Some Wise Thoughts on the State of Things
Arnold Kling at with the Library of Economics and Liberty has some good points he’s been making lately and I wanted to point some of these out.
Romanticizing the right to vote is a bad move. The only good voting does is that it permits you to peacefully throw out the incumbents. However, once you romanticize voting, you undermine a lot of that value. The political class exploits your romantic feelings to expand its powers and take away your rights.
Libertarians face three choices relative to their postures on democratic voting.
1. Share the enchantment.
2. At least pretend to share the enchantment.
3. Express open disenchantment.
Will’s post (read the whole thing) seems to advocate something between 1 and 2. I’m going with 3.
via The Problem with Democracy, Arnold Kling | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty.
I must agree something must be done to curtail the amount of oppression and fascist goings on by both the Republican and Democratic leadership for far to long. Unfortunately many of these policies have been being built and laid to ground for the last century or at least since the first major taxes and then the New Deal. Slowly over nearly 100 years are system of government has been eaten away at by those that desire power for the government.
So, what’s to be done if we’ve lost our “voice”. He makes some great points here too.
I think that perhaps the best positive approach for libertarians right now is to support institutions that compete with government. That means charities, churches, charter schools, clubs, consumer information services, and other sources of public goods. I would count the traditional family as an institution that competes with government.
You are likely to see Democrats under President Obama launch assaults against all of the institutions of civil society. Already, the Washington DC school voucher program is under attack, as is the tax deduction for charitable contributions. As libertarians, our electoral voice is worth little. Our threat to exit is probably too costly to carry out. Promoting institutions that compete with government is the best strategy I can come up with.
via Libertarians: What Now?, Arnold Kling | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty.
As a father of four I can surely agree with this. Educate my children at home what they aren’t getting at school history, theology, sociology, ethics, law, etc.; get them and myself in church, and support those institutions that compete with government. I hear that message loud and clear it is indeed “perhaps the best positivive approach” for us to take in todays time and age.
How come those that surely voted for Bush both times, now consider themselves libertarians? It’s such a quasi-defined party filled with disgruntled Republicans, that they don’t realize how radical their ideas truly are.
Libertarianism is so radical, that it insists people and business will do the moral things at every turn. Where a house is on fire, the libertarian believes the neighbors will pitch in to help suppress the fire. Where a chemical company sets up shop, the libertarian believes the company will do the necessary things to prevent waste from entering the waterways. Where a major flood and hurricane hits the coastline, the libertarian believes that enough people with bags of sand will come to save the day.
Libertarianism is such a baseless political philosophy, that no country has successfully shown that it works. I get leaving the government out of your bedroom, but it’s not the be all, end all of political philosophies. Sometimes it’s “purity” just doesn’t work.
Thanks for stopping by again. I appreciate your verve and strong perspectives.
You are correct to a certain extent. I am a very disgruntled conservative. But I’m actually a registered democrat though so republican isn’t accurate. I even was on the treasury of a local delegates bid for office under the democrat ticket. I did vote for Bush but really because I didn’t like Kerry or Gore. I didn’t like McCain or Obama though this time around so I cast my lot elsewhere. I voted democrat for governor though and I vote a very mixed ticket usually as I’m a well informed voter. So lumping me in with a political “party” is usually not accurate.
Anything carried to extreme is radical, but I don’t know of any well respected libertarians that would say people or business will do the moral things at every turn. Likewise, do you believe that the government will instead do moral things at every turn? To me that is radical to place your trust or faith in government a libertarian would rather prefer the choice left up to them individually, as well as the consquences. The State is a souless entity made up of people that cowtow before man for election and is more likely to do the immoral thing.
However, I never said that I thought fire departments should not be government and tax funded. Nor for that matter roads, military, police, or judicial operations. There are things that are in the public good and no honest libertarian thinks otherwise. Just as a honest socialist would probably be able to conclude that there are somethings that the individual should be allowed to choose on their own such as who they marry or what they eat for breakfast.
I agree more with the overarching political philosophy that the government should be involved to the least extent as is possible in daily lives. What about this is baseless? Simply look at the level of involvement in daily lives of governments throught modern history and the baselessness of this philosophy would cease to be as baseless.
I don’t believe the government will do the moral thing 100% of the time but it is there representing people. We own the government. Not some president or collection of politicos. Of course, there will be some beauracratic abuses in any sort of agency, whether it be the police or FEMA, but the entire purpose of government is to work FOR the people. It’s ours and it should be there to aid the public where no one man or one business (or a collection thereof) can honestly provide that.
Those things would include the military, police, fire departments…. and natural disaster relief. One of the big complaints from libertarians is… “see, government doesn’t work… so why should i pay taxes.” The flaw is, that it CAN work, just not when you have a doofus running things.
I’m also not for absolutely controlling the market place either. That is the other extreme – communism. But markets do need some watching over to protect us… and only government and government applied regulations can do that. Otherwise, our food water and air will make us sick. The idea that markets will self regulate and balance the world around them has proven to have failed, time and time again.
