We’re having a lot of trouble communicating here. I knew that we would when I started this, but I’m a glutton for punishment. I continue to believe, in spite of years of frustration, that it is possible to reason with people. But that assumes a common language, common terms, and at least the rudiments of agreement upon basic reality.
It’s hard to get much done in a round table discussion if the participants don’t agree that the thing between them is a table, or that it is round. (This is worse than the Paris Peace Talks. If I remember correctly, the argument there was over the shape that the table should be, not whether there were such a thing as a table, or whether it was really a chair, or…)
The problem is dramatized by Doug, who inspired the thread to start with (you’ll have to scroll down after you follow the link):
Your fawning over our system of government is remarkable. You admire
politicians like some people admire athletes or actors… ascribing all
sorts of heroic attributes to a group of people who are mainly
interested in power and personal gain. You act as if these people are
altruistic financial wizards working solely for the will of the people.
Fat chance. I have to ask — what color is the sky in your world????
OK, let’s address that paragraph. "Fawning over our system of government." Yes, I believe in the system of representative democracy embraced by the Founders, and institutionalized in the Constitution. I have a lot of problems with the system we have in South Carolina, which was built to be inefficient, extremely resistant to change, unaccountable to the people, and protective of the status quo for the benefit of an established aristocracy (thanks again, John Locke). But the American system? I will not reject "fawning," with all its contemptuous connotations, because almost any word that suggests admiration, respect, even reverence will do. As for contempt — well, I confess that I harbor contempt for those who regard the American system of government in contempt. That would apply to the "Blame America" set on the left, and the "despise government" folk who tend these days to congregate with the right. But I am trying to hold my contempt in check for the sake of a civil, good-faith discussion. That’s a little hard to do when an interlocutor boasts of humiliating his parents by showing them that he and his employer were funding most of their Social Security payments. I’m a much more conservative, "honor thy father and thy mother" kind of guy. So let’s move on.
"You admire politicians…?" Let me try really hard to give that statement some credence, and say that I suppose it depends on the politician. There aren’t many I would say I "admire, in the sense that most people would use the word. John McCain is one. Joe Lieberman is another. My admiration for Lindsay Graham has been growing steadily. I have long admired Joe Riley and Tony Blair. When I look at the entire category — well, I would be hard-pressed to say that I admire our governor specifically, or the governor before him, or the one before him… I don’t think anyone who reads what I write would say that, either. As for most of the Legislature — well, as a body, they are hardly worthy of praise. I’d say "disgust" is a more frequently felt sentiment than admiration. But if you’re speaking in generic terms, do I consider public service (whether elective or appointive, a momentary thing or "career") a higher calling than those of, say, "athletes and actors?" Of course. I’m sure many athletes and actors also do admirable things, but there is nothing inherently admirable in being able to run fast or look good on camera (and I realize Doug wasn’t saying I should admire actors and athletes, but since that’s the comparison he made, I’m exploring that). There is something admirable in wanting to serve others, whether by working in government service — military or civilian (yes, even "bureaucrats") — or running for office to represent one’s fellow citizens in our republican system. Just stepping out to offer your services, you know that millions will immediately sneer at you for being a "politician," and that’s just the beginning. Your opponents will slander you, insult you, lie about you, do anything they can short of sticks and stones to hurt you. I suppose in some people, the willingness to put up with that is pathological. In others, it is indeed admirable.
"ascribing all sorts of heroic attributes…" when did I do that? Just now was the closest I’ve come to that, and I only did so because I was reaching as far as I could to meet you in this discussion — going as far out on the "admiration" limb as I could scoot. But heroic? When did I, in this discussion and before Doug said that, speak of anything heroic?
