Our Quality of Life is Declining

[4est_4est_Gump]

Victor Davis Hanson has a piece over at National Review Online that I think is timely to this particular discussion:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/355622/print

 

[Recidiva]

That would be what we are becoming.

There is a right to association, a right to charity, the humanity to forgive and forget; it is only when you try to impose all of this by force of government that you lock entire groups into niches denied of upward mobility and the ability to choose to improve their condition for government begins destroying Capital and precluding choices. And the worse the outcome becomes and the stronger the calls for more government intervention, the tighter the death spiral grows.

Penalty for using the term death spiral when discussing whether or not someone buys cheap stuff or gets a summer job.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Penalty for using the term death spiral when discussing whether or not someone buys cheap stuff or gets a summer job.

I have not addressed summer jobs.

In the economic sense, it is very appropriate; one needs look no further than the stimulus and cash for clunkers or the Affordable Health Care Act which is raising premiums drastically, but we are assured that we are still going to be saving money because so many of us will be getting subsidies.

With each intervention, corrective action must be taken to control the unintended consequences. These reactions always require more Capital and they produce more unintended consequences because politicians do not make economic choices, they make political choices. That is the problem with Libertarians, you can never by votes from the Republicans and Democrats by running on the slogan, "All we offer is less and more of it!"



Eventually, altruistic government depletes the national Capital and reduces its citizens to angry wards each demanding their share of a shrinking pie. As I stated before, we have many examples from history ancient and recent of top-down governments for the egalitarian welfare of the people enter and complete their death spirals, often not before lashing out in desperate paroxysms of death and war.

 

[Recidiva]

I have not addressed summer jobs.

In the economic sense, it is very appropriate; one needs look no further than the stimulus and cash for clunkers or the Affordable Health Care Act which is raising premiums drastically, but we are assured that we are still going to be saving money because so many of us will be getting subsidies.

With each intervention, corrective action must be taken to control the unintended consequences. These reactions always require more Capital and they produce more unintended consequences because politicians do not make economic choices, they make political choices. That is the problem with Libertarians, you can never by votes from the Republicans and Democrats by running on the slogan, "All we offer is less and more of it!"



Eventually, altruistic government depletes the national Capital and reduces its citizens to angry wards each demanding their share of a shrinking pie. As I stated before, we have many examples from history ancient and recent of top-down governments for the egalitarian welfare of the people enter and complete their death spirals, often not before lashing out in desperate paroxysms of death and war.

The entire point of having a government is altruism and order.

Second death spiral warning, sir!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The entire point of having a government is altruism and order.

Second death spiral warning, sir!

The entire point of government is to remove threats of violence external and internal.

Altruism is the purview of religion, customs and mores and rightfully so for every government imbued with altruism fails, often bloodily. Contrast the American and French revolutions of the same period, for example.


Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question of whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance -- to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered good and Capitalism as evil -- whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with …"moral pathos" …and on which Socialists and (Statists) always fall back, because they find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.
Ludwig von Mises

 

[Recidiva]

The entire point of government is to remove threats of violence external and internal.

Altruism is the purview of religion, customs and mores and rightfully so for every government imbued with altruism fails, often bloodily. Contrast the American and French revolutions of the same period, for example.


Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question of whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance -- to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered good and Capitalism as evil -- whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with …"moral pathos" …and on which Socialists and (Statists) always fall back, because they find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.
Ludwig von Mises

So the Declaration of Independence was full of crap. Fuck life, fuck liberty and screw your happiness, all y'all sons of bitches are on your own.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So the Declaration of Independence was full of crap. Fuck life, fuck liberty and screw your happiness, all y'all sons of bitches are on your own.

I tend to think that some people focus on the General Welfare and Good'n Plenty clauses to the exclusion to the main and base work of the Negative Charter of Liberties that so badly handicaps our national desire to good works, as per President Obama's thinking.

 

[Recidiva]

I tend to think that some people focus on the General Welfare and Good'n Plenty clauses to the exclusion to the main and base work of the Negative Charter of Liberties that so badly handicaps our national desire to good works, as per President Obama's thinking.

Well, government isn't really about what you personally think, it's about the stated goals and intentions of the formulation of the nation as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which are pretty flowery and ambitious and altruistic.

That means you can think what you want and say what you want, and I'm all for that. But it also means that what you think and what you want aren't going to become law unless it's in line with those documents.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well, government isn't really about what you personally think, it's about the stated goals and intentions of the formulation of the nation as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which are pretty flowery and ambitious and altruistic.

That means you can think what you want and say what you want, and I'm all for that. But it also means that what you think and what you want aren't going to become law unless it's in line with those documents.

No, I am sorry but at this point, I have to disagree. Any ambiguities and altruism that people choose to read into the Constitution are easily dismissed by the clarity of argument in the Federalist Papers.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's no use whining. Republicans and conservatives don't get to set the political weather; in 2013 it is still liberals that get to define reality and liberals that get to teach our children in school. We conservatives only flourish when the failure and corruption of the liberal ruling class is knee high even to a low-information voter. As in 1980. As in 1994. Like maybe real soon.

