Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rhinehold,

Either you are showing your age or you hould not be so selfish and start sharing your stash. ;)

While i am behind you concerning states’ rights, and the woeful mess that has been made of interstate commerce ‘excuse’, i think the vastly increased mobility of our society has contributed equally to the stand-offish seclusion within our communities.

Rhinehold, the US remains one of the greatest charitable nations despite Government social programs. So your argument that social programs negate charitable giving falls flat on its face when compared to reality.

Second, I strongly recommend reading Charles Dickens whose novels depict the horrible and cruel inefficiencies of the Elymosenary System (private charitable giving) of the 18 and early 1900’s. The problem with the elymosenary system is its gross inefficiency in delivery structures. The money goes to the greatest concentration of the needy, leaving vast numbers of needy in less geographically concentrated areas without benefit. The cost to a charity to deliver benefits to an Inuit family whose father has been disabled by an accident in a remote area of Alaska does not justify delivery of that benefit. This is just one example to make the point.

Your whole argument presupposes that government safety nets are unaffordable and unsustainable. That argument is valid only in the context of the inefficiency of Democrats and Republicans failure to work biparisanly to reform the safety nets so that they can be affordable and sustainable.

How much more affordable do they become when the wealthiest tax cuts are allowed to expire in a good economy as we are now experiencing? How much more affordable and sustainable would they be if Bush wasn’t trying to put military stations on the Moon to shoot galactic aliens from space? How much more affordable would they be if we weren’t giving Alaska the same money they wanted for a bridge to nowhere, now that Alaska has agreed not to build the bridge? How much more affordable would they be if Pharmaceutical companies had to competitively bid against each other for their share of the Medicare Rx drug plan?

Your premises are faulty in this regard.

David,

My premise is that government is only different from private organizations in that they can and do use force against us. And in that regard we must get keep that in mind when making new laws.

There is a need for government and I am in no way an anarchist, but we can’t allow government to be used when private industry can do the job as well or better. Not for any other reason than because of the use of force necessary to carry it out.

Your whole argument presupposes that government safety nets are unaffordable and unsustainable

No, that’s not my arguement at all. Although I do agree that the two parties in charge have been worthless in managing our economy, but is it even their job to do other than ensure that it doesn’t tank? I’m searching through the constitution and I’m not finding the clause that provides them the ability.

If we WANT the government to have that ability, we should amend the constitution to allow it, not just ignore it. I might even vote for that amendment, but if we can ignore SOME of the constitution that we find bothersome, what prevents those in power who want to ignore other aspects of it, like the seperation of church and state or gun ownership? This is one of the few times that I believe we must accept the Slippery Slope argument, examples of it happening are all around us.

Rhinehold

Your argument is too subtle to be understood by the pro-government crowd. For them government is the hammer and everything else looks like a nail. They can’t understand that other parts of society can sometimes satisfy needs better. They don’t comprehend that some things government just can’t do not matter how much people wish it. And they are downright hostile to the idea that some “problems” won’t be solved at all no matter liberties we surrender to government. And they don’t recognize that this is real arrogance.

Your point about coercion is a good one. If you really trust big business, you must love big government. Big oil or big pharma can’t draft you or start a war or tax you or make it illegal for you to do anything. Only government can do that. Even conspiracy people who dislike HAL have to admit that it had to work through governent to do its bidding.

David

Re Dickens

Everybody was poorer in those days. Even if scrooge spent all his money on creature comforts and health care for the Cratchit family they still would have been miserable by current standards. And given the nature of medicine of the time, I don’t think Tiny Tim’s prognosis would have been good. The free market has created fantastic wealth since then. Let’s not credit government programs with wealth created by progress.

The time for socialistic government programs has come and gone. In 1930 you could argue that government needed to provide investment or prime the pump because there was a shortage of wealth. That is no longer the case. Socialism and social democratic policies are old fashioned. We might like the styling of the 57 Chevy and lament that they don’t make cars like that anymore, but it is no longer the car that satisfies society’s needs.

Rhinehold,
I agree with the spirit of your article.

However, I think people historically and consistently fail to recognize one important human trait the permeates all that we do.

I don’t say this or bring it up to be mean spirited. It’s simply a fact of life, and it’s unwise to ignore it: the desire for security and prosperity with the least effort

That is just a simple fact of life, but it is more importantly a simple fact that is overlooked by voters, and a fact that politicians want voters to overlook. Why? To reduce transparency, and create opportunities to prosper themselves.

