"Every citizen is entitled to health care, retirement, schooling for their children, or general security by PAYING for it."

Why? What if those things were provided by the state in order to increase the quality of life for society in general? See: Scandinavia.

"It is not the function of government to provide or guarantee these items."

The function of goverment is arbitary, much like many things in life. I could use a knife to save a life, or take one. Its function is entirely dependent on how I chose to use it.

"The ONLY legitimate function of government is protection from foreign invadors and a police force to protect us from criminals. "

This seems like a bare assertion to me. How did you come to determine the above? Why is that the ONLY legitimate function? What do you support this assertion with?

If chinese goods sold by US companies are inferior to US made goods it not because they come from China but rather because the US company speced the products out to meet a price, margin and value target. It is our fault that the quality sucks. If Americans wanted higher quality goods then the Chinese factories would be more than capable of producing them

Hi Nick

Do I detect just a shade of cynicism in your sermon? :-)

cheers

"Note that they capitalized Welfare indicating it's importance."

Jeremy,

Now go back to the 'source' document; The Declaration of Independence." Now research the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and those who influenced him... all the way back to Aristotle. This will require some time and study, unless you were fortunate to obtain a well rounded education, which our public school system no longer provides. You will find that the definition of 'Welfare' to Jefferson and the founding fathers is much different than our 'Welfare state.' In your studies, you will also need to study the history of the 'Declaration' and how certain items were revised and edited.

Your studies of Aristotle will find that the purpose of each man's existence is to lead a 'happy life' (not an exact definition, as happy is not a Greek word) and each man's happiness is his own responsibility, and that each man is responsible to create the wealth to support himself in this endeavor.

You will also find in your studies that our founding fathers (at that point in human history) came up with a radical idea: that the government of the US would be structured to Protect the citizens from the government, which is the main purpose for establishing this new government. It is a critical concept.

Cesear,

Very good questions. Please refer to my earlier post. My assumptions relating to the purpose of Government have their roots in the Declaration of Independence. It the most important document in the history of mankind. But it cannot just be read, it must be studied. And that study requires the study of Western Civilization all the way back to Aristotle.

For the State to provide those things in your post, it means that it will have to take away from some people and give it to others. This is a moral issue. By right moral right does anyone have a claim on your life, or my life?

A couple good books to help everyone out are:

'The Discovery of Freedom' by Rose Wilder Lane

'The God of the Machine' by Isabel Paterson

"This will require some time and study, unless you were fortunate to obtain a well rounded education, which our public school system no longer provides"

Ignoring the smugness of the post above... Nick does point out a critical flaw in our country today. A good public education is fundamental to any republic -- and our public school systems have seen consistent improvements and expansions all through the first 200 years of the republic's existence -- until just the last couple of decades. In our republic, should "life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness" be the only basic human rights?

Some might argue that there is no earthly reason why anyone is owed an education -- but I would say that for the well being of our republic -- we must provide a first rate public education system -- if we are to avoid the travesty of a "free and democratic" republic that is laden with near-permanent upper and under classes. Today, it is very sad that NO ONE expects president Obama (or any other parent who has the means) to send their children to DC's public schools.

Comparing the US to Taiwan (my two countries) -- the latter has a much "tighter" bandwidth between the have's and the have not's. One important reason: the very best universities and high schools in Taiwan are public -- not private.

Edited by ben2world on 03/04/2011 17:05:55 MST.

No it is not cynicism, but The Great Conversation :)

Fortunately, I received a 'Classical Education' as a youth. It was not provided by the educational system, I had to gain it by my own efforts, just like Abraham Lincoln did.

I enjoy the debate. I am not angry, nor do I present any political slant... as I have no use for any political party in my country such as Libertarian, Tea Party, Republican, or Democrat.

My philosophy has its roots in Aristotle (who made some errors). I am comfortable with my philosophy and understand how I arrived at its components of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

So the question to all is, "How do you know?" That is, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I am not going to win any arguments here, nor am I trying to win any. The goal is to get everyone to think, which relates to my empistemology; Reason.

:)

Ben,

The problem with public education is determining what will be taught. Sex Education or Physics? John Grisham or Victor Hugo? Maya Angelou or Henry Wadsworth Longfellow? Karl Marx or Ludwig von Mises? Eminem or Beethoven? Kant or Aristotle? The question relates to the fact that many, many kids today know nothing of the second choice... and their knowledge of the first is often based on what the teacher believed, not a study of the subject.

Do you know that many high schools today have a class dedicated to "How to take the SAT Test?" Wouldn't it be better to teach the subjects instead?

Guess what, Socrates was not some dude in "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," contrary to what many newly graduated high school students I hired over the years thought.

