A couple of things from this don't sit particularly well with me.
More fundamentally, human beings will usually do more for their own benefit than for the benefit of others.
Ouch. And you say liberals are pessimists?
I guess if you have a culture that places individual needs above all other things, though... can you be surprised that there's a "me first" attitude? One always reaps what one sows.
A few years ago, more than a hundred Russian sailors paid with their lives for their government's reluctance ...
It's easy to cherry-pick places where governments bungle things. (And lord knows the Russians have a way of cacking things up.) But... y'know... it's very easy to overlook all the things that you have because governments put them there. Things like sewers, schools, environmental regulations (what's left of them), broadcast frequency allocations, national parks, the Interstate highway system, and those nifty planes and tanks that puport to protect it all.
Alright, so they screw up with Katrina. Should FEMA be dismantled and let Viagra Hurricane Disaster Relief, Brought To You By Wal-Mart take over? See my other post about socialism vs. capitalism.
Ok, fundamental thought process flaw:
"because governments put them there. Things like sewers, schools, environmental regulations (what's left of them), broadcast frequency allocations, national parks, the Interstate highway system, and those nifty planes and tanks that puport to protect it all."
Government is people working for people, (well the good governments are anyway). There are private sewers, private parks, private security, private schools, private prisons, private hospitals, private ambulance--public consuption areas that happen to be privately held or operated... there are even private companies that control services or other intangibles. People can choose because the government doesn't have to do it. It does it because the people demand the service. Just because the "gov'mint" does it does not mean it is done well. Obviously.
That said, do I like going to EPCOT and riding "GM's" thing or "GE's world of tomorrow" or seeing the "McDonald's arterogram health center"-not really. So I choose not to use it. My power comes from TVA, arguably one of the largest gov'mint owned utilites in the country- and they do a pretty good job.
Heck, maybe the Viagra- "getting New Orleans Back UP" relief plan would be a great sponsorship tie in for them. (man that has so many pun- possiblities in it!!)
Just try to remember that people, not government, make things happen. People pay taxes, the governmint does not have/own/earn money. People will choose to take care of themselves and will also take care of others if left to their own charitable giving.
Here, read some Stossel on that very topic: http://
www.jewishworldreview.com...ssel082405.php3
Meh. Never liked Stossel, really. Rob Corddry's "Come On!" sketches on the Daily Show are modeled after him, I'd say. (And "20/20"? Please. Smear a little more Vaseline on the lens so ol' Barbara Walters doesn't look like the Cryptkeeper. Oh yeah, and learn how to be journalists instead of freakin' douchebag fakers.)
"The New Orleans Clean-Up. Sponsored by Bounty paper towels. They're the quicker rotting-corpse picker-upper."
...too soon?
Anyway, regarding public vs. private... this sort of thing came up in conversation this past weekend with a friend. I was lamenting how this wacko group called the Canadian Taxpayers Federation -- a sensible-sounding group prima facie, sorta like American Enterprise Institue, until you read into it and realize they're a bunch of fucks -- always gets press around early June-ish for their "Tax Freedom Day". As in, "Up until today, you've been working for the government. From now on, you can keep all your earnings for yourself. Hooray!"
...but that got us thinking. Alright, fine, forty-some-odd percent of whatever I earn goes to taxes. I can handle that. But for those who bitch and complain about what they pay... fine, keep your money. But just don't drive on our public roads, breathe our public air, or have a glass of fine-quality public water from your tap.
The way I see it, there are two ways something vital like, e.g., electricity can be delivered to me: either through public (i.e., gov't-controlled) or private (e.g. Enron) channels. For things like ballpoint pens and Tickle Me Elmo dolls and bathroom tissue, I really don't care who provides it to me (as long as the company and the store don't do things like illegally prevent their workers from unionizing, and yes, Wal-Mart, I'm looking at you).
But for things like electricity, hospitals, water -- the important stuff that everyone needs -- shouldn't that be controlled by something in which everyone has a stake? I'd wager to say this would include hurricane disaster relief-related activites.
