The welfare state

[Geardo]

You in particular have no problem taking our money to waste on the military industrial complex

That is NOT a waste! Welfare IS!

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Geardo

You in particular have no problem taking our money to waste on the military industrial complex

That is NOT a waste! Welfare IS!

Both are.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: illustri
CsG

I think you're slipping off the edge of this thread which is on the validity of the welfare system in this country. What does kerry or the left have to do with this now that (as we imagined for the sake of argument) the elections over?

That's why I asked where you were going with this. You obviously don't agree with kerry then - no? Anyway, if you want to string it out -fine, but my original statement about mike's statement is correct. Small business people can be "rich". They aren't "not rich" because they are small business owners.
*********

<-still patiently waiting...

CsG

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: illustri
CsG

I think you're slipping off the edge of this thread which is on the validity of the welfare system in this country. What does kerry or the left have to do with this now that (as we imagined for the sake of argument) the elections over?

That's why I asked where you were going with this. You obviously don't agree with kerry then - no? Anyway, if you want to string it out -fine, but my original statement about mike's statement is correct. Small business people can be "rich". They aren't "not rich" because they are small business owners.
*********

<-still patiently waiting...

CsG

My post was against your saying 250k means "rich", but my point was mainly to contradict halopuma that small business owners who work very hard for the most part are not "rich"... because halo even further back halo countered mike who said that the rich have it easier than the hardworking poor.

phew... I thought my point was clear but I look back now and see that halo didn't quote mike's original post so hence the confusion

/don't have to wait up for me

edit
I read back now and its still not clear, here:

250k+/small business is middle class, still very hardworking, not "rich" such that they can be viewed as wealthy elites who have it easier than those on welfare

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Condor

[...]

Minimum wage - the liberals solution to everything economic. All that minimum wage does in an economy is set the baseline of income. You move minimum wage up and you move the baseline up. Inflation reacts and the increase is null. Minimum wage actually costs opportunity.

Additionally, a study was conducted in 1999 on minimum wage effectiveness. Targeting seems the main issue. Of all those receiving a minimum wage increase, only 17% actually realized any real direct benefits on their households. The other 83% are either working teens or 2nd/3rd income family members.

One proposed solution revolves around tax cuts and subsidies along the lines of Earned Income Credit. In this respect, persons requiring the most assistance, so to speak, would actually receive the most direct benefit.

I think that anyone who earns under the poverty line shouldn't have to pay any income tax at all. The graduation should proceed from that.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have a well defined and controlled target.

I'm also against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that do not have checks in place to judge and quantify actual RESULTS(not intent).

I'm against involuntary wealth transfer schemes that are hand-outs instead of hand-ups. The purpose of programs such as these is to help, not make them reliant.

CsG

I agree, I would perfer like the "real life " equivilent to a "work-study" program, because it helps people and helps society. I believe their was a program like that, but it was struck down as unconstitutiuonal in the 1930's

Originally posted by: Condor
Welfare:

1. Destroys ambition and lets people who aren't naturally motivated languish
2. Destroys pride in accomplishment.

sorry but i doubt many people are proud to be on welfare.

3. Doesn't provide any margin of marginal income.
4. Can't provide marginal income.

I agree that the lack of marginal income in the current system is a signifigant problem. However it is not a proble that can't be addressed.

5. Is percieved as being blatantly unfair as it leverages the labor of one class to support another.

As opposed the poor supporting the rich.

6. Develops a layered society.

Society has been much more layered for a very long time. I don't see how the welfare state can make it worse.

7. Drives a wedge between the do's and the do nothings.
8. Creates discontent in both classes.

As opposed to just one class?

9. Provides one class more opportunitity for political activism, giving the economically impaired class an advantage.

I see as more of a leveling of the playing field, to which the economic elite are already extremely advantaged.

10. Forces people into blocs that are bought and sold like chattel for political gain.
11. Fosters crime in that an idle class will endeavor to better themselves economically and must do so in a subversive manner.
12. Prohibits the impaired class from bettering themselves economically as there are penalities for doing so.
13. Fosters an uneducated sub class.

I agree with #12, and #11 as well when considering the benefits to working in the black market in the current system, which relates to the lack of marginal income.

14. Destroys the productivity of thousands of people and the nation.

But also makes many lives much less unpleasant.