Once again, we’re getting into the realm of impulse — of powerful feelings. The contempt that Doug holds for those in public service is quite palpable, and seems akin to his resentment of his labor going to the benefit of others — except, of course, under circumstances and conditions that he entirely controls. It’s another thing that puzzles me. Where does that come from? Did a city councilman or a policeman beat him up when he was young? There is often, in libertarian rhetoric, something that sounds a good bit like fear, or a sense of one’s own smallness or vulnerability in the face of something of overweening power. I don’t recall having felt that way in my time in this country. I can see how a Saudi might feel that way, but not an American.
Don’t you think "people who are mainly
interested in power and personal gain" would be wiser to stay in the private sector? When it comes to power, what politician in this country will ever have the monarchical power of a CEO — even one with an outspoken board? Look at what politicians actually encounter when they try to accomplish something — unrelenting opposition, usually to the point of completely frustrating the intended action. To be able to make a decision and have it stick at your own company — that’s power. "Personal gain?" Oh, come on. Government service is definitely the wrong place.
"Altruistic financial wizards?" When did I ever suggest such a thing? Do you ever read what we write about the Legislature’s budgetary priorities and decisions? That’s so far from easily verifiable reality, I don’t know why you would level such a charge.
This is discouraging — this cognitive disconnect over our respective statements. I’m not even getting off on any of the comments I’ve read from others in this discussion that indicate that they perceive reality in ways that seem very, very strange to me — such as John saying that someone else’s hyperbolic description of creating a permanent underclass is "EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE TODAY," or Weldon "breaking" it to me that the government doesn’t own the property (what I said was that NO ONE owns property without a system of laws that set out, support and maintain the purely theoretical concept of property rights; this is a very difficult concept for libertarians to grasp, so I can hardly blame him I guess), or Eric’s very overwrought cry of "Should one not vote for or choose a collectivism justified by majority
rule they are still forced to comply with the charity of the state via
gunpoint," (oh, lighten up; why do you people feel so extremely and dramatically put upon when you lose a political argument? That’s life.), or Lee’s "definition" of "communitarianism." (You see why I hesitate to use the term? It’s sufficiently esoteric that he felt free to just make up his own definition to advance his argument. He managed to use "communistic," but I guess he couldn’t figure away to work any other epithets in. One thing I won’t let him get away with, though, is "feelings without any attempt at intellectual justification." I’m not much of a feelings guy, and communitarianism is so over-intellectualized that it never seems to make it into popular conversation.)
What am I supposed to do to facilitate a constructive discussion here? How can I do so, when even my most carefully explained thoughts come back to me in such a bizarrely distorted form? How do we settle on the fact that there is or is not a table before us, so that we can reach more substantive agreements?
To recap my view: "Government" is neither God nor the Devil. In this country, it is just a set of arrangements that a free people came up with for carrying out their common affairs. I believe that most people who are past adolescence should understand that the world is not about them and their almighty, individual will. They must somehow live their lives with some accommodation for the fact that they will live in a community of some kind, and that community will order things in ways that will often differ from the individual’s preferences. In applying that set of arrangements, government (in our system) is no more or less coercive than we, as a community, decide that it will be. If we want to enforce speed limits, we will (in South Carolina, we have decided not to). If we want to let people get away with tax evasion, we will. Plenty of people do. I suppose tax evaders are neither as respectful of government as I am, nor as afraid of it as some of my interlocutors here seem to be.
Anyway, back to the discussion: What is the root of this passionate, angry rejection of having obligations placed on one by the community at large?
Related Posts
The American Way is to not have “the community at large” place obligations on the productive minority. The community at large has an obligation to make their own way in this world, and as many people point out, opportunity to earn wealth is great in America. Very few people really have any excuse for needing to live on handouts.
Every dollar skimmed out of the private sector in taxes is one dollar less available for charity, and about five dollars out of individual incomes, due to the turns a dollar makes in the free market.
Even a person making the rather mediocre income of the average South Carolinian would retire with quite a nest egg if he were to invest the money now taken and squandered on Social Security. Many people who now have no retirement would be millionaires if they could invest those FICA taxes for themselves.