Unfortunately, voters voted, and expected politicians to be honest and fair. But, the voters failed to include sufficient controls to ensure honesty and fairness.

This simple negative human trait is rooted in more primal traits: laziness and fear

Many bad things can all be traced back to these traits. Like any trait, they are not necessarily always bad. A person’s character is composed of a mix of numerous traits. However, it is immoral to surrender completely to laziness and fear. Laziness breeds greed and corruption.

Therefore, it is natural to expect any government or organization, over time, to grow increasingly corrupt, unless transparency exists to discourage it. People are less inclinde to do illegal or unethical things when those things are highly visible. Thus, visibility is essentially transparency. A careful study of all procedures and operations could yield numerous simplifications to yield much more transparency. For example, BILLs are currently thousands of pages that no one scrutinizes, and loaded up with billion$ in pork-barrel, and no one can know why anyone voted for or against the BILL. A very simple solution is to require every BILL only have ONE PURPOSE (i.e. it can contain multiple items, but only related items). A line item veto will not suffice, because it is susceptible to partisan motivations by one person (the president).

Thus, power can corrupt most people.
It’s simply a fact we must accept and plan for.
Hence, transparency must always accompany power.
The government has much power, and it abuses it often. For example, the government:
[01] plunders Social Security (for decades);
[02] selectively enforces the laws (and how about the abuse of presidential pardons?);
[03] rejects campaign finance;
[04] rejects election reform, and fails to prevent election fraud;
[05] refuses to limit irresponsible spending, which threatens the nation’s future and security;
[06] refuses or selectively enforces laws against investor/stock fraud;
[07] refuses to prosecute those that employee illegal aliens (even though authorities know exactly where they are and where they work);
[08] refuses to stop pandering; politicians act concerned about Social Security and Medicare, and then offer up more entitlements (e.g. Prescription drugs).
[09] perpetuates the myth that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else;
[10] meddles with health care systems, driving up the cost for everyone; and fraud too;
[11] abuse of eminent domain laws to plunder peoples’ property;
[12] violates or insufficiently protects the basic rights of people (e.g. discrimination, and crimes based on religion, race, gender, age, wealth, sexual preference, etc.), and execution and incarceration of innocent people (and how about those secret CIA prisons?);
[13] imposes a ridiculously abused and unfair tax system on the people (and why do we still have the marraige penalty tax?);

So, you can see that we don’t merely have a problem of government not having power, or having too much power.

We simply have a problem of government abusing that power, largely because of insufficient transparency to discourage it.

What is one thing that deters crime?
It is the fear of being seen and held accountable. What can provide that deterrent? Transparency.

And, if you’ve read anything, or seen anything about the hundreds of governments, and corporations with the least corruption, you will always fine a common thread to their success: Transparency.

But, unfortunately, this can be a bit of a Catch-22. Afterall, who within a corrupt organization can enforce transparency and enforce the rules and laws. Once corruption has a foothold, it is extremely difficult to overcome. It often has to run its course, until things are so dysfunctional, that continued corruption is more painful than the much needed reforms.

Thus, that is the problem we have in the U.S.
The U.S. government, for several decades, has been growing more corrupt, and increasingly irresponsible and unaccountable (fiscally and morally).
The longer that continues, the harder and more painful it will become to correct it.
And, government won’t reform itself.
Now, only The People can change it. And they will someday. The question is, how?

Another question is when? That’s hard to determine. Look at countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the U.S. in 1850s and 1960s. Significant oppression can exist, and the masses, like sheep, accept it and tolerate it.
Thus, it may be a long time before people rebel. But, the longer it takes, the worse it will mostly likely be.

But, in our case, there is a peaceful, responsible approach. All citizens (of age 18 or older) of the U.S. have the right to vote. But, will voters continue to allow themselves to believe the lies they’re told every election, and always allow themselves to be divided, so that no majority can ever exist to overcome the real problem: the few that, via theft or fraud, plunder and control others? That is what our government is now doing. The evidence is there for all to see, if they want to see it, if they aren’t blinded by any partisan loyalties.

