The Right Way to Do the Wrong Thing

The Autonomist ^ | 2/14/04 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

Does our government protect us from foreign invasion? Does no one ever attack the United States? Have you never heard of 9/11? Were we attacked by a superior military power?

No, we were attacked by a gang of scruffy religious fanatics with no military resources whatsoever. If the government cannot protect us from 19 Muslim nuts, what do you think it is going to do against a real military invasion?

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Hank

[tacticalogic]

The particular frozen abstraction that substitutes, "government," for, "means," as though it were the only one, is so thoroughly ingrained that almost no issue or problem, social or private, is discussed outside the context of government. To every question such as, "what should be done about?" or "how should we handle?," or "what is the solution to?", it is tacitly assumed government is what is being talked about.

New Deal bump.

[Cicero]

Is this ALL the government should do for its citizens? Police and army? I think we can argue for more legitimate services. Customs. Intelligence against foreign agents and threats. Public health. And some REASONABLE DEGREE of regulation, such as agricultural rules for health purposes, food packing rules, construction rules, and the like. Business needs certain rules so everyone is on the same playing field and not cutting corners to save costs on dangerous matters.

And you could go on in this way a lot further.

But I certainly agree that we have far too much government, which exists mainly to pay a class of people who work and vote for the politicians who pay their salaries, and who give them power. And certainly much of what this article says about the right to bear arms makes good sense, as does it's insistence that the role of the police is to punish criminals. Maybe flogging and the stocks were cheaper for the taxpayer than long jail terms in expensive jails--a method of punishment that has never been used in any other time or place in recorded history before the modern era.

[AreaMan]

Or, as Tibor Machan puts it, "it is to secure our unalienable rights to life,...

... "what should the government do about crime, abortion, pornography, and drugs?"

None of these is a legitimate function of government.

Riddle me this losertarians...If one of the only things that government should do is secure our "unalienable rights to life" why is abortion allowed?

Is not a child in the womb living? So, what makes that life not worthy of government protection?

This is one issue where you guys lose me. The apparent lack of thought on this makes pretty much everything else suspect.

[Hank Kerchief]

It is very interesting that the following two articles, providing examples of the principles expressed in the article on this thread were posted a little earlier on Free Republic today:

TSA (lack of) security

Gun Control or Homeland Security: You Can't Have Both

Maybe people are beginning to wake up after all? Probably not.

Hank

[sheltonmac]

A hijacking attempt is possible under any conditions, of course, because there is no limit to insanity, but the kind of hijacking that occurred on 9/11 would not have been possible if the hijackers did not feel assured all they needed for weapons were box cutters. The one sure contributor to 9/11, the only one that can certainly be remedied, and the only one that government does not even consider is the government's own restriction of firearms on airplanes.

This bears repeating over and over and over again. Until we tackle the gun control issue we will never be able to take effective steps toward curbing terrorism. What's interesting is that the neoconservatives who are 110% behind our war in Iraq refuse to even address the issue.

The sad truth in all of this is that we can sacrifice hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East, but it will all be in vain as long as the government denies Americans the right to keep and bear arms. We are told that we are over there fighting for our freedom, but I wonder how long it will be before people start asking why even their most basic freedoms continue to be denied. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that kind of make the whole war on terror pointless?

[NukeMan]

With respect to the per-capita crime rates you posted, I do remember reading that the police force (per capita) circa 1960 was much larger than today's per capita. Something like a factor of 2 to 4 times larger. I'll see if I can lay my hands on the numbers.

It would stand to reason a larger police presence, ceterus paribus, would decrease crime.

[davisfh]

I agree with most of what was said in the article, Hank. I really think that it is too late for the US, though. All of the programs that the government supports have, in essence, served to irretrievably intertwine the government's tentacles into the fabric of the citizenry. Welfare, AFDC and earned income tax credits are a short list of things that should never have happened. Take a look at what happens to highway funds when a state doesn't toe the mark regarding speed limits and numerous other federal mandates.

"If the government cannot protect us from 19 Muslim nuts, what do you think it is going to do against a real military invasion?"

I believe that it is much easier to defend the country against a standing army than it is to defend the country against Muslim nuts. One of the peoblems with these people is that they have a death wish and that death wish includes them. And, by the way, every time I hear our President say, "Islam is one of the world's great religions," I cringe. Surely he knows better than that. And please don't interpret this as undue criticism of the President. There is much to be admired about the things that he has done to protect the country.

[kesg]

"If the government cannot protect us from 19 Muslim nuts, what do you think it is going to do against a real military invasion?"

Actually, the government would almost certainly do an excellent job protecting us from a real military invasion. It is much easier to prevent a military invasion than to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. In fact, I don't think we can prevent terrorist attacks at all except through a proactive approach of the type that we have used in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[sheltonmac]

Is this ALL the government should do for its citizens?

Naturally, we need to consider which government should be handling which concerns. One could argue that state and local govenrments could address things like regulations regarding agricultural, food packing, construction, and business, but the feds should not be involved. The most obvious reason is that they have no constitutional authority to interfere in those areas.

[P.O.E.]

"The lie of bureaucracy" is what I call it. No bureaucrat wants to solve the problem they're working on - it would put them out of a job. There's a perverse incentive to increase the problem. The subtlest is via scope creep (i.e., expanding the definition to include increasingly marginal aspects), from whence comes the ballooning of government.