Originally posted by: Condor
[
I don't know what your major is, but it surely isn't economics. It doesn't appear to be history either.

Ironic because my major is economics and a minor is history Now if it could tell me how I'm wrong and not just that i'm wrong, that would be nice

The root of my comment was your analysis that the war is removing money from our economy. Economics is somewhat circular. The military spending that we do is rolled in significient part directly back into our national economy. Fuel procured overseas from overseas companies is a loss as is the food that is procured outside our agricultural production. Sort of like "What did it cost to go to the moon?" Answer: The hardware that was left there and the fuel to get there. The cost of labor for the research, the production and the operations was paid directly into the national economy. Even the cost of the food required by the crew can be considered null as they would have had to eat anyway and probably close to the same quantity of our national production. My comment on your history skills was pretty weak and kind of impulsive. Sorry! Just because I like you so much, I won't spell check this!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Why not? Between Socialist Security and Welfare ALONE we spend a TRILLION dollars every single year. I hardly think it's out of line to spend as much on LEGITIMATE government functions such as the military as it is the ILLEGITIMATE functions of SS and Welfare.

Jason

I'm glad your so willing to take MY money and give it to YOUR military, which I find morally repugnant, to use the arguement you used before.

Very likely that you wouldn't have the right to earn your money and keep your spoils without our military. I had a friend try to get me to retire to Thailand in 1990. He had purchased a nice place on the Mekong for around 25kusd and brought pictures. The place next door was for sale at about the same price point. The idea looked pretty good until I mentioned the cost of bringing things like TV's, washing machines and cars to the place. It was pretty isolated and transport would be costly, I thought. He told me not to bother with any of that except the car as the Laotian renegades did frequent cross border raids and took everything they could get on a Toyota truck back with them. They did it with machine guns in good numbers. When he said that, I gave up on copying his paradise. The area was far enough from Bangkok that the Thai military didn't get there very often. It ruined my dream of paradise to think that there would be no army to protect it!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

Sorry, but you are just WRONG. When you get paid for a job, you are being compensated for YOUR work, YOUR labor, YOUR effort, YOUR mind. The product of that labor rightly belongs ONLY TO YOU.

Jason

Maybe an example would make my point more clear. If you were your own little economic system, and you chopped down a tree your "pay" would be some wood.

If you were part of a larger economic system, say the USA for example, you can exchange your wood for money. But only because there's a Treasury department that prints the money, a banking system to manage the flow of money, roads for you to get your wood to the person who wants it, police and courts to make the roads useful, an Army to keep the Canadians from stealing your wood, a homeless shelter so you don't trip over someone on your way, a prison to keep a robber from stealing your money, and on and on and on.

All of these things are part of why you get paid what you get paid. Without them you would either get paid a lot less for the same work, or even more likely, if you look at the real world, you would simply starve to death.

Some of those services are important (i.e. roads, police, courts and national defense), but the fallacy of your logic lays in the fact in that we cannot stop paying for these services, even if we wanted to. If you do, the government will send you to prison or exact other penalties against you. The government is not like the voluntary marketplace with benevolent bureaucrats out to serve us (as it would like us to believe), it is ultimately force. Suppose I live in a community that wants to stop paying for those services. The community sets up its own monetary system, courts, roads, and police. Will we be allowed to seccede from this so-called "voluntary club" we call government? Of course not. The IRS would demand that taxes be paid on the estimated value of all the stuff we traded, and the government would probably send the national guard in to restore its authority.

The second part of your argument, which is basically the utilitarian case for the government is also highly dubious. Economist David Friedman (who happens to be Milton Friedman's son) has written a book claiming just the opposite, that without government we would all be far more prosperous and better off.

The Machinery of Freedom

David Friedman should migrate to a country without government and see how long his theory lasts. Some parts of Africa are near that, with gangs in Toyota trucks with machine guns commanded by warlords taking what they want from whoever has it. Remember the movie "Blackbird Down"? The economy illustrated poorly in that movie is one with chaos in charge. No one here wants that.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
...Let me make this clear. Very few people are rich through hard work...

liberal propaganda. Go to Amazon, and read the Millionaire Next Door, with recent surveys of American millionaires. almost 90% of Millionaires in America are self made, and never receieved a dime from inheritence. The majority of them are small business owners, who started that business from scratch (pretty hard work)

Originally posted by: desy
...
Crime statistics go up as poverty rates go up, if you have nothing to lose
...