Here is just a tiny sample of evidence, to demonstrate the irresponsibility and gall of our Congress, and show some of the very difficult decisions they make daily:
[] vote themselves raises or vote for funding for more body armor for troops in active duty (for many who had none) ?
[] hmmmm … vote for Pork-Barrel or vote for more funding for FEMA ?
[] vote themselves some cu$hy perks and benefits and write hot checks at the tax payers expense or vote for raises for troops in active duty and more funding for disabled veterans ?
[] Vote for $75,000 for Onondaga County for the Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame or more armor for humvees ?
[] Vote for $150,000 added in conference for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center in Columbus, Ga. or secure the nation’s borders (which Al-Qaeda is infiltrating) ?
[] Vote for $250,000 added by the House for the North Creek Ski Bowl in the district of House appropriator John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) or fix the levees in New Orleans ?
[] Vote for $250,000 added by the Senate for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn. to support community programs or fix our crumbling infrastructure (bridges, roads, railways, etc.) ?
[] $775,000 for the Biltmore Hotel in the district of Rep. Ileana Ros- Lehtinen (R-Fla.) or shore up Social Security and Medicare ?
[] $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation or improve public education ?
[] $300,000 for Baltimore for the relocation of the Center Garage or prosecute investor/stock fraud ?
[] $50,000 for gold embossed cards for Air Force One or bullet proof vests for troops in Iraq ?
[] much more can be seen at http://www.cagw.org

So the problem is bad.
But, it can get much much worse.
And it probably will, if we allow it.
The longer we go down this path,
the longer it will take to get back.
And, the more painful it will be too.

David

How much more affordable and sustainable would they be if Bush wasn’t trying to put military stations on the Moon to shoot galactic aliens from space?

I see you read erics post over on the red side.
Do you REALLY believe that? Or did you eat to much turkey yesterday?
But then again I wouldn’t put anything past our current crop of politicians in DC.

Rhinehold, David,

I personally believe that the federal government exists as an efficient way to centralize services, such as transportation, commerce, electrical standards, etc. The problem with the Red Cross superseding the U.S. government as the central organization for responding to natural disasters, is that we as an entire nation have to agree that the Red Cross is the central authority.

Now it may be a good idea to have the Red Cross as that central authority, but the only way to give them that authority is through a centralized decision making process…. which would be through the federal government.

Your argument about local control giving way to federal control being the bane of society ignores the fact that the national disaster plan relies on local control with national authority being the central regulator. The problem is, at all levels, people failed in their ability to organize an efficient plan.

If we want private organizations to step in, that still requires organization and planning, and who is going to do that? Is Red Cross going to crown themselves? Is the Baptist Church across the street going to say that it’s in charge of reconstruction of a city?

The private sector is not a miracle pill. In fact it’s another way for people to abdicate their personal responsibility. And personal responsibility is not being in charge of your neighborhood… personal responsibility is participating in your government, so that you have an efficient plan that prevents micro-problems from getting in the way of solving macro-problems.

Bush thought that the private sector would figure it all out in Iraq, but the fact is that they can only be effective if the large-scale plan is done right. And what private company should we foist that decision making onto?

Saying that the only thing that makes the government different is it’s ability to enforce things is just plain wrong. The government is different because it is the only body that officially is allowed to set standards on behalf of ALL the people in the United States.

Centralization, Standardization, Organization. That’s what the Federal government provides. And we need that.

Rhinehold, another thought provoking artcile from you. Well done. I take issue with a couple of points you made. The idea that government has to consistently force the people to comply with laws is wrong. True, we have had some incredibly examples of governmental oppression even in this country (i.e. Alien & Sedition acts of the early 1900’s, interrnment of the Japanese in World War II, McCarthyism in the late 40’s and 1950’s, and of course, compulsory military service during the twentieth century)but most people comply with law because inherently they agree that it is a good idea. Most people agree that it’s a good thing for examnple to have public schools, so they willingly (some less than others) pay a portion of their tax obligations to support public schools. Could all education be done privately? Of course. Would it be better? Probably not in the country at large application of privatized edcuation. Privitization, in general, focuses on profit before product in general. This is not the case all the time, but it can easily be argued that most businesses focus on earnings versus quality. There must be a synergy between the two organisms must be maintained for effectivity.

Secondly, I agree with the other poster that our transient nature of our work and lifestyles today that we have lost the sense of community. I think people respond well in general in crisis as evidence by the outpouring of giving and volunteerism in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita.

Government’s role is primarily for the defense of the realm and it’s occupants. That can easily be interpreted or expanded to include not only security from foe or enemy, but security from wrong. We have decided collectively that poverty is wrong, disease is wrong, illiteracy is wrong, hunger is wrong, etc. etc. Should we be dis-satisfied with the government’s actions, we use the force of our vote to initiate change. In the Private sector, we have the tool of boycott, protest and economic pressure to sway the organizations into a particular level of behavior.