The reason most politicians seek power in public office is because they lack the skills to make it as an executive in business. John Land can make a fortune representing people before the Worker’s Compensation Board only because he appointed the board. Tommy Moore only has value to the loan sharks because of his prior years creating the laws to protect those loan sharks. They realized their limitations long ago sought wealth through power, rather by providing goods and services to voluntary customers.
Wow, it’s almost as frustrating as “some people” ascribing personal animus towards George W. Bush as the primary motivation to oppose the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Brad,
So much to respond to…
I figured you would misread my comment on my father’s embarrassment over what I was paying in Social Security. I used the wrong word there. Perhaps shock or astonishment would have been better. I realized that right after I hit the submit button. Believe me, my father agreed 100% with me on Social Security. But having been retired for 20 years, he had no idea just how out of control the system had become. $1000 a month between my employer and me for someone else’s benefit with no guarantee that I will get anything is not trivial. There was no humiliation… you’ll have to try some other way to demonize me when you can’t win the debate.
Do I need to point you to the adjectives you used to describe Lindsey Graham… or John McCain… or the legislator who flew back from his military assignment to support Jim Rex’s phony school choice bill ? Remember those? You fall all over yourself to hype these types of actions.
FYI, I DID run for office. School board. Turned down campaign donations from friends and used my own money. Maybe that experience galvanized my feelings. I saw up close just how broken the local government is and how uninformed and apathetic the voters are. I also witnessed unethical and slimy behavior by several of the candidates… the stories I could tell!
Sorry, I wasn’t abused by a cop. I just go through my day to day life observing the stupidity that is called our government in action. Maybe you’re blind to it. Need some examples?
Little things like going to the DMV to get my son’s drivers permit and being told that even though he had a Social Security card, a birth certificate and I had a tax bill showing my residence — nope, that’s not good enough to prove he (a 15 year old) is a resident of Richland County. Need to go home and get a report card…
Or how about making weekly trips through the TSA checkpoints at the airport? I can’t bring a half empty 4 ounce bottle of mouthwash through BUT I can bring as many 3 ounce bottles that will fit in a quart sized bag? That oughta stop terrorism in its tracks….
Or how about the 1% sales tax break for people over the age of 85 in South Carolina (if they ask for it)? What sort of bureaucratic idiot could come up with that? and why?
Or how about a sales tax limit on car sales maxed out at $300? Why? You think the auto dealers might have some interest in that? You think there’s some donations to certain legislators to make sure that cap remains? And lets not forget the benefit your company gets from not having to collect sales taxes. I’m sure there’s a logical reason for that one based on doing what’s best for the public.
Or how about a “sales tax relief” weekend coming up in two weeks? Again, why not just cut the sales tax overall instead of these phony gimmicks? All that does is create more bureacratic work.
Or how about blue laws? What person in his right mind could come up with a LAW that says “You cannot buy a beer in a convenience store on Sunday but you can buy as many as you want at a restaurant?” Or telling a business what time of day it can open on Sunday? We citizens actually PAY people to come up with that stupidity.
Or how about it taking six weeks to get a pothole filled at the entrance to our neighborhood while Bernice Scott tries to rig the paving system to get her road moved up the list…
Those are the little things. We’ll leave out the million, billion, and trillion dollar government programs that are fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse of power.
This could go on and on for pages. And it comes down to my basic belief – our government (whether federal, state, or local) is an inefficient system used to redistribute money to those who don’t deserve it by those who have the power to influence where it goes (usually for some personal gain). Do you think our Founding Fathers would admire the government they spawned? I highly doubt it…
I frequently see a bumper sticker on a car in the parking lot that captures my attitude: “If you aren’t appalled, you aren’t paying attention.”
Try and debate the issues instead of attacking me. I’ll be glad to read your support of the Social Security system and your analysis of how it will remain solvent in twenty years without requiring more taxes.