Yet Welfare, though it has cost more than WWII in inflation adjusted dollars since Jimmy Carter started the "War on Poverty", has never even put a dent in the percentage of americans below the poverty line. 25 years of money down the drain

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Edit: sorry, the military is the second biggest welfare state today, right after social security.

lol, my favorite forum nutjob, here we go again.

figured out by the hour, I made 33 cents an hour in Marine bootcamp, and let me tell you, it was harder work than anything you will ever do, how you figure welfare state out of that is beyond me.

The amount of money is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it was someone else's which was forcefully extracted from them. What you did in order to "earn" it is also irrelevant. There is no distinction between your pay in the military and a welfare handout to an inner-city family. Why? Because in each case there was no objective evaluation of what should be paid out. These payments were not based on voluntary agreements between buyer and seller, they were decided arbitrarily by bureaucrats and politicians, and hence, any speculation about them is entirely subjective. Perhaps one could argue that in your case you provided some "service," and the welfare recipient did not. Well that is entirely subjective as well. Perhaps the welfare recipient's service to society is procreation, and we are merely subsidizing the propagation of the species.

Furthermore, the military has all sorts of benefit programs and bonus handouts. Boot camp pay is just the beginning. For the 2004 budget there was about $35 billion allocated to the military personnel of the Department of the Navy. The 2004 budget also had about $28 billion allocated to the Department of Veterans Affairs, for medical care, benefit programs burial benefits and pensions. Hence, in the end the military is currently the second largest welfare state. This does not detract any from the fact that it is part of the warfare state as well.

Source: Death &amp; Taxes

So you prefer that we use mercenaries? Already described that in an earlier post. That was the way in 1600's Japan. That works pretty good if all of your friends are warlords, not so good if you happen to be standing there when one of them needs to test the edge on his favorite blade. Our military is part of a pretty delicate balance of power. Better leave it that way unless you figure all people are innocents with bad raps and would live together in total harmony without overbearing force.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
That is nothing but nonsense. Just take a look at every small-business owner out there and tell them that they didn't do any hard work and that the poor work more than them.

a small business owner isn't rich dumbass. Thats why they are called a small business owner.

Uhh, actually quite a few "small business owners" would be considered "rich". Didn't we have this debate during the elections? Yes, yes we did. Small business owners can and do earn 150k+, 200k+, or even 250k+. I know a few myself. Why don't you come back when you can atleast attempt to be honest.

CsG

Having a lot of cash flow and being rich aren't the same!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
...Let me make this clear. Very few people are rich through hard work...

liberal propaganda. Go to Amazon, and read the Millionaire Next Door, with recent surveys of American millionaires. almost 90% of Millionaires in America are self made, and never receieved a dime from inheritence. The majority of them are small business owners, who started that business from scratch (pretty hard work)

george bush never recived an inheiritance either, but he was still granted wealth. Most rich people (lets say $500k a year and up) Came from erther rich of upper middle class backrounds. Only an miniscule minority came from povery, and hlaf those are probably professional athletes or musicians.

Many of the originators of those rich or middle class backgrounds came from poverty and had little education. In your studies of history (maybe I was correct after all?), read up on some of Americas rich families and see how they started. I would post some stuff, but I am too lazy to go back and reread all of that!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: illustri

uhh... you're a liberal?

No(thank God), but $200K seems to be what kept getting thrown around during the election season.

CsG

so lets imagine for the sake of argument that the election is over, do you think 250k+ is rich?

Depends on how much of it is marginal, doesn't it? Depends on the local economic environment. Too many variables in your equation for an accurate solution.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Anubis08
A person *edit most people* will only perform at the level you expect them too. I am all for helping those who need it and are trying to get back on their feet, but it is not to be lived on. One thing that struck me during the U.S. presidential elections this year was the democrats were pushing for a minimum wage increase due to, if I remember correctly, there was a young mother raising her children on a minimum wage job and could not get enough money. Now, I'm not gonna say the democrats are trying to hide the real probelm like always, but the big problem is not that she cannot survive on minimum wage; it is that she is working at a minimum wage job. I namerica education is free, but it is now taken for granted and that is why americans repeatedly get spanked when put into international scholastic competitions. Sorry, but it has to be said.

