What ever happened to "small government?"

Let me see if I understand you, BotanyBoy.

You’re saying that things like the School Lunch Program mean the United States is a planned economy?

Oblimo said:

Let me see if I understand you, BotanyBoy.

You’re saying that things like the School Lunch Program mean the United States is a planned economy?

Click to expand...

No I'm saying when the government takes over a market....just like it would in a planned or government controlled economy, it's still the same shit.

Exact same behavior.

Just compartmentalized, generally to a particular market....like education and healthcare.

Compartmentalization and some feel good justification don't change what it is though. Maybe their using key corporations in some cases to dodge that "socialist" label for the "crony capitalist" one changes things a little?

Anyhow, I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. Government authority is more effective here than liberal ideas of social programs (charity). Public HC and education for example, there are clearly benefits to it....but it's still socialistic policy, not liberal.

BotanyBoy said:

No I'm saying when the government takes over a market....just like it would in a planned or government controlled economy, it's still the same shit.

Exact same behavior.

Just compartmentalized, generally to a particular market....like education and healthcare.

Click to expand...

I disagree, but not substantively, more on semantics. An honest-to-gosh planned economy is different than government involvement in a particular market sector in ways other than just “degree,” so I prefer to save the word “planned economy” for things like soviet-style Five Year Plans. (Confession: I checked Wikipedia for writing that last sentence. I didn’t know that South Korea had it’s own series of Five Year Plans. I’ve always thought of Five Year Plans as things Mao and Stalin tried that wound up starving millions of people to death. I’m not sure what that indicates about my semantical understanding of socialist economics. I have to think about it.)

Anyhow, I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. Government authority is more effective here than liberal ideas of social programs (charity). Public HC and education for example, there are clearly benefits to it....but it's still socialistic policy, not liberal.

Click to expand...

I think you are compartmentalizing your “isms.” If you want to say that levying a tax to support a social program is socialism and not liberalism in terms of wanting to be hyper-accurate with your ism taxonomy, I guess that’s okay. A little obsessive about semantics but okay.

I mean, I can understand when firearm enthusiasts go ballistic (tee hee clever me) when someone says “clip” when they actually are talking about a “magazine.” Because those are labels of two totally different physical things.

I admit to having less sympathy for arguments of what constitutes a particular ism, because isms aren’t things. They are a set of principles and beliefs.

So anyway, here’s my point:

You started off by saying that social programs were incompatible with liberalism. (At least, that’s what I understood you to say.)

I disagreed. I narrowed the focus to levying taxes to fund social programs.* And I tried to show how such a policy is not only compatible, but also copacetic, with classical liberalism.

I don’t care whether taxonomists label taxation for social programs as “socialism, not liberalism.” The point I am trying to make is that taxation to support social programs does not “violate” liberal principles. Yes, it is a government intervention in individual ownership rights, but it is justified by a benefit/cost analysis based on principles and ideas equally embraced by classical liberals as fundamental to their isms: utilitarianism and enlightened self-interest, best expressed (in my opinion) in Mill’s arguments in On Liberty about positive obligations to others, where he argues that individual liberty cannot exist without (a minimal set of) obligations enforceable upon the individual by society.

That’s as plainly as I can put it. If you still insist that taxation for social programs is incompatible with “liberalism” because it imposes government intervention on individual liberty, and any such imposition is anti-liberal, period, then I give up. Enjoy your useless terminology to your heart’s content and go join an anarcho-capitalist enclave somewhere waiting for Atlas to shrug.

Oblimo said:

I disagree, but not substantively, more on semantics. An honest-to-gosh planned economy is different than government involvement in a particular market sector in ways other than just “degree,”

Click to expand...

How? Other than scale how is a planned market different than a planned economy?

Oblimo said:

I admit to having less sympathy for arguments of what constitutes a particular ism, because isms aren’t things. They are a set of principles and beliefs.

Click to expand...

That's what makes classifying ideas/policies easy.

Oblimo said:

So anyway, here’s my point:

You started off by saying that social programs were incompatible with liberalism. (At least, that’s what I understood you to say.) I disagreed. I narrowed the focus to levying taxes to fund social programs.* And I tried to show how such a policy is not only compatible, but also copacetic, with classical liberalism.

Click to expand...

No, you showed an argument that argues you need some social programs because classical liberalism fails to address all the needs of society.

That is NOT the same thing as being copacetic.

Oblimo said:

I don’t care whether taxonomists label taxation for social programs as “socialism", not liberalism.

Click to expand...

That much is abundantly clear.

Oblimo said:

The point I am trying to make is that taxation to support social programs does not “violate” liberal principles.

Click to expand...

And you're totally wrong about that...it does violate liberal principals, primarily the harm principal.

Oblimo said:

That’s as plainly as I can put it. If you still insist that taxation for social programs is incompatible with “liberalism” because it imposes government intervention on individual liberty, and any such imposition is anti-liberal, period, then I give up.

Click to expand...

Most if not all liberals (what most socialists/leftist freak out and call anarcho-capitalist and libertarians) insist that wealth re-distribution is incompatible with liberalism.

Wealth redistribution is a socialist ideal, not a liberal one.

Oblimo said:

Enjoy your useless terminology to your heart’s content and go join an anarcho-capitalist enclave somewhere waiting for Atlas to shrug.

Click to expand...

Not, useless terminology....accurate.

The only time the terminology is useless is when people try to pretend it doesn't mean the agreed upon consensus (what's in the dictionary/encyclopedia) and actually means something else, like socialism.

Anarcho-capitalist are a whole other bag of ideals.

BotanyBoy said:

How? Other than scale how is a planned market different than a planned economy?



That's what makes classifying ideas/policies easy.



No, you showed an argument that argues you need some social programs because classical liberalism fails to address all the needs of society.

That is NOT the same thing as being copacetic.



That much is abundantly clear.



And you're totally wrong about that...it does violate liberal principals, primarily the harm principal.



Most if not all liberals (what most socialists/leftist freak out and call anarcho-capitalist and libertarians) insist that wealth re-distribution is incompatible with liberalism.

Wealth redistribution is a socialist ideal, not a liberal one.



Not, useless terminology....accurate.

The only time the terminology is useless is when people try to pretend it doesn't mean the agreed upon consensus (what's in the dictionary/encyclopedia) and actually means something else, like socialism.

Anarcho-capitalist are a whole other bag of ideals.

Click to expand...

Botanydummy at work:

Asian Troll Farm

Boot to the head

BotanyBoy said:

The only time the terminology is useless is when people try to pretend it doesn't mean the agreed upon consensus (what's in the dictionary/encyclopedia) and actually means something else, like socialism.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

I have been talking to an Ed Gruberman.

https://youtu.be/ajEOZ4tBqjQ



Edit: Oh, wow, I never knew Tae Kwon Leap became an actual part of martial art demos: https://youtu.be/LMIfAmQYig8

Ahhh....we've sunk down to the CowSlinger level for some good old fashioned name calling.

And we all know what that means

Have fun with the name calling.

cowslinger64 said:

Botanydummy at work:

Asian Troll Farm

Click to expand...

LOL!!!

It's funny that few who advocate it even question whether or not "smaller government" is really a good in itself.

SEVERUSMAX said:

It's funny that few who advocate it even question whether or not "smaller government" is really a good in itself.

Click to expand...

"Good" is subjective to ones values.