Brad
Here’s where we differ: “Government” is neither God nor the Devil.”
Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Government is unfortunately necessary because there is a dark side to humanity, but the natural tendency of a Government run by humans is to become the Devil.
The Founding Fathers knew this. It’s why they separated the Government into many different pieces so it was difficult for the scoundrels to get anything done. Anytime people complain about gridlock in Washington, Madison must smile in his grave because that was precisely the point.
Anytime a vote is taken, it is a zero sum game where someone wins and someone loses, and something is inherently lost in that process. When a transaction freely occurs in the marketplace, both sides gain or the trade would not have occurred, so value is created. In a perfect world, all interactions between people would occur freely, and no one would be forced to do anything they didn’t want to do.
Jefferson also said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
That’s where I come down on it too. Government is necessary, but it should do what it has to do with a very light hand.
John, we’re not that far apart. Seriously. I think we’re just about to break through that ol’ demon, that barrier that lives up in the thin air… The Cognitive Barrier.
When you say, “Government is necessary, but it should do what it has to do with a very light hand,” that’s pretty close to what I say. Only I don’t care how heavy or light we decide it will be on this policy or that one. That’s for the people of a republic to decide through the process of representative democracy.
On that point: I’m guessing that Churchill was using “democracy” as a popular catchall there, and meant to include a republic such as ours, and he’s right. It’s unsatisfactory as hell. Pretty much everyone would like everything to be decided HIS way — you would; I would. In your case, you have a predetermined position that whatever the issue, you should use a light hand. In that same discussion, depending on the issue and the merits of the particular proposal under discussion, I might agree with you. Or I might want a heavier hand. Or I might want no governmental hand at all (in which case, you would be the “statist” for a day). It depends entirely upon what makes sense in the specific case.
But in the end, an answer will emerge from the process, and neither you nor I will likely be entirely satisfied. Welcome to grownup life. I think that’s what Churchill was getting at — it’s not going to satisfy you, but it’s a whole lot better than, say, anarchy, or having some absolute monarch say this is the way it is, and to hell with you.
In other words, it’s not God. But it’s not the devil, either. It’s whatever it turns out to be, in each application of the process.
What I lack is a specific, preset, ideological approach to all issues. The thing about the libertarian approach overall is that it bothers me that anyone would approach everything with such a broad assumption. It’s intellectually offensive to me. It’s impractical. I’m always trying to point that out. What do I get for my trouble? Since I don’t think your approach of always taking THIS position is right, I must be one of those guys who always takes THAT position. But I’m not. Why is this so tough to communicate?
Finally, I suspect Jefferson was using “democracy” more specifically. And indeed, pure democracy IS nothing more than mob rule. Thank God that the Framers (and Jefferson wasn’t in the room) didn’t go for that. I worry that it has become more and more democratic, and I think Jefferson (then Jackson) did a lot to start us down that road. But it’s still a republic, and those of us should resist the mob just as we resist tyrants.
That’s one of the things that worries me about libertarianism. It strikes me as a powerful gut impulse, the cry of the threatened ego, or something equally elemental and uncivilized — like mobs.
So I pose questions to try to dig into what it really IS, so as to understand it better. The things that libertarians say back in defense — from Lockean Enlightenment pieties to efforts to misrepresent my position so as to demagogue it, to dark fears about the government doing things to them “at gunpoint,” don’t really assuage my concerns.
You dismiss libertarianism without discussing any of its philosophy, substituting your perceptions for what its intellectuals have written. Every one of your objections has been answered many times, by such writers as Judge Alber J. Nock, economists Thomas Sowell, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, and many others.
It is not a “dark fear”, but a bright reality, that all government operates by threat of armed force. Those who call themselves “the government” stand ready to send police to kill you over a parking ticket, if you want to resist them.
