« The People's Romance | Main | A Sad Anniversary» Don Boudreaux
February 07, 2008
Who's Generous?
Don Boudreaux
I sent this letter today to the Baltimore Sun:
Like you, Tim Sharman is dismayed that George Bush's past struggles with chemical addictions do not prompt him now, as President, to be more "generous" in his budget toward the poor (Letters, February 7). I oppose most of Mr. Bush's policies. But I oppose even more the notion that it is possible to be generous with other people's - that is, with taxpayers' - money.
Suppose Mr. Bush reconsiders the budget and increases welfare expenditures substantially. This move might or might not be wise policy. But it certainly doesn't signal that the President has become more generous. A politician, like you and me, can be generous only with his own money. A politician spending other people's money is, at best, implementing sound policies - and, more realistically, much closer to a burglar who "generously" uses part of his booty to buy rounds of drinks for his buddies.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5501d30718833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who's Generous?:
Comments
Semantics? We are now arguing with professional writers on how to express feelings/hopes/aspirations/values in the English language? If people want to elect government officials that prefer to spend a higher proportion of taxes on social programs than an economic ones, how should the Press express this observation?
If you oppose these sort of policies, why not just come out and say it? Do we really need to twist perfectly legitimate uses of perfectly useful words out of the language just to make a point that others don't agree with?
Second, last time I checked, the President of the USA was still 'our' nationally elected political representative, and acting in 'our' name, and the money being discussed in 'ours'. As such, I see no reason why 'we' can't be 'generous' with 'our' money via our 'representative'.
Unless we reject 'representative' government. Or we reject that its 'our' money. Or, we reject that there can be an 'our'.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 5:44:36 PM
Tim Sharman's letter is laughable. Maryland is one of the biggest benefactors of Federal government largess, and the tax base here benefits greatly. It is one of the richest states in terms of income, and is predominately run by liberal democrats.
So what do those Maryland democrats do? They just passed a regressive tax package, and within the borders have the nightmare called Baltimore city. The city has one of the worst crime rates, abject poverty, horrible schools, and about 30-40,000 heroin addicts. All of this existed since before Bush graduated high school. Generous government does not equal effective government, nor do more government programs guarantee the solution to problems.
Please note – I detest both political parties, and their “solutions” to every ill that exists.
Posted by: Mcwop | Feb 7, 2008 5:48:03 PM
Bruce:
Blame Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Their philosophy won out over the Madisonions.
We're paying the price today.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 7, 2008 6:58:50 PM
If people want to elect government officials that prefer to spend a higher proportion of taxes on social programs than an economic ones, how should the Press express this observation
Perhaps the press should challenge those elected officials to show where in the Constitution the power of *charity* was enumerated.
The Constitution is a contract, a legal document. The argument is not over semantics in the literary sense. We're talking about points of law in the much less fluid legal sense.
Further, unless we no longer speak the same language, and are allowed individual meanings for words, to describe the taking from A to give to B as charity is unsound reasoning in violation of the rules of logic. As Boudreaux wrote, it might be sound policy, but it ain't charity.
Posted by: foxmarks | Feb 7, 2008 7:12:42 PM
Oh Lord, another one.
"Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 5:44:36 PM"
Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 7, 2008 7:20:13 PM
Don,
I am very impressed with the important points you make as well as the frankness you show when expressing them. Keep trying to educate the public! There must be some newspaper who can give you a regular column, when you look at so much of the garbage in newspapers these days.
Posted by: Jacob | Feb 7, 2008 8:14:56 PM
FreedomLover: "Blame Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists."
Now there's a strategy blame someone who has been dead for over 200 years. And, we expect this to help us in the 21st century how?
Listen, the solution for anyone that doesn't like the current situation is simple:
Go win an election!
If you don't like that system, you are in the wrong country!
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 8:55:35 PM
foxmarks: "Perhaps the press should challenge those elected officials to show where in the Constitution the power of *charity* was enumerated."
Perhaps I should show you the Supreme Court or the Election Box where you are welcome to take your grievances up at anytime you want.