I'm feeling bad about all of these posts in a verticle line with the buzzard on them. I just can't stay out of this more than a post or two.

In reality, most people perform at the level they have to and could care less about the expectations of others. They may comfort their souls with the lie that they perform up to expectations, but they really perform up to the level of neccessity.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Tom
"#1 - IT'S MY MONEY, NOT YOURS! "


That's isn't really accurate. I know it's the most common reason people give for being against government spending, but that doesn't make it an correct statement.


Money is a way to measure economic activity. Work is one part of an economic system, but it isn't the whole thing.

The pay a person receives for doing work, or the profit a person receives for investing capital, are in part based on the larger economic system they are a part of. So the money you "earn" before you've paid your share of the cost for the whole economic system, isn't really "YOURS", only part of it is. Part of it comes from the fact that your part of a larger eonomic system.

So if you're willing to look at that reality, then it's possible to make rational decisions about what the entire economic system should look like, what things add to the overall success of the system, what things don't.

If we look at the real world, it's obvious that countries that just let poor people starve to death, aren't the most economically successful countries.

Sorry, but you are just WRONG. When you get paid for a job, you are being compensated for YOUR work, YOUR labor, YOUR effort, YOUR mind. The product of that labor rightly belongs ONLY TO YOU.

Jason

Maybe an example would make my point more clear. If you were your own little economic system, and you chopped down a tree your "pay" would be some wood.

If you were part of a larger economic system, say the USA for example, you can exchange your wood for money. But only because there's a Treasury department that prints the money, a banking system to manage the flow of money, roads for you to get your wood to the person who wants it, police and courts to make the roads useful, an Army to keep the Canadians from stealing your wood, a homeless shelter so you don't trip over someone on your way, a prison to keep a robber from stealing your money, and on and on and on.

All of these things are part of why you get paid what you get paid. Without them you would either get paid a lot less for the same work, or even more likely, if you look at the real world, you would simply starve to death.

Some of those services are important (i.e. roads, police, courts and national defense), but the fallacy of your logic lays in the fact in that we cannot stop paying for these services, even if we wanted to. If you do, the government will send you to prison or exact other penalties against you. The government is not like the voluntary marketplace with benevolent bureaucrats out to serve us (as it would like us to believe), it is ultimately force. Suppose I live in a community that wants to stop paying for those services. The community sets up its own monetary system, courts, roads, and police. Will we be allowed to seccede from this so-called "voluntary club" we call government? Of course not. The IRS would demand that taxes be paid on the estimated value of all the stuff we traded, and the government would probably send the national guard in to restore its authority.

The second part of your argument, which is basically the utilitarian case for the government is also highly dubious. Economist David Friedman (who happens to be Milton Friedman's son) has written a book claiming just the opposite, that without government we would all be far more prosperous and better off.

The Machinery of Freedom

David Friedman should migrate to a country without government and see how long his theory lasts. Some parts of Africa are near that, with gangs in Toyota trucks with machine guns commanded by warlords taking what they want from whoever has it. Remember the movie "Blackbird Down"? The economy illustrated poorly in that movie is one with chaos in charge. No one here wants that.

Chaos produces anarchy but anarchy does not produce chaos. You are trying to compare countries with deep rooted cultural problems to a highly civilized and educated country. To think that eliminating the government in the U.S. would produce roving bandits and warlords in pickup trucks is quite absurd.

Actually, we are already in anarchy and will never be able to get out of anarchy due to the fact that the government is always in anarchy towards itself. We just continue to live under the illusion that the government has legitimate authority over us, and we continue to obey its laws (which by the way, might as well be written in the air with a magic wand). What this means is that the government as we think of governments, with a full fledged right to rule, does not exist. What we really have is just a group of people who are no more special than anyone else who have gotten a very large number of other people to obey their legislation and laws due to belief in a very popular myth. The act of voting itself is a ritualistic act which is no more binding in terms of who ought to rule than rain dances are in terms of whether or not it will rain. In a nutshell democracy is very much like a religion. A very large number of people believe in it, and partake in it, but in reality, any rational person must come to the conclusion that it is meaningless, absurd, arbitrary, does not get us out of anarchy, and for the sake of humanity ought to be abolished entirely.

For pragmatic reasons, even though the government does not really exist in any sense of the real use of the word, I refer to it as the group of people who the vast majority of people obey on a regular basis and have successfully achieved the status of having ultimate jurisdiction over the geographic region.