All that Locke, Jefferson and others sought to do was to limit government with boundaries, after thousands of years of pharoahs, sultans, and kings declaring that they had some divine dominion over the rest of mankind. Like it or not, America was founded by libertarians, and is the greatest country because of it. It fails when subversives try to bend government to be their personal servant.
It is silly to blame John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith for not creating a government so perfect that it could not be polluted by the likes of LBJ, Clinton, Hodges, Kevin Geddings, and Tommy Moore. The only reason these people are able to corrupt government is because so many people, especially in the press and Church, understand so little about Americanism, capitilism and their civic responsibilities.
Brad,
Bear with me while I get a little philosophical.
Everyone has a preset idealogical approach.
Choosing to evaluate issues on a case-by-case basis is a preset idealogical approach.
Imagine one simple ideology (x) that follows this rule: “Never agree with a tax hike, no matter what.”
Imagine another ideology (y): “Always support a tax hike, unless it will result a total tax burden of over 50% of individual income.”
Now, you might say, it is absurd to blindly follow such ideologies. But the following statement:
“Never base a decision on ideology (x) or on ideology (y).”
is itself an ideology, just a more complicated one.
So, this vast cognitive disconnect you claim exists is really a continuous, sliding-scale spectrum, with “pragmatism” on one end, and “pure ideology” on the other. Most people approach problems with some combination of the two. The advantage of pragmatism is that is is adaptable to different situations. The advantage of ideaology is that it allows for a consistent worldview, and tends to minimize the chance of taking positions on separate issues which effectively contradict each other.
Brad,
Um, sorry.
My last comment addressed some of your comments, but not really what you called the “cognitive barrier”, so the reference I made to “cognitive disconnect” is not really appropriate.
The “cognitive barrier” you mentioned was really more about communication than ideology, so, my bad
Lee is back (welcome!) and singing the same old song about “the productive minority.” I guess it must be the difference in whom we associate with – all my family and most of those who aren’t family but whom I’ve known for years or decades ARE productive. I think most people, over the span of decades, live productive lives. But I will agree that they waste a lot of the fruits of productive endeavor.
Brad there are many things that you and I agree on, energy and health care are two that we are pretty close on. But it so annoying when you continue to misrepresent yourself so flagrantly. And that makes me less than enthusiastic for supporting your stand on policies that we should be natural allies on. Take this comment you made in response to something John Warner said:
When you say, “Government is necessary, but it should do what it has to do with a very light hand,” that’s pretty close to what I say.
-Brad
Do you really believe in your heart that you want government to have a “very light hand”? Nothing in any of your writings conveys that as any part of your thinking. You almost always come down hard, very hard on the side of heavy-handed government. You’ve even suggested that you have no problem with our government eaves dropping on your private phone conversations! You supported the abolition of video poker that included large penalities for people who wanted to play games that had been legal previously. It doesn’t get much more heavy-handed than that.
Here’s my suggestion Brad. Just lighten up on all the references to how much you dislike partisans. We’re all partisans. As a liberal democrat I’m partisan for most (but by no means all) of the policies supported by the most liberal members of congress. I do so because I believe those policies coincide with my belief system. Occasionally I find myself in staunch disagreement with the liberals in congress. In those instances I part with my party and support the other side. Nuclear power is an example. I tend to support it. Liberals generally oppose it.
Just lighten up on the partisan talk Brad. You’re as partisan as anyone. And there’s not a thing wrong with that. You just don’t have a party that adopts all of your positions. If there was a heavy-hand party you’d fit right in.
By “the productive minority”, I refer to the fact that only a very small percentage of Americans work, produce wealth and pay more taxes than they consume.
The majority of Americans live off the wealth created by this minority, voluntarily supported because they are children or elderly family members, or have plugged into the involuntary government wealth transfer programs of bureaucratic jobs, welfare, and subsidies.
Only 50% of the minority of Americans who work and file taxes even have to pay any income taxes.
Equal protection and due process under the law do no exist for taxpayers.