Go win an election, or go win a decision, go go buy a box of kleenex.
I think the founding fathers would be totally embarrassed with anyone that blamed their personal plight on the modern-day press.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 9:02:31 PM
vidyohs: "Oh Lord, another one."
Ah, do you need a box of kleenex too?
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 9:03:34 PM
Bruce:
I'd really like to know what you think the probability is of my vote swinging the election of any federal office (from the theoretical stand point).
Also I'd be interested if you could point me in the direction of the last federal office holder that won their election by 1 vote, or there was a tie.
Posted by: Jay | Feb 7, 2008 10:23:50 PM
"Listen, the solution for anyone that doesn't like the current situation is simple:
Go win an election!
If you don't like that system, you are in the wrong country!
-bruce"
Negatory, Bruce.
If you don't like the limited government guaranteed us by the Constitution, amend it.
(And don't try that "general welfare" clause as a cureall for every societal ill...)
Posted by: True_Liberal | Feb 7, 2008 10:30:28 PM
Great post, Don! Splendidly stated.
Bruce, give up the "we are the government" talk. It does not work if you're in the minority, such as those who respect civil liberties. The Jews were in a country of representitive government at the time of Hitler's appointment in 1933. With all your "we are the government" talk, I suppose you believe the Holocast was suicide, not genecide.
Posted by: Tom A | Feb 7, 2008 10:33:58 PM
Don, your newspaper letters are always excellent! Keep up trying to educate/influence the general populace.
I suggest we just ignore Bruce. His statements so far don't really merit discussion anyway.
Posted by: metis314 | Feb 7, 2008 10:42:58 PM
Jay: "Also I'd be interested if you could point me in the direction of the last federal office holder that won their election by 1 vote, or there was a tie."
Hi Jay,
I didn't say 'go vote', I said, 'go win an election'.
Winning elections make a difference.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 10:58:28 PM
True_Liberal "If you don't like the limited government guaranteed us by the Constitution, amend it."
Just for the record, I think I've take the position of defending the status quo.
As such,
a) I'm not recommending any change.
b) I'd gain nothing from a Constitutional amendment.
c) I lose nothing from not amending the Constitution.
Thus, seeking to amend the Constitution would cost money, and the net gain is nill. What exactly is the rational argument to change anything?
That said, if you don't like the way things are, then you have the responsibility to yourself to change the system. If you've been legally harmed, you have the responsibility to seek legal recourse through the courts.
Last time I checked this was an economic blog, not some bloody bleeding heart 'dear miss manners column'. If I was complaining that I couldn't get a decent TV at a decent price, I would hope you would advise me to start my own company. As such, if you can't get satisfaction from whatever petty issue you have with living in the World's best economy, I suggest you figure out your own problems for yourself.
Including, if you want to change the government, using the system that is in place for you to be able to do so.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 11:13:51 PM
Bruce, I think your proposal presupposes two things: (1) the system within which you advise us to work is legitimate, & (2) the system works.
You actually presuppose a lot more, but those two are enough. I, for one, reject both those ideas, so I'll reject your proposal.
Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 7, 2008 11:34:41 PM
Tom A: "Bruce, give up the "we are the government" talk. It does not work if you're in the minority, such as those who respect civil liberties. The Jews were in a country of representitive government at the time of Hitler's appointment in 1933. With all your "we are the government" talk, I suppose you believe the Holocast was suicide, not genecide."
Hi Tom,
Last time I checked, it was a government established by 'We the People" and described as "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"
As far as the suggestion that what is happening politically is anything like what happened in Germany is to totally ignore the vast difference in the opportunities that exist in this system to right such civil injustices and the utter lack of such address for the absolutely wronged Jews of the Holocaust.
If you feel that your civil liberties are being wrongly deprived, the Supreme Court is right over there. They are plenty familiar with what is written in the Constitution, what you have been promised and a whole slew of methodologies to evaluate any claims you'd like to file against the government of the people.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 11:42:23 PM
Hans: "Bruce, I think your proposal presupposes two things: (1) the system within which you advise us to work is legitimate, & (2) the system works.