See: Do we ever really get out of anarchy?

What I am advocating is getting rid of political anarchy, and replacing it with market anarchy. Once you see it in those terms, it is not a huge leap of faith to understand that it would work.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
...Let me make this clear. Very few people are rich through hard work...

liberal propaganda. Go to Amazon, and read the Millionaire Next Door, with recent surveys of American millionaires. almost 90% of Millionaires in America are self made, and never receieved a dime from inheritence. The majority of them are small business owners, who started that business from scratch (pretty hard work)

Originally posted by: desy
...
Crime statistics go up as poverty rates go up, if you have nothing to lose
...

Yet Welfare, though it has cost more than WWII in inflation adjusted dollars since Jimmy Carter started the "War on Poverty", has never even put a dent in the percentage of americans below the poverty line. 25 years of money down the drain

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Edit: sorry, the military is the second biggest welfare state today, right after social security.

lol, my favorite forum nutjob, here we go again.

figured out by the hour, I made 33 cents an hour in Marine bootcamp, and let me tell you, it was harder work than anything you will ever do, how you figure welfare state out of that is beyond me.

The amount of money is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it was someone else's which was forcefully extracted from them. What you did in order to "earn" it is also irrelevant. There is no distinction between your pay in the military and a welfare handout to an inner-city family. Why? Because in each case there was no objective evaluation of what should be paid out. These payments were not based on voluntary agreements between buyer and seller, they were decided arbitrarily by bureaucrats and politicians, and hence, any speculation about them is entirely subjective. Perhaps one could argue that in your case you provided some "service," and the welfare recipient did not. Well that is entirely subjective as well. Perhaps the welfare recipient's service to society is procreation, and we are merely subsidizing the propagation of the species.

Furthermore, the military has all sorts of benefit programs and bonus handouts. Boot camp pay is just the beginning. For the 2004 budget there was about $35 billion allocated to the military personnel of the Department of the Navy. The 2004 budget also had about $28 billion allocated to the Department of Veterans Affairs, for medical care, benefit programs burial benefits and pensions. Hence, in the end the military is currently the second largest welfare state. This does not detract any from the fact that it is part of the warfare state as well.

Source: Death &amp; Taxes

So you prefer that we use mercenaries? Already described that in an earlier post. That was the way in 1600's Japan. That works pretty good if all of your friends are warlords, not so good if you happen to be standing there when one of them needs to test the edge on his favorite blade. Our military is part of a pretty delicate balance of power. Better leave it that way unless you figure all people are innocents with bad raps and would live together in total harmony without overbearing force.

I admit that the problem of defense is no easy task to solve, but that is what entrepreneurs are for. I do not prefer any particular defense, except for the fact that I think a private defense would work much better than a public defense. Even if it did not, the major superpower that posed the greatest threat to the U.S. was the USSR, and that conveniently collapsed.

Our current military is not part of a delicate balance of power. There is no balance of power, it is completely lopsided in favor of the government. When presented with the idea of private defense people say "What if they just became a monopoly and used their force of power to boss everyone around?" Well, essentially that is the system we have now, so it cannot possibly get any worse.

For how private defense might work see: The Private Production of Defense

 

[imported_Condor]

Congratulations on being awake this late.

History refutes your claim that Americans would be civilized without a strong government. The Hatfields/McCoys, Bonnie and Clyde, Waco, Unions, the KKK, etc. When the power is not in the top and balanced, the big take what they want from the weak. Without that balance, chaos is the result and there is no disputing that. History has proven it too many times. America may be special, but Americans are still very human. We are not that civilized. Just over a hundred years ago, we killed off a lot of indians because they were the weak ones and we did it to take what they had. Likewise, we nearly killed off all the males in a civil war just after that. Americans aren't that well educated when compared to many countries. Yes, I am American and damned proud of it, but we didn't get here on our bellies spouting social programs. We got here through strength and just pure mean! Europe has hundreds of years on us and they aren't to be trusted either without powerful and balanced leadership.

I may agree with some of the second para, but will have to read it a couple more times to be sure.