:(

edit: wrong spelling for the Austrian economist... he did not part the Red Sea.

Edited by ngatel on 03/04/2011 17:49:48 MST.

Hi Nick,

I generally find your posts to be quite well thought out and articulate, although I often don't agree with their content.

I'm interested in where things like roads and water/sewerage fit in with your model of government?

Also would the law courts be required? I see a huge benefit in NOT being allowed to sue doctors, and reckon that this alone would more than halve the cost of healthcare, but I'm not sure whether this would increase or decrease the personal responsibility of doctors and of patients.

Just because I know that forum posts can be misinterpreted so easily, let me state that I really am genuinely interested, and would be keen to hear your thoughts. I may not always agree with you, but the world would be pretty boring if everyone agreed with me.

Regards, Rod

Nick, that's funny you would use Jefferson as a justification for your libertarianism

For example, he advocated free publically financed education starting the University of Virginia

Rod,

Thanks for the compliments.

Many of the first roads used by automobiles in my country were private roads, and users paid a toll to use them (also bridges, ferries, etc.). The problem today is how do we go backward to private ownership? In America, roads are mostly built by the Government, and the land is taken (there is payment - not always fair market value) from its rightful owners by "eminent domain." If I wanted to build a road, I would have to purchase the land (of course I would need investors), build the road and charge people to use it. This and other utilities could be served by private industry, and given choices users would save money due to competition.

Absolutely we need courts to enforce contracts, adjudicate disputes and crimes. The real issue is a code of Objective Laws. Where I live, there many insane ordinances, laws, and regulations. Also punitive damages are sometimes WAY out of line. Yes, we should be able to sue a doctor, but the doctor must have broken some Objective Law and done some real harm to the plaintiff.

Jeremy,

Do you mean libertarianism as a philosophy, or the politics of the Libertarian Party? Big difference and I am neither.

Thomas Jefferson was not infallible. He even owned slaves. Jefferson was concerned that our free nation could not remain free if the populace was not educated. And this is true.

Yes he advocated public education, but not the universal mandatory education we know today. He wanted education to be voluntary and free for only the first 3 years. From there further free education would only be offered to children who excelled, he did not want to waste further money on children who were not exceptional. He was also very specific about what subjects would be taught. This was not a popular idea at the time, because most people felt it was not the role of government to subsidize education. Most people felt their own church should educate children, and Jefferson absolutely abhored this idea, as he held fast that there must be separation of Church and State. It was 60 years after Jefferson's proposal for public education that we saw any real public educational systems in the U.S.

Jefferson practically built the UoV with his own hands. He designed it, set the course of study, and decided who would teach. Why did he do this? Because he felt this institution would educate the men who would protect ALL the individual rights he had advocated all his life. Jefferson's mantra was always Freedom and Happiness! It must be pointed out that the 13 colonies were comprised of States and Commonwealths, and Jefferson feared the Commonwealths would restrict individual rights, requiring the citizens’ role to be subservient to welfare of the Commonwealth; not his vision of a limited government, which would mostly leave the individual to govern himself. He wanted educated men to protect our freedom. And for this reason, he pushed for public education and the UoV.

" We've become a sad caricature of what we pretend to be in this country, and what we portray ourselves to be to outsiders"

Evidence of which is our increasing need to spread our ideas at the point of a gun, or sanction, as circumstances dictate.

"My assumptions relating to the purpose of Government have their roots in the Declaration of Independence."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember reading anything about having people pay for health care and education in the DOI. The document itself also makes at least one bare assertion itself that remains a controversial one, namely that a "creator" has given human beings certain rights. Which creator the document does not specify, but it makes an appeal to an absolute moral authority, which I believe is a big problem when it comes to substantiating ethics and morals. The document, and no other document that I know of, proves the existence of a "creator" I might add.

"It the most important document in the history of mankind. But it cannot just be read, it must be studied."

I respectfully disagree, for reasons already stated above. Also, simply calling a document "the most important" does not make it so. Many other nations run just fine without it. I don't understand why people treat a 200 year old document as though it were absolute and no progress could be made beyond it.

"And that study requires the study of Western Civilization all the way back to Aristotle."

I respectfully disagree, and this seems like an appeal to authority fallacy. Aristotle himself was mistake about some things, it's not like he and other authors of "Western Civilization" were perfect. Nor do I think that one ought to be required to study the large body of work that came before the DOI in order to debate it. That would be like someone saying that one require the study of English Literature all the way back to Beowulf in order to properly understand and evaluate say, the novel Frankenstein.

