I echo Billy's thoughts. Which people believe that a nanny government is taking care of them and cast off their own personal responsibility, who would otherwise be exemplars of responsibility under a libertarian system? Some people are just brought up to be stupid and lazy, and would continue to be stupid and lazy otherwise. Rather than gut the system, wouldn't it be more beneficial to radically reform our education system and train students to become responsible adults? For someone who has quite little believe in the ability of government to do anything effectively, you're certainly putting a lot of stock in banking on a sea change in government to change people's personalities.
On Nov 12, 9:14 am, "Kevin Kervick" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Billy: > > I said government "intervention" causes the malady. It strikes me that one > way opponents of libertarianism discredit it is to use the straw man argument > that libertarians are anti-government. Libertarians believe in limited > government, the more local and decentralized the better. > > Let's take out of wedlock births for starters. Government welfare policy, > and some would argue, drug enforcement policy, have directly impacted the > marriage rate. Paying people more if they are not married has lessened the > value of marriage. Paying single people to have children has increased the > numbers of single people having children. Europe is way ahead of the US. > > The nanny government creates a condition where-by people come to believe > someone is there to take care of them, which impacts personal responsibility > and neighborliness. I trust spontaneous order more than the controlling > tendencies of power-seeking men. > > Kevin > > Kevin : > Government causes "the" malady ? > > I don't follow, although I suspect it is because we are thinking about > different classes of things. Otherwise this is a mystery. > > Government causes abortions ? > " " homosexuality ? > " " Hollywood movies and the nihilistic values > they promote ? > " " out of wedlock births ? > " " drug abuse ? > > Maybe gvt has some role in various such matters, but it seems much more > likely that market forces, so to speak, are the greater culprits. > > Anyway, why reflexively hit on government ? > Why reflexively give a free pass to the market ? > > We do have a Constitution that many people regard as inspired and a Great > Good. > Why not defend the Constitution and the government it created ? > Government is not the enemy. The idiots who are now IN government, > certainly a lot of them, are the enemy. Personally I'd like to lynch about > half > of everyone now in Washington DC. But this is very different than > blaming government, especially our Constitutional government. > > Libertarians cannot have it both ways, pro-Constitution and anti-government. > The Constitution created our government. It legitimates our government. > The Constitution is meaningless without our government. > We need better government, hence my main reason for > recommending all those new Amendments. But I sure in heck > don't want to see our government gutted. > > Which Amendments do you think would not improve government ? > > Exactly what is the value in ceaseless attacks on government ? > How does that make good sense ? Why not spend time and energy > trying to improve government ? > > And what is the alternative ? No government ? That would be irrational. > And, if successful, it would be suicidal. > > Billy > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 11/11/2011 3:53:36 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > Hello Billy: > > I would take it a step further. I believe government intervention causes > the malady. Thus if we want to improve society we should eliminate the cause. > > Kevin > > Mike : > You certainly "get" the idea of Radical Centrism. I don't think anyone > here > could have said it better. Not at all clear, however, what the > relevance is > to social conservatives and values issues. Kevin also made the point > that > these kinds of issues matter to many, many people. > > How the government treats the less well off ( or the poor as such ) is > mostly, > at least as I see it, more a question of economics and incentives. Is > there > anyone who regards it as moral to injure the well being of Americans > who live at poverty levels ? Seems to me that, about this, there is no > moral issue at all, just a means/ends issue, how to get the best result > in terms of $$ for both gvt and individuals. > > Generally, if not overwhelmingly, "values" refers to a very different > set of issues, call them "hot button" if you prefer. They have this > designation > precisely because of emotional responses they arouse. > > Billy > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > 11/10/2011 2:10:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > This all goes back to "arete" with me. Whether the government or > private charity goes toward keeping the destitute alive, the homeless > situation leaves the same economic drag either way. The false choice > here is between the liberal idea of keeping a permanent underclass > just barely alive, or the conservative idea of denying the legitimacy > of the problem. Rather, I'd argue for a safety net that brings the > destitute back to the starting line by medicating, providing the bare > minimums, etc., but, in contrast with the current safety net, has an > expectation of performance in return. > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group:http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org > > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group:http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
