minimum wage, taxation and regulation of businesses, regulation of the work place and the markets, free access to public education, anti-discrimination, and so many other species of regulation is born of, but "protecting individual rights"?"

All paid for by taking wealth away from productive people and/or using force to prevent some from acting in ways that violate no one's rights, thereby violating their rights.

Do you realize how ridiculous your comment is?

The 'ridiculousness' of the comment, was merely the application of YOUR comment. Sir.

Please note that I did not provide a definition--I applied yours. Later in the post, I went on to provide my minimal standards--but that part is based on your claim, that govem't's 'sole function is to protect individual rights'.

[108]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

What you propose is a fantasy that is not part of human nature. And it is somewhat like the underlying assumptions socialists and communists use.

The best societal structures are ones that recognize both the good and bad parts of human nature and still manage to allow the circumstances where the most humans do the best.

i agree with you here too, this "either or" is a false choice

we can have the best of all ideas, both individual and collective, to 'form a more perfect union'

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

For once I agree with you, though no doubt the application of the principle is likely in dispute and the devil is in the details.

Not too many devilish details.

First define; "best conditions for humans."

Then determine the set of circumstances that support those conditions.

Best conditions?

1.) Better Health
2.) More Longevity
3.) More Civil Liberties
4.) More Wealth

The set of circumstances that support those conditions?

1.) Self Government
2.) Government, business and individuals ALL subject to rule of law
3.) Market economy

It is really quite simple.

[Matthanuf06]

Did I really read that people really think minimum wage is an individual right? Wow this nation is spinning down the toilet.

Property rights = Individual rights. It's the same umbrella. And any rule, law, regulation, that takes away from one to give to another is a violation of property rights. Crap like minimum wage fits that bill.

[wgbgator]

No rights exist in a vacuum. Someone's "right" to decent pay is an "assault" on someone else's "right" to squeeze labor out of someone for as little as they can pay. Someone's right to know what they are consuming is an "attack" on someone else's right to package horse meat as beef.