As a result, people don't understand that Obama politics and Obamanomics and executive orders and QE and deficits and top-down bureaucracy can never deliver them the American Dream.

Yet left-of-center thinkers are no slouches when it comes to critiques of the liberal administrative state. James C. Scott in Seeing Like a State argues that modern states want their people to be legible so the rulers can control them.

Then there is Michel Foucault. His Discipline and Punish argues that the modern state is a power project that features "three primary techniques of control: hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment, and the examination. To a great extent, control over people (power) can be achieved merely by observing them."

Normalizing judgment requires national standards in education and health care and diet against which people can be observed and graded, and the modern state does not punish so much as "correct deviant behavior" as the PC police demonstrate daily.

Jürgen Habermas has critiqued modern administrative systems as inherently dominating and hegemonic; they need to be balanced by communicative negotiation and action in the person-to-person lifeworld.

This is not completely lost on President Obama. He says that he is "pro free market;" he says he is for growing the economy from the middle out. But his policy always enlarges the administrative state and its dominating systems.

Obviously the president says the right things because he knows the American people want to hear them.

He says he's for the American Dream while he and his willing accomplices to everything they can to destroy it.

Christopher Chantrill
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/the_american_dream_not_this_way.html#ixzz2bqhlc4e9


"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. ... there is only one remedy: time. People have to learn, through hard experience, the enormous disadvantage there is in plundering one another."
Frédéric Bastiat

 

[Recidiva]

No, I am sorry but at this point, I have to disagree. Any ambiguities and altruism that people choose to read into the Constitution are easily dismissed by the clarity of argument in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were arguments intended to convince people to ratify the Constitution. They themselves were not signed into law by a majority. It's an ad for the thing, not the thing itself.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the Constitution or Declaration, it would still be nice if we'd learned things in 200 or so years about social responsibility, hopefully not from a bunch of land-owning white guys who thought slavery was cool and you shouldn't vote unless you were, well, a land-owning white guy.

 

[richard_daily]

No, I am sorry but at this point, I have to disagree. Any ambiguities and altruism that people choose to read into the Constitution are easily dismissed by the clarity of argument in the Federalist Papers.

So now you're dismissing the constitution?

Perhaps you need to find a new country to live in? I can make a few suggestions if you'd like.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Federalist Papers were arguments intended to convince people to ratify the Constitution. They themselves were not signed into law by a majority. It's an ad for the thing, not the thing itself.

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the Constitution or Declaration, it would still be nice if we'd learned things in 200 or so years about social responsibility, hopefully not from a bunch of land-owning white guys who thought slavery was cool and you shouldn't vote unless you were, well, a land-owning white guy.

If you would like to stop speaking in generalities and vague references and give me the concrete examples of the Constitution that direct the government to altruism, I would love to discuss them; even President Obama has spoken to my point lamenting the limitations imposed upon him.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf...,
Barack Hussein Obama
2001 Radio Interview

Around the turn of the last Century, hampered by the constraints of the Constitution, Justices on the Supreme Court began turning away from strict constructionism and began to use precedent, in this way, they could gradually turn law and government to altruism and social justice, but a lot of what has ensued is unconstitutional as it was framed. When you go to personal correspondence to interpret penumbras, then you are imposing a desired outcome out of frustration of restraint imposed precisely to ensure that altruism did not devolve into Democracy.

 

[trysail]

...altruism...

The referee has halted play and is signaling a time-out for:

define that word !​

Government is the rationale used by thieves for the coercive taking of my property for their use in buying the votes of others.

 

[Recidiva]

If you would like to stop speaking in generalities and vague references and give me the concrete examples of the Constitution that direct the government to altruism, I would love to discuss them; even President Obama has spoken to my point lamenting the limitations imposed upon him.

My current issues would be the idea that the government can't afford to give absolute minimal aid to people who need that minimal aid, but we can afford to give corporations tax loopholes and exceptions for their "hardships."

My other issue would be obstructing universal health care because...well...because it might work, dammit, and we can't let Obama win under any circumstances!

My other issue would be obstructing immigration reform because...well...because it might work, dammit, and we can't let Obama win under any circumstances!

Also, I'd really like to stop hearing about Anthony Weiner. Thanks.

 

[Recidiva]

The referee has halted play and is signaling a time-out for:

define that word !​

Government is the rationale used by thieves for the coercive taking of my property for their use in buying the votes of others.

Everybody has a dictionary, but here are some of mine:

Al-tru-ism - Knowing the value of a bottle of water after having been through a hurricane. Not blaming sick people for being sick because giving a damn and finding out why and helping them is too hard and sciencey and can't we just say God is testing them? Not looking at the socially disadvantaged and oppressed and calling them 100% lazy and if they'd just bloody well get off the couch they'd be all better.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

My current issues would be the idea that the government can't afford to give absolute minimal aid to people who need that minimal aid, but we can afford to give corporations tax loopholes and exceptions for their "hardships."

My other issue would be obstructing universal health care because...well...because it might work, dammit, and we can't let Obama win under any circumstances!

My other issue would be obstructing immigration reform because...well...because it might work, dammit, and we can't let Obama win under any circumstances!