People obey the government for only one reason. They fear the repercussions if they don't. You ever had a traffic ticket? Did you pay it? Did you go to court? (Balance of authority - police/judiciary) Did you break the law again as soon as you left the court? Probably not. Why not? Because you had fear of getting caught again. I'm a big boy. If life was simple and there was no higher authority, I would never stand in line behind anyone smaller and kinder than myself. I stand there because I have some idea of the hourly rate that attorneys charge and don't want a roommate named Julius that just loves me too much. A gun and a bank will get you all the money you want. Would you use the gun to get the money? Probably no. Why? You wouldn't like the roommate any more than I.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
...Let me make this clear. Very few people are rich through hard work...

liberal propaganda. Go to Amazon, and read the Millionaire Next Door, with recent surveys of American millionaires. almost 90% of Millionaires in America are self made, and never receieved a dime from inheritence. The majority of them are small business owners, who started that business from scratch (pretty hard work)

Originally posted by: desy
...
Crime statistics go up as poverty rates go up, if you have nothing to lose
...

Yet Welfare, though it has cost more than WWII in inflation adjusted dollars since Jimmy Carter started the "War on Poverty", has never even put a dent in the percentage of americans below the poverty line. 25 years of money down the drain

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The funny thing is that the biggest welfare state today is the military. I've heard these redneck conservatives rail against welfare handouts in one sentence and then talk about how we need a stronger military (as if half a trillion dollars is not enough already) in the next sentence. Ridiculous.

Edit: sorry, the military is the second biggest welfare state today, right after social security.

lol, my favorite forum nutjob, here we go again.

figured out by the hour, I made 33 cents an hour in Marine bootcamp, and let me tell you, it was harder work than anything you will ever do, how you figure welfare state out of that is beyond me.

The amount of money is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that it was someone else's which was forcefully extracted from them. What you did in order to "earn" it is also irrelevant. There is no distinction between your pay in the military and a welfare handout to an inner-city family. Why? Because in each case there was no objective evaluation of what should be paid out. These payments were not based on voluntary agreements between buyer and seller, they were decided arbitrarily by bureaucrats and politicians, and hence, any speculation about them is entirely subjective. Perhaps one could argue that in your case you provided some "service," and the welfare recipient did not. Well that is entirely subjective as well. Perhaps the welfare recipient's service to society is procreation, and we are merely subsidizing the propagation of the species.

Furthermore, the military has all sorts of benefit programs and bonus handouts. Boot camp pay is just the beginning. For the 2004 budget there was about $35 billion allocated to the military personnel of the Department of the Navy. The 2004 budget also had about $28 billion allocated to the Department of Veterans Affairs, for medical care, benefit programs burial benefits and pensions. Hence, in the end the military is currently the second largest welfare state. This does not detract any from the fact that it is part of the warfare state as well.

Source: Death &amp; Taxes

So you prefer that we use mercenaries? Already described that in an earlier post. That was the way in 1600's Japan. That works pretty good if all of your friends are warlords, not so good if you happen to be standing there when one of them needs to test the edge on his favorite blade. Our military is part of a pretty delicate balance of power. Better leave it that way unless you figure all people are innocents with bad raps and would live together in total harmony without overbearing force.

I admit that the problem of defense is no easy task to solve, but that is what entrepreneurs are for. I do not prefer any particular defense, except for the fact that I think a private defense would work much better than a public defense. Even if it did not, the major superpower that posed the greatest threat to the U.S. was the USSR, and that conveniently collapsed.

Our current military is not part of a delicate balance of power. There is no balance of power, it is completely lopsided in favor of the government. When presented with the idea of private defense people say "What if they just became a monopoly and used their force of power to boss everyone around?" Well, essentially that is the system we have now, so it cannot possibly get any worse.

For how private defense might work see: The Private Production of Defense

Mercenaries may work out Ok for a while. Eventually, they would take everything that you had earned, built and married. There would be no balance of power unless you had two groups. That would last only as long as it took them to agree to split the spoils. Entrepreneurs are "in it for the money" and yours would be as good as any and who would set the limits on how much they took? Government works because it is huge! Despite what you may believe, the larger a government is the more difficult it is to corrupt. What you see as corruption today is nothing but human faillacy. Our government is so large that it would be impossible for enough people within to coordinate any sort of a takeover. If a President actually tried to do so, the very size of the task would prevent it. Senate, Congress, Judiciary - independent and balanced. Executive- balanced by the other three. The President is the Commander in Chief. Lots os power, yep, but balanced by the militias of the states. Militias - balanced by the people and the right to bear arms. Pretty complex, but actually works well.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Condor
Congratulations on being awake this late.