We have a unique partnership between the public and private sector that works better than any other system. Sometimes the government is more heavy-handed that we want. Sometimes the private sector is more “selfishly greedy” than we want (see recent outcry at the prices at the gas pump), but in general the system works fairly well. We have fail-safe mechanisms in both places. In the private sector, we can stop buying or stop giving if we find the actions of the groups repugnant. If we find the same behavior in government, we have the elections as our remedy.

The system needs consistent and continued tuning. Like a engine, the mechanics of the system need regular maintenance.

“There is a need for government and I am in no way an anarchist, but we can’t allow government to be used when private industry can do the job as well or better.”

Rhinehold, I concur completely with this comment. The sticking point is in deciding when private industry can, in fact, do the job better. We could as somone above mentioned make the Red Cross the organization in charge of natural disaster. But, then, who is to hold them accountable for the proper and efficient useage of their funding? The donors? And if the donors don’t like the way Red Cross is handling their repsonsibility and cease contributing, what happens to America’s national disaster response capacity, if the Red Cross hasn’t the funding to respond?

Rhinehold, I apologize for misinterpreting your intent in the article, and thank you for clarifying for me. I agree with the thrust of your argument. Government should not, and cannot efficiently and sustainably be, the source of all of our nation’s needs. That results in a highly inefficient Command Economy which as we witnessed in the USSR sows the seeds of its own demise.

But part of the argument today that government is inefficient, is a red herring. Is government inefficient inherently? Or, is government inefficient because it is not transparent, accountable, nor responsible for its actions? To answer my own question, BOTH! As you say, there is inherent inefficiency built into government bureaucracy especially when new problems rear up which government must decide how to respond to. The political warfare between parties makes this aspect of government horrendously inefficient.

On the other hand, a great amount of government inefficiency as in wasteful and fraudulent use of tax dollars, is a result not of an inherent flaw in government design, but, in the relationship between government, political parties, and the voters, in which transparency and accountability have been to increasing degrees, tossed out of government by the political parties seeking to avoid the consequences of them.

This latter aspect of gov’t. inefficiency can be addressed by the voters, through an ever growing anti-incumbency movement at the polls which threatens the power of the Dem. and Rep. parties over issues like transparency and accountability.

There is a balance which we seek to maintain, but, which never can always be maintained between free capital markets and the greed and short term avarice that drives it, and government regulation and control over capitalism’s excesses and abuses. To the extent that voters can hold government responsible and accountable, that balance can be better maintained between regulation and capitalism.

I believe the imbalance has been so aggregious over the last few decades that we may be witnessing a period in which the voters growingly demand a restoration of balance between the private sectors and government through greater accountability and transparency over government bureacracy and greater separation between private sectors and government. If I am correct in my interpretation, this is one of the issues you raise in your article, and it cannot be overrstated.

Private health insurance companies spend approximately $0.40 per dollar of income on administrative costs. Medicare spends $0.02 per dollar on those same costs.

Tell me again how “private industry can do the job as well or better” !?! Oh well, as we all know, the conservative crowd can’t understand the subtleties of algebra and sometimes a hammer is just a hammer…

Dave,

You are attacking a paper tiger…

But, for the sake of argument, let’s use the point I was making. If we move everything to government controlled health care, such as medicare, as their only means of health care, what do you think is going to happen to someone who seeks medical attention outside of the ‘plan’?

Well, we already know from Hillary’s attempt at solving this. They will be put in jail at the point of a gun. If they resist that they will be shot (and then treated at an approved government controlled medical facility).

MMMm, love the state run stuff. Why have anything privately owned?

Article related to the kind of powers the government has been (unconstitutionally) trying to give itself lately:

The Post-PATRIOT Rosa Parks

Rhinehold,

1st: Why is that a “paper tiger”?

2nd: The Hillary comments are pointless, at best.

3rd: Freemarket economies will support the people who want to go outside the one-payer system.

4th: Do you truely believe profit based health care will provide the best care to everybody? Or just takes care of those who can afford it while the public sector takes care of the rest?

Just because coruption and secrecy in nothing new to our government, is no reason to support it. At some point we need to say enough is enough and demand better. Will we ever learn from hitory instead of just perpetuating it over and over?

The Death Penalty is one of those; every time it has been discussed at least one pro-Death Penalty person will state that the absence of proof of anyone who was innocent being executed somehow justifies the continuation of the Death Penalty. Ruben Cantu was executed for murder in Texas in 1993. It appears there is a strong likelihood he was innocent.