Because FEMA bungled things pretty awfully -- and yes, state and local officials WHO HAPPEN TO BE DEMOCRATS helped -- does that mean we should just say, "Aw, sod it, turn it all over to FedEx"? No, it shouldn't. Because this is something that the public needs, it should be something the public controls, and that means FEMA. So, instead of trashing it, improve it.
Bounty! A good one!
Heck J, the Democrats have been improving gov'mint since the 1940's here and they still haven't licked poverty!
Yeah, I too have an issue with names: ACLU, NAACP, and other idealistic sounding groups that have an agenda contrary to their name. It is an interesting exercise to measure the activities of these groups against their pre-supposed cause.
I will gladly pay a reasonable amount of taxes as well. My main concern is the thinking that there is unlimited money that "belongs" to a government because people live under that government. It doesn't take very much analysis of overwrought bureacrcy (like most school systems: local/state/federal paper pusher money vs. money spent on teachers salaries and classroom supplies) and $400 hammers to see that many in government do not get this concept.
In contrast, the private sector has to work within constraints of budget and profit to make their goals work without the unlimited supply of dollars just showing up because they exist. This economic fact encourages efficency by removing the inefficient. With government, you just throw more money at it to make it work without fixing what is broken.
"Controlled by everyone who has a stake": what exactly is a stake? Like a share? Like a share-holder, or stock? Or like a market? People do not feel invested in government just because they choose to vote. People who lay money / blood / sweat & tears are invested in something. If a union-backed government worker with tenure screws up they don't lose their job. Where is the stake in that?
The only issue with controlling what everyone has at stake is your logical conclusion is to have another Pol Pot: forcing the paper pushers to do what the farmers did. Then you have the whole populace die of starvation, or about 1.6 million in his case.
Stossel: ok, set aside the 20/20 stuff and look at his writing. Prove to me why I shouldn't listen to him. Find any three articles he has written and tell me why they are wrong. JWR has his stuff archived.
((and jee whiz ease up on the cursing!))
Ideally, the constraints within which a government works are the desires of their constituents. This may be airy-fair, but... well... if people don't like what they see, they get to turf 'em out and bring in people who are more in line with what they want. (Sometimes this results in a giant miscarriage of power, e.g. the Gray Davis recall vote. I hope Caaah-li-forrrr-nyins enjoy Arnie's incompetence.)
At any rate, I realize I'm speaking ideologically here. But hey, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington was kickass yet ideological, wasn't it?
Re: "a stake"... say the electric company is provincially-owned (which it used to be before a bunch of neoconservative bastards broke it up and sold it off for quick cash). Because I was a resident of Ontario, I had a say (albeit indirect) in how my electricity came to me. But now that it's in private hands, the board of directors of the remnant companies make decisions based on their shareholders, first and foremost. If, for some bizarre reason, they decided I would be cut off... how would I be able to fight back?
"You move to another electric company. Use the Market."
Alright, so I move on to another private company, which does the same thing. And another. What recourse do I have (other than a lawsuit)?
This all seems absurd, and it is. But for essential services like electricity -- a thing in which almost every person in my province uses daily -- do I need a corrupt bunch of assholes like Enron controlling my life? They dicked around a fair number of people -- not just in the collapse of their company, but beforehand when they were playing with market rates for electricity in California. (Rolling blackouts, remember?)
I'm not saying that everything should be government-controlled. But for the basics... if someone's going to deliver me really important services, I shouldn't have to buy stock in order to have a hand in my own fate.
As for the "union-backed government worker"... I've never said unions are perfect, but I'm a believer in the power of workers getting together for their own rights. (Seems to be legal these days, too... but for how long, I wonder.) The benefits of unions far outweigh the drawbacks, at least in this fella's humble opinion.
Funny anecdote: a friend's former landlord, from Flint, Michigan, had a son fighting in Vietnam. A couple of days after some general went on TV saying they weren't going into Cambodia, she received a letter from her son. "Guess where I am, mom? Cambodia!"
Commenting by HaloScan
