Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Tracy, I really, really appreciate your thoughtful answer to my questions. Despite what some may think, I am genuinely interested in a rational discourse about these issues. I want to make clear that I am not a liberal; my own political/economic positions put me way outside of the sphere in which liberals are typically situated. I confess to a lack of understanding of where conservatives and libertarians are coming from, outside of what often seems to be a reaction against change, because it seems as if many positions from the conservative and libertarian perspective run contrary to the economic interests of those who profess them, and in fact serve the interests of others in a class the conservative and libertarian can never hope to attain. That is why I really do appreciate real answers to real questions.

That said, I would like to explore your answers a bit more, and pose some additional questions.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

I'm glad you see financial aid as a good thing, especially in a country that does not offer free or nearly free tuition and access to higher education (as is the case in many European countries). One solution might be to establish such a system. Independent of that, though, I would be interested in where you have come up with this analysis that links financial aid to tuition increases. You are describing institutions of higher education as if they are profit-maximizing entities.

I have never heard of a causal relationship of the sort you describe. Typically, schools increase tuition because of cutbacks (in the case of public universities) or cost increases (in the case of private institutions), and they typically do not cut back financial aid -- much of which comes via the federal government -- when they increase tuition.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Biomedical research should be funded.

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

The quote directly above is your response to these questions I posed: "How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a 'united states' at all?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal policies" -- perhaps you mean with respect to social issues. But putting that aside, let's look at regulation. Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this. Arkansas chicken producers do not provide any label indicating what the chickens are fed, while Georgia producers are required to by state regulation. Even for those who argue "states' rights" here, there is obviously a problem so long as we have cross-state markets. So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience”

Albert Camus

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.


If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.


Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.


Albert Camus

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.
If the rest of the civilized world can have universal healthcare why cant we? Oh right, we have to give tax breaks to the rich and spend billions on wars.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.
If the rest of the civilized world can have universal healthcare why cant we? Oh right, we have to give tax breaks to the rich and spend billions on wars.

You do realize that the government by itself does not make much money and the money it does have is collected from you, I and everyone else who either lives in this country or does business with us by the way of taxes and tarrifs, right? So you would be paying for inferior care whether you recognize it or not.

Can you clarify the bolded part? Is that aimed at treatment facilities, health insurance companies and hospitals or is that directed at the government?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.

How does the government pay for it without taxing the people for that cost?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

How does the government pay for it without taxing the people for that cost?

Well, of course we don't get something for nothing. Europeans are willing to pay high taxes for health care because they consider it worth it. It releases them from the anxiety of whether they can afford the healthcare they need to stay alive.
Apparently, in this country, the people who have healthcare don't care whether people without it live or die. I think there is a racial component to this issue along with being "poor".

[TracyCoxx]

[QUOTE=randolph;164323Apparently, in this country, the people who have healthcare don't care whether people without it live or die. I think there is a racial component to this issue along with being "poor".[/QUOTE]
Oh puleeeeez!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.


Albert Camus

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

The gov. likes to spend money on stupid high speed shit but does not like to spend the extra dollar on its peons. The cost to get every service member a quality rifle in a better caliber, new ammunition and the training for a new platform would cost less than one F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Look up the DoD statistics in the cost of an F-22 versus the projected cost of purchasing, retooling and training for a new weapon. Why then do they insist on giving soldiers and marines an outdated weapon (M4) that has reduced range, accuracy and killing power, yet they will spend billions on a single fancy airplane?

I have seen the quality of government run healthcare both on active duty and through the VA hospital and it isn't pretty. Their method of helping you is by prescribing pills regardless of your injury and telling you to walk it off. If you think that is bad, you should wait until you you get operated on! Before, soldiers could not sue the doctors at the military hospitals but a lacksadaisyical attitude has become so commonplace that there have been an overwhelming amount of complaints and soldiers can now sue the military for inadequate care and malpractice. Google "Walter Reed Medical Hospital" if you do not believe me. The VA has been having the same shit go on for decades. If they show so much disregard for those that took an oath to serve their country, what makes you think that their attitude towards civilians would be any different?

Again I ask the question. Why is it so wrong to let people decide what kind of healthcare they want instead forcing them to partake in a government healthcare plan?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

The biomedical field is a huge driver of the economy and necessary for the health of US citizens. It helps the country to be on the bleeding edge of this field. I still think it should be largely commercial, but if there are technologies in the biomedical field that are too financially risky for companies to take on, but could potentially pay back huge, then it may require the government to provide the funds to get it going.

Originally Posted by smc

Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this.

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights. There should be a united states because each state is not its own country. They are all bound by the US Constitution.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights.