Government should provide health care and education because I believe if most of us are healthy and educated, then we can actively make better decisions about our future well being. We are in this collectively.
We need a balance.. no one extreme or the other. But at least libertarians are consistent. Unfortunately, I only agree with half of it.
I agree with your perspective. The State should be there where no one man, business, or collective can provide that service reasonably. This is the debate though to me. This is where those lines are drawn.
Health Care and Education
I work in the health care industry as a Chief Financial Officer every year we have the government come down audit our books and tell us how to run our business. I’m serious when I say if we took their advice we’d bankrupt our free clinic. (I help run a rural health clinic for the poor in the community. We provide services regardless of patients ability to pay.) So, I really question why the government needs to be involved so much in health care. (Granted the system IS broke. I admit that but I also have experience working with the Feds in health care and can say from first hand experience we’re heading towards a bigger train wreck then before. If we head down this path.)
As for education I also think this is a government joke as well. I have 4 children. Two are to small to be in school. Two are in school 1st and 3rd grade. They actually go to a “Blue Ribbon” government school. They are bored to death there. I’ve had the 3rd grader reading classical literature since 2nd grade. He now reads at a sixth grade level. The 1st grader my wife and I have reading at a 3rd grade level. I’ve got the 1st grader doing multiplication (they don’t learn that until 2nd grade). I read them classical literature at home at night, as well as I teach them martial arts, history, and theology at home. Their school is a joke. They’re bored with straight A’s and tired of studying the silly stuff they have to study for the school. By the time they are in 6th grade I’m going to have them doing 12th grade level work. It’s completely silly.
John Adams one of the founding fathers was reading Cicero in original Latin by the time he was in 6th grade. What do students do now that we have government run schools in 6th grade? I educate my boys at home FAR better then what they get at school. It’s the job of parents to educate their children. If a parent doesn’t educate their child it doesn’t mean they are going to be educated in school as I point out. Where is the real education? It’s so easy it creates a false sense of comfort and education.
It’s crazy to see kids coming out of high school that can’t do calculus, don’t have an understanding of basic physics, chemistry, and biology. Or haven’t been introduced to classical literarture the Bible, Talmud, Koran, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, Orwell, Marx, Ingels, Calvin, Keynes, Drucker, etc. It’s crazier that they aren’t educated in financial literacy in high school the basics of finance, investing, and business. I doubt most high school graduates could even answer the basic questions for citizenship in this country.
Just basic stupid things like how many amendments to the constitution are there? How many senators in congress are there? Who is the Chief Justice of the supreme court? What is the bill of rights? List the first 10 amendments to the constitution?
Really simple basic things that every good American knows by heart aren’t being taught in our schools today. So, you may say it is the governments job to educate our children but I submit to you that the government is failing this job.
And when solutions that work (like the school voucher program in D.C.) that remove the governments hands out of education come along those like Bush and Obama shoot them down.
To me as you can see by my rant education is the most important topic. It is TRULY our future as a nation. Me and myself I’m looking out for my own, unfortunately I’m one of the few. This means my children will be educated in a dangerous world of the uneducated.
no bteetr, no worse. just concerned that they’re going to be in the hospital from age 55 on secondary to complications from obesity, and the fact that they are chugging sodas and eating candy is depressing (to me).Like or Dislike: 0 0
uDte5d hhfztmdcmvda
The school voucher program is deeply flawed. I agree that our schools are not performing as well as they should, but studies show that academic achievement is still continuing to rise in the U.S.
Additionally, more than 80% of all private schools are arms of religious institutions that promote and teach religious values as part of their curriculum. Things like human sexuality, the role of women in society, and creationism are very controversial and pose great problems within our educational system.
Vouchers also give a false sense of choice when finding a school. Any private institution can reject or accept you, while the best schools will be relegated to only those who can afford them. So vouchers will only cover tuition for the poorest-performing private schools. Public education is still the best route for everyone.
Education is flat at best in the US from 1973 to current according to our own government reports:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=38
For those at 17 it is has actually declined. While some minor improvements have been made in for 9 year olds and 13 year olds (which are generally lost by the time a student reaches 17).
This is of course comparing the United States to it’s self. Compare the U.S. to other countries and we are actually losing ground.
So, what! Arab countries don’t indoctrinate their children? Communist countries don’t indoctrinate their children? U.S. public schools don’t indoctrinate U.S. children?
What we should have is the freedom to choose what we want our kids to learn. I want my children to be taught all worldview’s humanist, marxist/socialist, cosmic humanist, judeo-christian, islamic, and postmodern side by side. What is fair about only being shown one side of a controversial landscape of idiologies. Particularly in the 10 key fields of theology, philosophy, biology, ethics, law, economics, history, sociology, politics, and psychology. Why teach only from one religious perspective for biology and then another for law and another for history and etc. Just for political correctness? That’s not education but miseducation.
As for the voucher program not working I’d have to see some data from a reliable study to buy that because the data I’ve seen says it is successful:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/research/ShowResearchItem.do?id=10108
What works from the current political leaderships perspective doesn’t have anything to do with the education of our youth but the power in their hands as the data provided above points out.