Also, I'd really like to stop hearing about Anthony Weiner. Thanks.

I cannot get enough of "Weiner Goes Down!"



I share your frustrations on the tax code and the ability of politicians to divide us, pick winners and losers and for the wealthy to purchase indulgences. This came about though because a wave of Progressive Altruism changed the Constitution as written to treat us not as citizens equal before the law, but as groups of citizens, some of which should be forced to charity. That is why I am a huge proponent of the FairTax.

Then let the various 50 state governments try their hand at Social Utopia as they do in California and then when some models prove feasible, then others will want to adopt them, similar for those pipe dreams that fail on the face of it, but the Constitution was written precisely to prevent the Federal Government form imposing the tyranny of the majority upon the whole.

What reform would suffice? The pie is shrinking. Cheaper labor is not the panacea that cheaper goods are, to return to the premise of the thread.

 

[kbate]

My other issue would be obstructing immigration reform because...well...because it might work, dammit, and we can't let Obama win under any circumstances!

Why can't the democrats put forth an immigration reform bill that does not include amnesty for every illegal already in the country? There has to be some give from both sides if anything is to be done.

We're moving to national universal health care. Obamacare is unworkable as written and repeal is impossible without changing every House and Senate rule so the obvious fix is to expand Medicare to everyone and implement it through the tax apparatus in accord with the Roberts court decision.

 

[Recidiva]

I cannot get enough of "Weiner Goes Down!"



I share your frustrations on the tax code and the ability of politicians to divide us, pick winners and losers and for the wealthy to purchase indulgences. This came about though because a wave of Progressive Altruism changed the Constitution as written to treat us not as citizens equal before the law, but as groups of citizens, some of which should be forced to charity. That is why I am a huge proponent of the FairTax.

Then let the various 50 state governments try their hand at Social Utopia as they do in California and then when some models prove feasible, then others will want to adopt them, similar for those pipe dreams that fail on the face of it, but the Constitution was written precisely to prevent the Federal Government form imposing the tyranny of the majority upon the whole.

What reform would suffice? The pie is shrinking. Cheaper labor is not the panacea that cheaper goods are, to return to the premise of the thread.

I have to admit to having an inner smile when I hear of Carlos Danger, but only that part. The rest needs sink Atlantis.

The process itself needs to be fixed and we need a huge overhaul of the law making process, election reform and an ability to fix things like the fact that Congress gets to vote on whether or not they get a raise.

At this point if we try to pass a law that says kittens are cute, there will be a rider on it that they're only cute if they support man-made Global Warming theory and if the kitten has documentation proving it was born on American soil and is not owned by illegal aliens, who spread dirty, dirty kitten disease.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Those hairless kittens are anything but cute!





Weiner Stands Out!

 

[Recidiva]

Why can't the democrats put forth an immigration reform bill that does not include amnesty for every illegal already in the country? There has to be some give from both sides if anything is to be done.

We're moving to national universal health care. Obamacare is unworkable as written and repeal is impossible without changing every House and Senate rule so the obvious fix is to expand Medicare to everyone and implement it through the tax apparatus in accord with the Roberts court decision.

Why shouldn't there be amnesty for someone already here considering they haven't broken any laws and...well...they're here? Do you think not allowing them amnesty will make them go? It's a longstanding problem that we're not solving by holding our breath and calling immigration. It still takes a very long time and in the meantime they can legally do stuff like...pay taxes, and get a legal job and not contribute to a black market of labor abuse.

So refine the laws and stop obstructing them and stalling and extending and excepting. Let it have a chance to work before throttling all access to implementation funds.

 

[richard_daily]

Why can't the democrats put forth an immigration reform bill that does not include amnesty for every illegal already in the country? There has to be some give from both sides if anything is to be done.

We're moving to national universal health care. Obamacare is unworkable as written and repeal is impossible without changing every House and Senate rule so the obvious fix is to expand Medicare to everyone and implement it through the tax apparatus in accord with the Roberts court decision.

Yeah! Why can't they be more like Reagan, and... give... amnesty?

Oh wait.

 

[kbate]

Why shouldn't there be amnesty for someone already here considering they haven't broken any laws and...well...they're here? Do you think not allowing them amnesty will make them go? It's a longstanding problem that we're not solving by holding our breath and calling immigration. It still takes a very long time and in the meantime they can legally do stuff like...pay taxes, and get a legal job and not contribute to a black market of labor abuse.

So refine the laws and stop obstructing them and stalling and extending and excepting. Let it have a chance to work before throttling all access to implementation funds.

Amnesty just tells the next eleven million to "Come on In, the water's fine." You don't think that, "not paying taxes is a crime"? Try it.

What you're basically saying is that the Republicans should compromise and that compromise should be to give the other party everything it wants. Why then shouldn't we go to a one party government. We can call it 'The Party' and save a lot of money on elections.

 

[kbate]

Yeah! Why can't they be more like Reagan, and... give... amnesty?

Oh wait.

Because that stopped illegal immigration and fixed immigration problems forever. . . obviously.

 

[richard_daily]

Because that stopped illegal immigration and fixed immigration problems forever. . . obviously.

So Reagan was wrong then?