History refutes your claim that Americans would be civilized without a strong government. The Hatfields/McCoys, Bonnie and Clyde, Waco, Unions, the KKK, etc. When the power is not in the top and balanced, the big take what they want from the weak. Without that balance, chaos is the result and there is no disputing that. History has proven it too many times. America may be special, but Americans are still very human. We are not that civilized. Just over a hundred years ago, we killed off a lot of indians because they were the weak ones and we did it to take what they had. Likewise, we nearly killed off all the males in a civil war just after that. Americans aren't that well educated when compared to many countries. Yes, I am American and damned proud of it, but we didn't get here on our bellies spouting social programs. We got here through strength and just pure mean! Europe has hundreds of years on us and they aren't to be trusted either without powerful and balanced leadership.

I may agree with some of the second para, but will have to read it a couple more times to be sure.

People obey the government for only one reason. They fear the repercussions if they don't. You ever had a traffic ticket? Did you pay it? Did you go to court? (Balance of authority - police/judiciary) Did you break the law again as soon as you left the court? Probably not. Why not? Because you had fear of getting caught again. I'm a big boy. If life was simple and there was no higher authority, I would never stand in line behind anyone smaller and kinder than myself. I stand there because I have some idea of the hourly rate that attorneys charge and don't want a roommate named Julius that just loves me too much. A gun and a bank will get you all the money you want. Would you use the gun to get the money? Probably no. Why? You wouldn't like the roommate any more than I.

No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. Sure, there will always be incidents of thugs bullying people, stealing, robbing, raping and murdering. However, the truth of the matter is that these continue even with government. In fact, after all public spaces are eliminated which are breeding grounds for these thugs, crime would plummet. Why? Because a powerful tool in crime elimination would finally be able to be used: expulsion. If a community of private property owners did not want someone around they could expel them once and for all, and if they went back to commit a crime again they could be met with deadly force. If you contrast that to today, someone just released from prison can roam the streets pretty much wherever they want, and even move in next door to you. The idea that the government cares more about your safety than you do is absurd. Eliminate public spaces and you eliminate crime and terrorism, not 100% but much more than what we have today.

No, people do not just obey government because they fear it. That is certainly part of the reason, but the other part of the reason is that they believe the government is legitimate. If I ran into you on the street and I pulled out a piece of paper and declared that I had just passed a piece of legislation that said that you were to give me your wallet right now you would probably laugh because you would rightfully believe that my legislation had absolutely no legitimate bearing on you. However, this is exactly what Congress does today. People in Congress do not have any kind of mythological right to rule us. They do not possess any kind of unseen legitimate claim to authority. The vast majority of people believe that this is the case, that democracy is a legitimate transferal of authority from the people to the government. However, this is not true at all, and is one of the biggest myths of our time. Congress legislates, but what it really legislates is nothing but hot air. The legislation they pass might as well be complete gibberish, for gibberish would be as binding on us as the legislation they pass today. So why do people obey the government? Well, first of all they think it is legitimate and second of all they do not want to be punished but there is something else at play. Why people obey authority as much as they do is unknown to me, but what I do know is that empircally obedience of authority is something that is heavily ingrained in people. Experiments conducted in the '60s and '70s showed just how much people are willing to obey an "authority figure," and the results are shocking to say the least.

On the experiments see:Obedience to Authority

Also see:
Do pessimistic assumptions about human behavior justify government?

and

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism, The Not So Wild West

 

[imported_tss4]

"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4
"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

No there weren't. Are you saying that there was a strong state government in California with all the taxes and regulations that it has today during the "Wild" West?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

No there weren't. Are you saying that there was a strong state government in California with all the taxes and regulations that it has today during the "Wild" West?

No but there were strong state governments in other parts of the country. And you don't even want to go into the corruption plagued "wild west". Even the most casual review of conditions at the time would reveal anything but the utopian society you claim. And that was under the best of conditions where there was so much land people could just take what they needed and wanted without imposing on others.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

No there weren't. Are you saying that there was a strong state government in California with all the taxes and regulations that it has today during the "Wild" West?

duh, there was a reason it was called "wild", even before the US arrived, western settlers eventually formed thier own governments.