Thanks again, Tracy, for your thoughtful response. It is a pleasure to continue the dialogue in a rational and productive way.

I'd like to ask you a bit more about your answer to my question regarding food safety, which I used as an example for a more general question about regulation.

Your response references the FDA. In the example I gave, it would be a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would handle the issue, at least as the federal government is constituted at present. Nevertheless, my question really is about having regulations in advance of a crisis. You responded about the federal government stepping in once a problem or crisis has been revealed. How do you, as a libertarian, feel about the federal government regulating things to prevent such a crisis. In this case, it would clearly be in the form of federal regulations prescribing certain things to protect consumers from toxicity in food. These regulations supersede states' individual regulations; in other words, a state can have a more rigid regulatory regime, but not a more lax one.

I asked a libertarian colleague about this today and he gave me a convoluted answer that I could only understand as an attempt to agree with the need for federal regulation without endorsing federal regulators -- quite a feat of verbal acrobatics. Where do you come down on this issue?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Your response references the FDA. In the example I gave, it would be a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would handle the issue, at least as the federal government is constituted at present. Nevertheless, my question really is about having regulations in advance of a crisis. You responded about the federal government stepping in once a problem or crisis has been revealed. How do you, as a libertarian, feel about the federal government regulating things to prevent such a crisis. In this case, it would clearly be in the form of federal regulations prescribing certain things to protect consumers from toxicity in food. These regulations supersede states' individual regulations; in other words, a state can have a more rigid regulatory regime, but not a more lax one.

I'd go along with that. I don't really have anything against the FDA as it stands now.

[jbradhall24]

Hello friend. Thank you so much for posting this as it is extremely helpful.
:frown :

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The biomedical field is a huge driver of the economy and necessary for the health of US citizens. It helps the country to be on the bleeding edge of this field. I still think it should be largely commercial, but if there are technologies in the biomedical field that are too financially risky for companies to take on, but could potentially pay back huge, then it may require the government to provide the funds to get it going.

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights. There should be a united states because each state is not its own country. They are all bound by the US Constitution.

[TracyCoxx]

Remember during the financial crisis in September 2008 when Bush, Obama & McCain got together and worked out a solution to the financial crisis? One of the things they did was to increase the money supply from around $800 billion to $2.4 trillion!

Yay, housing prices stabilized, the stock market came back up, the economy is slowly coming back. We're all good now right?

No. By 2013-2015 double digit inflation is coming. It would have happened earlier, but the Fed has been paying interest to the banks on their extended reserves. Over at least the last 60 years, banks have had nothing in their extended reserves, because they would rather loan that money out and make interest off it. But with the fed paying interest on it, and the banks willing to do the fed a favor after getting bailed out, US banks now have over $1 trillion in reserves. This stalls inflation, but not forever.

So when it comes, expect rising interest rates (also double digit), less spending, the values of homes, stocks, cars will drop like a rock. The dollar will collapse, and then thanks to Obama almost doubling the debt, countries will realize we have no chance of paying off the debt and our credit rating will fall more than it already has.

Soros, Paulson, Buffett and other billionaires already know this. Over the last year they've been dumping massive amounts of US stock. Experts who predicted the 2008 crisis back in 2005 now predict the stock market will lose up to 90% of its value.

I'd almost like Obama to have a 2nd term so he can take the blame for that. He did agree to raising the money supply in 2008 to move the problem to the next term, and raised it again later. Inflation is a certainty now. And, knowing about the gigantic increase in the money supply, he raised the debt several trillion anyways. If Romney gets in and the economy collapses he will surely be blamed for things already set in motion. The country won't elect a republican for 50 years.

[randolph]

Tracy

I'd almost like Obama to have a 2nd term so he can take the blame for that. He did agree to raising the money supply in 2008 to move the problem to the next term, and raised it again later. Inflation is a certainty now. And, knowing about the gigantic increase in the money supply, he raised the debt several trillion anyways. If Romney gets in and the economy collapses he will surely be blamed for things already set in motion. The country won't elect a republican for 50 years.

So we are doomed either way.
Are you going to vote for Obama?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy


So we are doomed either way.
Are you going to vote for Obama?

Haha, yeah right. I would never go that far. Romney would be better for the economy because he won't drive up the debt as fast and he'll kill Obamacare. In this case a better economy is still going to be really bad. It will just hopefully not be so bad that the government would collapse.

What about you?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Haha, yeah right. I would never go that far. Romney would be better for the economy because he won't drive up the debt as fast and he'll kill Obamacare. In this case a better economy is still going to be really bad. It will just hopefully not be so bad that the government would collapse.

What about you?

I think Obama should take the cliff. In the long run it would be better for everybody.