"For the State to provide those things in your post, it means that it will have to take away from some people and give it to others. "

False. If everyone chips into pay for something that literally everyone takes advantage of, it is not taking from one to another. If everyone gets health care and education, everyone benifits. Also, by making it possible for everyone to have a high quality of life, things like crime and violence go down. Then of course, it ensures that less gifted people are left out of living up to their potential. If a poor yet brilliant child that has the potential to become a doctor, which I hope we can agree is a job that is important to us all, is bogged down with medical bills and expensive tuitions, such a child has a slim to no chance of becoming a doctor.

Spare me any appeal to exceptions that prove the rule. Yes I know there are ghetto sucess stories out there, people that have everything working against them that make it. They are but a drop in the bucket of people that have a better life denied to them. If the American Dream really were available to everyone, more people would take advantage of it. It is a myth--a carrot on the end of a stick to get the donkey to continue its struggle.


"This is a moral issue. By right moral right does anyone have a claim on your life, or my life?"

I don't understand your question. I don't believe in objective morals. I think that humans, being social animals, it makes life easier on us all if people cooperate and not cause harm. As such, I think it is wrong for say, you to punch me in the face for no reason other than your own personal amusment.

But "claim on my life"? What do you mean? What makes things all the more confusing is that earlier you say that you want protection from criminals. This implies that you are alright with the government claiming the lives of certain criminals, as in the USA the death penalty is still around. This seems to contrandict the idea of no one having a claim on anyone's life. Even if you don't kill a criminal, you still suggest the government deal with them, which means taking away rights from them.

In order protect society in general, it would seem there is a need to seperate certain dangerous people from it, which means taking away rights. It also means taking away money, as jails and police men cost money.

In order to have a society that is healthy, it would seem there is a need to provide health care, which means taking away money--not rights--away from everyone. Which is fine by me, seeing as I cannot afford to buy my own x-ray machine or private surgeon.

In order to have a society that is educated--which in turn also deturs crime and makes it possible to produce more doctors and police, it should also be noted--it would seem there is a need to provide education. This again means taking away money, not rights.

There are of course other options. You could choose to live the life of a nomad and not contribute to society, but then of course society does not contribute to you, and you have to provide everything for yourself.

"False. If everyone chips into pay for something that literally everyone takes advantage of, it is not taking from one to another."

You mean like the involuntary "chip-in" that must be done by April 17th. And there are few things that people agree are "an advantage to everyone" Home schooling vs. public education is a prime example of this.

"You mean like the involuntary "chip-in" that must be done by April 17th. And there are few things that people agree are "an advantage to everyone" Home schooling vs. public education is a prime example of this."

If you are a part of society, you have to contribute. This means paying taxes. Kind of like if you move into a big house, everyone chips in to pay rent and utilities.

And I fail to see your point about few things that people agree on. Just because some people don't agree on the best methods, does not mean that most or nearly all rational people don't agree that in general, education is preferable to ignorance, and being healthy is preferable to suffering.

Your example with home schooling is not a very good one either, with all due respect. Just because there are some people that opt not to take advantage of a public service, does not mean that we should stop said service. Not everyone can homescool. Think about all the single parents out there that need to work to support their children. How exactly can they home school? They can pay for private school if they can afford it, sure, but from what I gather in the USA private schools don't get tax money from the state. Here in Sweden by law private schools are not allowed to charge over a certain amount. Parents can also choose to send their child to whatever school regardless of public or private, or geographical location.

There are also people that don't own cars. This does not mean that we ought to stop building highways.

Edited by PrimeZombie on 03/05/2011 06:46:39 MST.

I know around here there are a lot of good people who need jobs and would take them even
at minimum wage. Sending first our manufacturing jobs, then our brainier jobs overseas
is penny wise pound foolish in many regards.

Well, paying more to protect jobs that can be done cheaper/better elsewhere ain't wise either -- not in the long run. That will only make us ever less competitive. If you believe in capitalism, then you have to take the good with the bad. Tough love is what works in the long run. Insist on buying the best you can at whatever price range you set for yourself -- and let the manufacturers compete for your business.

I don't worry about losing sewing jobs to the rest of the world. My worry is the crumbling public education system. What new industries will our kids be inventing in the decades ahead? That's where the real money is.

There is no correlation to education and a decrease in crime rate. Especially taking into consideration White Collar crime. Of which some studies state up to 80% goes unnoticed.

But forgetting White Collar crime, what I believe you are referencing is violent crime. Crime rates drop and rise not according to the latest education or homogenization of the individual, or the latest and greatest policing techniques and increases, but according to the level of population growth and decline. I.e. the number of males between the ages of 16-25. People are going to be who they are. And a certain percentage of the population for what ever reason are more prone than others to violence against others. It is there nature, you can nurture all you want but nature will always be present. If there is a bubble in the population when that bubble reaches the age of 16-25, there will be an increase in crime.