[Hank Kerchief]

Riddle me this losertarians...If one of the only things that government should do is secure our "unalienable rights to life" why is abortion allowed?

This is very strange. Here is an article about whether government is the right way to do things and has nothing to do with abortion at all, and you come on this post and talk about nothing else.

Why do you love that subject so much? If someone says, "I like cucumbers on my salad," you are the kind of person who will say, "yeah, but why aren't you opposed to abortion?"

For the record, I am not a Libertarian, and not technically an Objectivist either. Furthermore, you have no idea what my personal position on abortion is, or what any individual libertarian's position is either. Since you did not explicitly say you were opposed to slavery, should we be asking why you aren't opposed to it? Should we be questioning your reasoning since you do not make a point to always say you are opposed to slavery.

In fact, there is good reason to suppose you are not opposed to it. Most of the people who speak the way you do, believe the government ought have the power to interfere in the private lives of individuals. What none of you realize is, as soon as you give the government that power, they are not going to use it for what you want. You may want the government to use its power to prevent abortions, but a government with that power will most likely used it to force women to have them, as they do in China.

But thanks for the comments.

Hank

[sheltonmac]

It would stand to reason a larger police presence, ceterus paribus, would decrease crime.

I don't know about that. A larger police force could mean more enforcement of idiotic laws, which would result in more crime statistically. A well-armed populace would be much more effective at deterring crime than a large police force.

[mrsmith]

"A frozen abstraction substitutes some one particular concrete for a wider abstract class to which that particular belongs. "

The log in this Libertarian idealogue's eye.

An honest person would say that the terrorists were successful because they had a nation's power protecting their organization and planning of their attack.

But a lying hypocrite would substitute the particular concrete "military power" for the wider abstract "national sovereignty" and offer stupid arguments against the obvious successful and appropriate use of military power to deal with such uses of national sovereignty.

Pathetic idealogy-bound hypocrites.

[DannyTN]

"Is this ALL the government should do for its citizens?"

No, of course not. You have hit the root of the issue. I submit that government responsibility goes much further than even you have mentioned.

Government's responsibility to society as a whole includes the proper dealing with the poor. It is necessary for three reasons:

1. left to the local communities, some communities will shirk their responsibility for the poor, sickly and disabled. This happened in the very early years of American history. It is why every state in the union had poor laws on the books prior to joining the union. Even Thomas Jefferson said taking care of the poor is a "civil" duty.
2. it is necessary for the well being of the economy as a whole. Without disaster relief programs, whole regions and industries could be destroyed as foriegn competition takes advantage of shortterm economic disadvantages.

   A hand up to help an individual results in a productive member of society, whereas There is a reason why China just banned US poultry products over bird flu, when the flu is a Chinese problem not an American one. They don't want their poultry industry destroyed. They want it to have time to recover.

3. It is a biblical command to certain kings to consider the cause of the poor and needy. We cannot hope to obtain the blessings of divine providence unless we do likewise. It is not merely an individual responsibility, but also a governmental responsibility. And we as individuals are the government. If we fail to do this, responsibility for government will be stripped from us.

   I'm not saying we can't improve on how we do this. That there shouldn't be accountability. They when an individual can do for themselfs, we should be providing a hand up, not a hand out. I think there is a lot of room for improvement. But many conservatives would throw the baby out with the wash, and this is a responsibility we shirk at our peril.

[tpaine]

Cicero wrote:
Is this ALL the government should do for its citizens? Police and army? I think we can argue for more legitimate services.

______________________________________


Indeed.. We made that argument, and agreed long ago, herein:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The problem remains, - controlling the 'promotion' of the general welfare, -- and making sure that the insuring of "domestic Tranquility" does not become obsessive over-regulation.

[tpaine]

You should revise & extend your remarks, as they make pathetically little sense as posted.

[el_texicano]

"the 'promotion' of the general welfare"

I don't believe the term "welfare" was the same in the founders minds as it is used by the modern day generation. "Welfare" today has come to mean an entitlement, a free ride, a gift. "Welfare" as it has become today is the worse thing that can be done for a society.

[AreaMan]

This is very strange. Here is an article about whether government is the right way to do things and has nothing to do with abortion at all, and you come on this post and talk about nothing else.

Nothing to do with abortion? The article specifically mentioned abortion. The italicized excerpts were from the article you posted.

I agree with many of the other personal liberty issues that libertarians espouse and with the very limited role of government. This is why I only mentioned the abortion issue.

Your statement,

" Why do you love that subject so much? If someone says, "I like cucumbers on my salad," you are the kind of person who will say, "yeah, but why aren't you opposed to abortion?"

makes me think you have some kind of aversion to reasoned arguments against abortion.

The reason I singled out abortion is that it is an issue that should be a "no-brainer" for anyone that has thought about if for more than a few minutes.

The issue is not individual libertarians' position on abortion. The issue as raised, again, by the article you posted is that abortion is not an issue that government should be involved in.

Saying, on the one hand, that Gov. has a responsibility to protect life and then on the other saying that same government allows people to destroy innocent and defenseless human life causes a cognitive dissonance that makes me question whether libertarians have the ability to think clearly. Also, you say:

What none of you realize is, as soon as you give the government that power, they are not going to use it for what you want.

What kind or amount of power would the Gov. need to secure the inalienable rights that Mr. Machan mentioned? Can they be even trusted with that? Since, by your "reasoning," they are not going to use it for what you want, then I think not. So now what?

I believe you may have declared your autonomy from clear thinking on this issue.