The natives had "governments", there was someone in charge of each tribe wasnt there? He could force you to do something, he could sentenece you to death, or ban you from the tribe. he could even send a war party to fight with another tribe. Sounds like a govt to me.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

No there weren't. Are you saying that there was a strong state government in California with all the taxes and regulations that it has today during the "Wild" West?

No but there were strong state governments in other parts of the country. And you don't even want to go into the corruption plagued "wild west". Even the most casual review of conditions at the time would reveal anything but the utopian society you claim. And that was under the best of conditions where there was so much land people could just take what they needed and wanted without imposing on others.

There was no utopian society, but there sure wasn't a system of government extracting 40% of the GDP every year, and federal regulations that fill numerous volumes and have daily updates. Furthermore, there was not any kind of network of law enforcement or court systems like we have today but people were still able to get along and make contracts.

They were alot closer to anarcho-capitalism than we are today, and yet society was quite civilized. To try to deny the fact that society was far less regulated and taxed is quite absurd. Sure there was some form of government, but it was nothing like the Leviathan we have today.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

No there weren't. Are you saying that there was a strong state government in California with all the taxes and regulations that it has today during the "Wild" West?

No but there were strong state governments in other parts of the country. And you don't even want to go into the corruption plagued "wild west". Even the most casual review of conditions at the time would reveal anything but the utopian society you claim. And that was under the best of conditions where there was so much land people could just take what they needed and wanted without imposing on others.

There was no utopian society, but there sure wasn't a system of government extracting 40% of the GDP every year, and federal regulations that fill numerous volumes and have daily updates. Furthermore, there was not any kind of network of law enforcement or court systems like we have today but people were still able to get along and make contracts.

They were alot closer to anarcho-capitalism than we are today, and yet society was quite civilized. To try to deny the fact that society was far less regulated and taxed is quite absurd. Sure there was some form of government, but it was nothing like the Leviathan we have today.

They had courts and a law enforcement system. It wasn't as large as the current system but you weren't argueing for less government. You were argueing for no government. There's a big difference. Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that the the wild west was a hard life. There's a reason they setup government there. Life was better.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
"No, actually history refutes your claim that anarchy would bring chaos. A strong central government did not always exist in the U.S. and yet civilization did not turn into a war of all against all. "

Dissipate,
Your statement isn't relevant. You're right in that there wasn't always a strong central government, but there were strong state governments in place. Therefore, the US during the period you speak of was nothing like what you are proposing.

No there weren't. Are you saying that there was a strong state government in California with all the taxes and regulations that it has today during the "Wild" West?

No but there were strong state governments in other parts of the country. And you don't even want to go into the corruption plagued "wild west". Even the most casual review of conditions at the time would reveal anything but the utopian society you claim. And that was under the best of conditions where there was so much land people could just take what they needed and wanted without imposing on others.

There was no utopian society, but there sure wasn't a system of government extracting 40% of the GDP every year, and federal regulations that fill numerous volumes and have daily updates. Furthermore, there was not any kind of network of law enforcement or court systems like we have today but people were still able to get along and make contracts.

They were alot closer to anarcho-capitalism than we are today, and yet society was quite civilized. To try to deny the fact that society was far less regulated and taxed is quite absurd. Sure there was some form of government, but it was nothing like the Leviathan we have today.

They had courts and a law enforcement system. It wasn't as large as the current system but you weren't argueing for less government. You were argueing for no government. There's a big difference. Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that the the wild west was a hard life. There's a reason they setup government there. Life was better.

The "wild" west was much much closer to anarcho-capitalism than we are today. I'm arguing for no government, yes, that is true, but that does not mean that I cannot point to instances of much less government working in order to argue my case. The wild west was a hard life, not because of lack of government but because society was in a transitional phase. Furthermore, they did not have the technological comforts that we have today.

They set up government because of the myth that it makes life better. Everybody wants someone or something to swoop in and make their life better. Who doesn't? And what better way to make life better than set up a faceless and "infallible" federal government to reduce risk and bail us out of any disaster or misfortune that may come our way? The truth of the matter is that looking to government to make this happen, while it is very popular and attractive to do so, does not mean that it actually does. Government does not make life better, it only makes it worse because all you do when you set up a government is you substitute market anarchy for political anarchy. As volumes of theoretical works in economics show, market anarchy is far more superior at producing desired outcomes than political anarchy.