Ironically and opposite to your statement education increases the crime rate. How you ask. Biologically humans look to there parents for guidance. If you have ever been around a toddler when they learn to talk, just listen to what they are saying, "Why, Why, Why" This occurs up till they hit puberty at which time they are biologically sexually mature enough to reproduce for themselves. If you have ever been around a teenager you will see they stop listening to there parents. Biologically they are adults. The issue is that they have now been told that they are not adults. They must stay in school, they are not supposed to get a job and start a family. In tribal societies when puberty was reach they were considered adults and treated as such. At the time of maturity they were able to be 100% self sustainable. They would survive on there own if every one over the age of 15 suddenly disappeared. Because all of their lives they were being prepared to survive on there own. How many high school, even college graduates can that be said about now. What is being taught in schools is mostly filler. To keep kids in school, for if they were not in school there would have to be that many more jobs available. Additionally, schools have taken children away from there parents even before this age of sexual maturity is reached. Studies have shown that now more than parents and teachers, a child peers are its greatest influence. This creates a manipulable mass. These young adults are being coupe up and treated as little children, coupled with peer influence gangs and typical teenage crime is a revolt against this treatment.

Additionally this manipulable mass has resulted in pop culture, kids are being schooled to be consumers, a large part of our economy is this age bracket of teenagers spending there parents money, money there parents often do not have.

Jails and police do cost money. There are violent criminals that prove to others that there rights should be taken away or at the very least they should not be allowed to belong in the community. But looking at the US system, a majority percentage of inmates are incarcerated for non-violent crimes. "Sin" crimes. The true cost of the laws are more destructive then helpful, family's torn apart, children going for a decade with out the influence and guidance of there parent.

Education is important, intelligence and knowledge IS preferable to ignorance. Society is better off as a hole if the individuals comprising it are more knowledgeable and conscientious.

It is about checks and balances. The ability of an individual to say yes or no, strengthens the local communities, the local communities ability to to say yes or no, strengthens our states, and our states ability to say yes or no, strengthens our Union. Unfortunately that ability has been slowly worn away, to the point where a good portion of our lives are affected by a city thousands of miles away disconnected from us. Nullification was built into the founding laws of the United States specifically for this reason, to guard against the consolidation of power.



Think of it in terms of a circle and a triangle.

Small communities used to reinforce the individual, With the most experienced being on the outside of the circle nurturing the next generation to take there place. The next generation could be nurtured and grow as an individual within this community, learning and growing in any direction. And all of the small communities together would check and balance each other.

Now you have a situation of a giant triangle, where there are no real communities And every one is striving to claw there way to the top, there are only a few spots.
Education is now standardized, Most families need both parents to work just to stay above water. Children are no longer learning from the generation before them. But being influenced in mass. The masses of individuals are searching for validation externally with no smaller community to contain them to grow uniquely. (Think heirloom plants) Diversity is important it provides checks and balances.

Governments have a purpose but when an entire country is ruled from one city far away clearly there is an imbalance. Local and state government’s impact have all but become null and void, at most reactive to/and because of the economic control that the central government and central banks have. Yea we have a right to vote, but that does not mean we are represented. The cream rises to the top. Those in power are those that wish to be in power and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Individuals that wish to control the lives of others often for there own gain, to secure there place at the top of the pyramid.

Is contributing to society important, yes. But when the choice is being made for you to be a part of it and you have no choice or influence in how your contribution will be applied, it is hard to be on board with it. An example is how the American people were hood winked into the Iraq war. No choice in how our dollars and the lives of our fellow citizens are being spent.

If you choose to live in a house with some people then yea you should contribute, you are choosing to live there. But if all houses are being forced to be made the same exact way then it is not much of a choice and in my opinion not much of a community.

Alot of this stems from control and greed. The moral authority that we have derived from being given "God given rights" has placed us outside of the natural order and cycle. We are no longer apart of the world but, on the authority of god are its controllers and rulers. This is a story we are enacting out. TAKERS versus LEAVERS.

People think they have the right to control the lives of others and there environment.

With the Gorilla gone is there any hope for man
With Man gone is there any hope for the Gorilla

fyi...

It's understandable when Americans get alarmed by the $1.2 trillion in U.S. debt held by China. But there's another way to look at the situation: That $1.2 trillion is a huge part of China's wealth. China can't turn its back on the U.S. any more than we can walk away from China. Call it economic mutually assured destruction.

But let's look at that debt another way. To the U.S., $1.2 trillion is 8 percent of our debt. That's a lot of money. But look at that same $1.2 trillion from China's perspective. It's close to half of their government's savings. It's more than 20 percent of the entire Chinese economy.


link


http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134272775/What-To-Make-Of-U-S-s-Debt-To-China