You actually presuppose a lot more, but those two are enough. I, for one, reject both those ideas, so I'll reject your proposal."
Hi Hans,
Even rats know when to get off a sinking ship, and if you think the system is broken beyond repair, I highly recommend buying a plane ticket to the country of your choice. They run about $1000 at any airport throughout the World.
Thus, if you expect to lose more that $1000 in your lifetime as a result of the illegitimacies of the system, might I suggest that as your best economic alternative.
You live in a time and place where you have more choices than anyone that ever designed any economic or political system has ever had. If you can't figure out how to make the best of your situation in this economy and political system, thank your maker that you can enjoy this economy as all others would have treated you much worse.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 11:51:55 PM
There's at least one other option, Bruce. I could stay right here & oppose the system without joining it. I have every right to do so, & every intention.
One more thing: "We The People" didn't create the government. A handful of individuals did, & they wrote "We The People" on their piece of paper. Heck, I could do that, too, but that wouldn't obligate anyone to either join my little scheme or move to another address. It's a silly notion, & most of the bad economic policy (& most other policies) is predicated on that silly notion. Without it, it would be far easier to identify these bad policies for what they are. This is why I do what I do, rather than indulge in false dichotomies like "join the government or move."
Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 8, 2008 12:32:36 AM
T'is quite interesting B.B. as H.L's two observations are reminder that Libertarians are the mirror image of Marxists.
"(1) the system within which you advise us to work is legitimate, & (2) the system works."
1 - The system is illegimate is according to Libertarian values but then 'the system' is illegimate by Marxist values too. However is this not an ideological illegitimacy? One that most people don't share?
2 - The system doesn't work? To whom? Libertarians? Marxists? Religious Fundamentalists? Survivalists? Pretty much everyone out of the mainstream population?
Posted by: Gil | Feb 8, 2008 12:45:58 AM
There's no problem.
Clear horizons as far as the eye can see.
Full speed ahead.
or
There are some pretty severe problems.
What are they?
Why are they?
What will we do?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 8, 2008 1:06:55 AM
Gil:
Screw the mainstream if it oppresses me.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 8, 2008 1:07:41 AM
Some in the fictional 'majority' obviously have no cause to question 'majority' rule.
Why should they?
Moral principles?
What use are they?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 8, 2008 1:24:17 AM
T'is quite interesting B.B. as H.L's two observations are reminder that Libertarians are the mirror image of Marxists.
Merely because two groups of people both think a system is illegitimate does not mean they agree on what a legitimate system is. Nice try.
A: Socrates has no antlers;
B: Weasels have no antlers; ergo,
C: Socrates is a weasel.
That makes sense.
To accurately describe whether a system "works" you have to describe what it's intended to do. My pen works, in that I intend to write with it. That same pen does not work if I attempt to use it as a microwave. Democracy works great as a system whereby a group of people dominate & coerce another group of people, but it's an abject failure as a system whereby "the people" peacefully coexist in freedom as their own rulers in a fair & morally just manner.
Gang rape works, as a method of forcing one individual to submit to the sexual domination of a group of other individuals. I have no alternative method for accomplishing that goal, none that would work nearly as well, yet I oppose gang rape anyway. I'm so unreasonable! What's wrong with me? Why do I stand in the way of progress? If I'm not part of the solution, I must be part of the problem. Right?
Note: I know some of you can be thick, so I'll explain in advance: I'm not equating democracy with gang rape; I'm equating your justification of democracy with the justification of gang rape. Although I realize one could easily equate democracy with gang rape, I'm not doing so now.
Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 8, 2008 2:02:35 AM
Hans:
Logic only works in isolation. Morality is our framework for applying logic. Also I believe a constitutional republic as defined in the US Constitution is the most legitimate system because of how it divides power in 3 branches. You can't argue how having more concentrated power is more legitimate with the exception of the theoretical enlightened monarch. In lieu of that possibility, the constitutional republic is the best system.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 8, 2008 4:21:33 AM
A divided government may indeed be less despotic than a concentrated government, & if that's what you're arguing, I agree. I don't see how it becomes more legitimate. It doesn't seem to me that it addresses the question of legitimacy at all. Efficiency, perhaps, but not legitimacy. I was never arguing divided versus concentrated government.
& I don't understand your point about logic. What are you trying to say?
Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 8, 2008 5:05:39 AM
Hans:
My point about divided government is that it is LESS efficient then concentrated government and that's a GOOD thing for the people. The more difficult is is for government to do things, the more freedoms we have. Are you European?
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 8, 2008 5:08:35 AM
Semantics?i>Why are people so averse to discussing semantics? The meaning of a word is very important, especially when you intend to commicate an idea, and criticism can be welcome and helpful. Anyway, Dr. Boudreaux's letter can easily be interpreted as an factual disagreement, and arguing that the the politician's generosity is, in fact, better described as theft, and therefore not so generous afterall.
To say that this is just a semantic disagreement, implies that Dr. Boudreaux and Tim Sharman agree on the fundamental activities and practices of politicians, something which does not seem to be case. Think of the saying: "We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics." (Not a saying I am particularly keen on, but it illustrates my point i.e. that there is likely no basic agreement, and so this is more than "just" semantics).
Posted by: Lee Kelly | Feb 8, 2008 5:42:15 AM
[Note: Oops! Fixed, please delete the above if you get the chance]
Semantics?
Why are people so averse to discussing semantics? The meaning of a word is very important, especially when you intend to commicate an idea, and criticism can be welcome and helpful. Anyway, Dr. Boudreaux's letter can easily be interpreted as an factual disagreement, and arguing that the the politician's generosity is, in fact, better described as theft, and therefore not so generous afterall.
To say that this is just a semantic disagreement, implies that Dr. Boudreaux and Tim Sharman agree on the fundamental activities and practices of politicians, something which does not seem to be case. Think of the saying: "We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics." (Not a saying I am particularly keen on, but it illustrates my point i.e. that there is likely no basic agreement, and so this is more than "just" semantics).
Posted by: Lee Kelly | Feb 8, 2008 5:45:19 AM
"vidyohs: "Oh Lord, another one."
Ah, do you need a box of kleenex too?
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 7, 2008 9:03:34 PM"
LOL, tis true a kleenex would be helpful but usually when I meet a village idiot I just wipe the tears of laughter away with either the sleeve of my shirt or just my wrist.
The conditioned comment/responses from you to others was exactly what I would have bet on.
So, you leave me with a choice between two absolutes; 1. You are indeed some 238 years old and one of the people who attended the constitution convention, whereupon you affixed your signature to that corporate charter, or: 2. you are a mindless product of the schools controled by the corporation formed by that charter.
Number one would be patently false on the face of it, and number two does not flatter you at all.
It is a principle of law that (a.) no one can contract for another, (b.)law can not compel performance, and (c.) finally if there is no jurisdiction then there is no authority.
The fact that some people wrote a document some 228 years ago and placed their signatures upon it as a sign of their agreement is utterly meaningless to you today without some specific legal mechanism to place you within the jurisdiction of that agreement.
Jurisdiction is not just important, it is the most important of all things in a legal system (of which the constitution is supposed to be the source). Anytime a motion by anyone is filed in any court the first act of that filing must be to establish jurisdiction. If this can't be done, the court can not hear it.
You see Bruce Boyston, I know this and I know that you don't...hell I know (within reasonable constraints of forum) that you don't even suspect it.
So, Bruce Boyston, I challenge you (and anyone else on this blog) to tell me the exact legal mechanism that places you under the jurisdiction of that corporation formed by the Constitution.
I will give you hint as to where to begin. www.lysanderspooner.org will get you started on your journey of enlightenment, but will not necessarily give you the answer. That you have to figure out from the education you get from Spooner. It will require some time spent in a good legal dictionary also.
Until you have dug that deep into the subject and demonstrate understanding then anything you or anyone else says about the constitution is just regurgitation of inculcated propaganda.
So yes, by all means give me the rhetorical kleenex, you provoke me to laughter.
Now with that out of the way, let me comment on your perception of theft and dispensation of its proceeds.
Marxist.
Which makes you, like muirduck and Gilduck, rather demonstrably dense and flawed in your attempts at cognition. I would think you would be profoundly embarassed to be spouting a line that has shown to be an abject historical failure every single time it has been tried, a history stretching back to the beginnings of recorded time.
This is why I label you, muirduck, martinduck, and Gilduck as village idiots, because in the entire village the idiots are the only ones who can display total stupidity and not at least feel embarassed when they do.
My challenge dear Bruce Boyston, tell me the legal mechanism that puts you under the jurisdiction of the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Or, do we go around the mulberry bush like is done with all V.I.s like muirduck,
Gilduck, and Martinduck?
Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 8, 2008 7:34:38 AM
fix italic
test
Posted by: Randy | Feb 8, 2008 7:39:18 AM
Quote from Boston Bruce: "Perhaps I should show you the Supreme Court or the Election Box where you are welcome to take your grievances up at anytime you want."
Great, another democracy worshiper. Why don't you answer his first question (i.e., "where in the Constitution the power of *charity* was enumerated")?
It obviously isn't there, but like all democrats, you fall back to the empty majority rule crap and have nothing to say that's logical or substantive. Your arguement is nothing more than might makes right.
Posted by: Keith | Feb 8, 2008 7:43:27 AM
In addendum to my above, BruceBoystonduck, least you or anyone else thinks I am just spouting second hand material, think again.
I have spent my time in the real trenches surviving combat against the monolithic force of government. And, I know that "we the people" living today have been sold a litiany of lies that extend back to 1787, and it is a lie of omission.
That is a lie of omission does not make it any less a deliberate lie. Once people had choice, but that has been indoctrinated away and caused us to abandon it.
What has been abandoned can be reclaimed.
Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 8, 2008 7:46:55 AM
Bruce,
Last time I checked, it was a government established by 'We the People" and described as "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"
Just propaganda. There is no such thing as "the people" and it is therefore impossible for "the people" to run a government. As someone said a few posts back, every government eventually becomes an oligarchy, and that is what we have. So what's the point of voting in an oligarchy? Propaganda, of course - its an opportunity for the faithful to buy in. I'm not one of the faithful - but I'm not going anywhere. I pay the rent in full and on time, so I have as much right to be here as anyone else.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 8, 2008 7:55:14 AM
I love this exchange:
Bruce began with:____"....if you want to change the government, using the system that is in place for you to be able to do so."
Hans replied:____"Bruce, I think your proposal presupposes two things: (1) the system within which you advise us to work is legitimate, & (2) the system works. You actually presuppose a lot more, but those two are enough. I, for one, reject both those ideas, so I'll reject your proposal."
Bruce replied:____"Even rats know when to get off a sinking ship, and if you think the system is broken beyond repair, I highly recommend buying a plane ticket to the country of your choice."
This exchange is classic. The basic problem with Bruce’s reply - which is a typical reply to comments like those Hans makes - is that his argument is circular. His 'solution' (which is to win elections) already assumes the legitimacy of government - but that is the very thing Hans is challenging. Saying you need to work within the system does nothing to establish its legitimacy.
Posted by: I_am_a_lead_pencil | Feb 8, 2008 8:27:29 AM
So yous are cynical of governments - they'll become oligarchic anyway. Should I care less if in a no-government free market something along the lines of a company town arises? If the company is essentially run by a few dozen people owning the various businesses, houses, roads, etc., that no one should care less because there are other towns with different business operators so anyone who doesn't like can from company town to company town to see which one suits them? If they are effectively city-realm Aristocrats? Maybe it's the old 'the rightful rulers versus the fake rulers' or 'the usurpers of the thrones'.
Still, how many wonder how better it would have been had the living standards of the early 1800s never advanced? Back then work and products went hand-in-hand, if you wanted results you had to work damn hard to get something. If the problem of younguns today 'they want something for nothing', 'they think the whole world should revolve around them' then you can blame technology and the last 100 or so years because younguns aren't onto family farms they born into a standard that Monarchs were born into (and then some). At least the eldest prince should feel entitled to handouts and having the realm revolve around him for when he becomes the king the realm will revolve around him.
Posted by: Gil | Feb 8, 2008 9:05:51 AM
The point is, Gil, that if the government is an oligarchy (which it is), then voting for it is just "reciting the creed", and voting against it is about as useful as dropping a note in the complaints box.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 8, 2008 9:47:44 AM
A government's policies can never diagree long term with the ideologies of its people. Unfortunately the ideologies of the people have shifted away from the constitution, and have trampled the constitution to turn the US into something complely different than it was designed for. The system is not broke, and the only to change it is to show "the people" the disasterous effects of their policies, from the point of view of their own goals.
To quote Professor Hayek,
"The discussions of every age are filled with the issues on which its leading schools differ, but the general intellectual atmoshere is determined by the views on which the opposing schools agree"-- There is no serious political force anymore who respects the constitution.
Posted by: Jacob | Feb 8, 2008 10:39:49 AM
The problem libertarians want to point out is that those who attain political power almost always use that power to monopolize access to power.
NAZI: We're in charge now. Shut up or leave. (points gun at anyone taking issue)
Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 8, 2008 10:57:31 AM
vidyohs: "My challenge dear Bruce Boyston, tell me the legal mechanism that puts you under the jurisdiction of the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
Hi Vidyohs,
I'm not sensing that you really understand how the system is set-up.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to own slaves.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to make someone drink out of a different drinking fountain.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to deny a woman an abortion.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to sell someone a bad investment.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to deny someone tenancy in an apartment building based on skin color.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to call someone a religious slur.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to put someone out of business.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to fire someone who has kids to feed.
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to kick someone out of a nursing home.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
No where, not any where did any of the framers of the Constitution or any other government ever believe for a second that you could write 'the government can only do this' and believe for a second that the government or society would stay within those bounds.
This is why they set-up counter balances, ie, other branches of government, that one can gain access to via the ballot box, and/or the Supreme Court which one can gain access to via petition.
If you don't like the system. Go buy a box of kleenex, or go address the Supreme Court, or go win an election.
You also have what negotiators call your 'BATNA' which is your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, which is any thing else you want to do outside the USA.
If you've got a better plan, then do that.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 8, 2008 11:26:59 AM
Jacob,
I agree that public opinion is the key to changing the situation, but this line is incomplete;
"A government's policies can never diagree long term with the ideologies of its people."
The problem is that with significant power the oligarchy has the ability to shape the ideologies to conform to its will. Consider the extent to which the state controls the education system and the social network. The result is that people believe what the state tells them to believe. Only those with a naturally heretical disposition even bother to try to see through the propaganda.
Posted by: Randy | Feb 8, 2008 11:31:11 AM
Keith: "Great, another democracy worshiper. Why don't you answer his first question (i.e., "where in the Constitution the power of *charity* was enumerated")?"
Hi Keith,
Read the above reply to Vidyohs. I see no Constitutional prerequisite to a thousand ills that happen every. What you describe may be a n 'ill' in your eyes, its not to many.
Thus, the methodology set-up to decide whether or not something is in fact an ill, is the ballot box, or the Supreme Court. There is no magic finger writing truths on stone tablets. Everything has to be decided, and current methodology to decide things is our representative government.
You have a better plan? Great! Take it to the ballot box!
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 8, 2008 11:33:49 AM
vidyohs "What has been abandoned can be reclaimed."
You have a plan to reclaim things outside the Supreme Court, and outside the Ballot Box, and inside the USA?
Do tell!
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 8, 2008 11:36:02 AM
I_am_a_lead_pencil "This exchange is classic. The basic problem with Bruce’s reply - which is a typical reply to comments like those Hans makes - is that his argument is circular. His 'solution' (which is to win elections) already assumes the legitimacy of government - but that is the very thing Hans is challenging. Saying you need to work within the system does nothing to establish its legitimacy."
Hi Lead Pencil,
I think the core problem with any advice is that any advice can be torn to shreds pretty easily. Which means what? Well it suggests that anyone that gives advice will always be in the wrong, and anyone that criticizes advice will always be in the right. The problem with this of course is that we can then conclude that all advice is wrong, which is absurd as something has to be more effective than no advice.
Don't believe me? Let's switch sides, I'll play the critic, and you start detailing your plan to right the wrongs of the country.
-bruce
Posted by: Bruce Boston | Feb 8, 2008 11:41:54 AM
No where, not any where did any of the framers of the Constitution or any other government ever believe for a second that you could write 'the government can only do this' --Says Bruceduck
"The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people."
--Says US Constitution, Amendments IX and X.
Sometimes we have to live under the Constitution we do have rather than the one we wish we had or falsely believe we have, even if the majority are similarly deceived.
Until we agree again to the terms of our contract, my voting and electing is not connected to the outcome for which I campaign. It violates legal and moral principle for one to impose a change in the contract without mutual consent. If we're not negotiating by legal means, you better hope your gun is bigger than mine.
In addition to tissues, I foresee the need for caskets.
Vidyohs: The problem of jurisdiction is real. I fancy some sort of voluntary Citizenship, with a status of alien residency until the age and act of consent.
Posted by: foxmarks | Feb 8, 2008 12:18:37 PM
If we don't like the current set of oligarchs, we always have the Bolshevik option. The only problem with that is that in the end after millions dead in a bloody civil war, you end up with a new set of oligarchs. Choices, choices.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 8, 2008 12:31:08 PM
Bruce Boston writes:
Show me where in the Constitution where it gives people the right to call someone a religious slur.
First Amendment - free speech. Slurs may be in bad taste, but the constitution is pretty clear on free speech if you ask me. Of course, that does not stop our politicians from creating laws that violate the amendment, or stopping the courts from looking the other way becuase of their personal, and politicial preferences.
Posted by: Mcwop | Feb 8, 2008 12:32:27 PM
The existence of "hate crime" laws prove the invalidity of the 1st amendment. The existence of McCain-Feingold is another nail in the coffin for the 1st amendment. The SCOTUS has abdicated its responsibility.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 8, 2008 1:48:14 PM
Before one can have an impact beyond ones own vote, one must communicate the problems that one sees.
So what is BB saying? Shut up and vote?
The point of free speech as that one can speak of ones discontent with the way things are, at the very least to find out if others are similarly discontented.
So are you, BB, taking writers here to task for communicating with others?
We all understand perfectly well how the system works and how far it is from the ideal. And I bet most of us here are familiar with the constitution. I have a copy nearby.
Simply voting says very little, especially when those who are 'in' have so much influence over what is discussed.
It is the obligation of those who perceive problems to make notice of them and to express their comprehension of those problems.
What is your point, Bruce Boston?
Do you come here to discuss issues, to understand our analyses, or to tell us to shut up and and be happy we can vote?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 8, 2008 1:49:41 PM
Bruce said:___"The problem with this of course is that we can then conclude that all advice is wrong, which is absurd as something has to be more effective than no advice."
Directed advice is fine - but that is not what you have done. If someone tells you they are dying and they don't believe in God is it advice to suggest that they pray? No. Advice would be to suggest that they learn about scripture or perhaps offer them a bible. You made no arguments that suggest Hans should come to your same conclusion regarding the legitimacy of government. You can't start out where you want to conclude.
When you say that you should either work within the system or leave the country you are giving 'advice' that has no bearing on the principal objection that Hans raised. In order for Hans to take this 'advice' he would need to first agree with the very thing that you are arguing about - the legitimacy of government.
Posted by: I_am_a_lead_pencil | Feb 8, 2008 1:54:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
