On Values
Oh I get tired of people who literally cannot think past basic facts and the simple logic 101 that connects them. Observe, from the comments here:
The governemnt has failed miserably and that is a fact. It is based on
economics and race as much as anything. Exerting energy to bring in
machinary for a photo-p in front of the levees when the nergy exerted
fro such could have maybe saved a few lives is inexcusable and just an
example of the total disregard of this administration for the welfare
of it’s constituancy. There is blamehowever to be pp-lace on the natino
as a whole for it’s lack of attention to it’s government.
Letting slide the over-abundance of typos, Cooper says that "The government has failed miserably and that is a fact."
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
13 Comments
on September 4, 2005 at 12:37Apparently, you have never heard of the term "the common good". Quaint term maybe, but something you should consider. Do you suggest that worn out roads should be left in disrepair until the private sector fixes it? Should government step aside and let corporations run everything? Businesses in many respects are no more efficient and are no less bureacratic than government. The only difference is corporations are interested in making a profit, and that's it. You can live in a world where corporations rule the roost and there are no services provided by government at all, but not only is that naively unrealistic it isn't really that attractive an alternative either.
- on September 4, 2005 at 13:03
Well, Paul, there's no such thing as "the common good." Here's why: define it for me, and make sure you account for every single individual's values and disvalues. Secondly, tell me who gets to decide what the common good is and why they get to decide instead of someone else, like me, for example.
Now I know that there’s such as thing as "the good of the individual." It's easy to define, too. Just go start asking individuals. They'll tell you what's good for them. No problem determining who gets to decide, either.
See, I just don't buy the notion that your "common good," whatever the fuck that is, trumps mine or anyone else's individual good.
And if you think that your typical laundry list of insoluble problems, save for government High Priests, do not figure into the values of individuals, then you're ignorant. And if you believe that individuals cannot solve their problems and win their values without government dictation, then you're doubly ignorant.
That's nothing new for people who believe in a common good, i.e., people who believe they know what's good and best for everyone else.
- on September 4, 2005 at 19:20
We can stand to disagree then. And this notion that money is being "stolen" from you is completely absurd. Who built the highway network that crisscrosses the country? And who built the schools that are educating the next generation, so they can achieve great things? Even this marvelous communications medium the Internet got its start via the efforts of government. I quaintly consider these components of the "common good", even if Conservatives scoff at such a naive notion.
I hate to point this out, but
we all benefit from the government, and myopia and selfishness can not change that inconvenient fact. And if you don't accept that premise, I ask you where would you be today with your innate talents, if you were unlucky enough to be born somewhere in the middle of Sub-Saharan Africa. You'd be earning maybe $1 a day if you were lucky, and you could smile all day because you could keep it all for yourself. - on September 4, 2005 at 13:03
"Do you suggest that worn out roads should be left in disrepair until the private sector fixes it?"
If the roads were actually owned by someone, then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the owner to keep the road in repair? You can't make money off a road that you can't drive on.
"Businesses in many respects are no more efficient and are no less bureacratic than government."
How is that? In which respects?
"Should government step aside and let corporations run everything?" Depends on what you mean by "run everything." Corporations should have no say how in how you live your life.
"Apparently, you have never heard of the term "the common good"."
So who is the "common" person you are referring to? Does that include me, Rich, you? If you rob me to give my money to someone else, how can that be for the "common good" if the robbed are included in your definition of the "common"? How do I join this common group?
- on September 4, 2005 at 15:14
Inescapable logic. Those that disagree are laboring under the misconception that the government has the solutions to society's ills.
- on September 5, 2005 at 06:31
"We can stand to disagree then."
No, we can't.
If you want my money to pay for the things you desire, then get off your punk ass and come get some.
That is all.
- on September 5, 2005 at 07:50
And this notion that money is being "stolen" from you is completely absurd.
Well, it's not, and you're simply ignoring plain and basic facts, because once you finally admit the simple truth of the matter, it will shatter your entire worldview.
See, you have a lot invested in your sense of how things are. Forced taxation, under threat of imprisonment, is the very foundation of all of it. No matter how plain it is to point out that the foundation of our civil society is based on simple theft, you will go through any sort of mental contortion to try and deny it.
If you had a good argument for why it isn't theft, I suppose you'd use it. Instead, you resort to a stream of end-justifies-the-means rationalizations. Of course I and others benefit from some services provided by government, but that's not an argument to counter the indentification that taxation of all kinds at all times, is theft. It would be likke claiming that because slaves benefit from the food, clothing and shelter provided by their masters, that they are not really in slavery.
Labor on, Paul. I assume you'll be propping up your worldview for many years to come, but at least now you know that it is all based on theft, and that's just a simple matter of fact.
- on September 5, 2005 at 08:06
Very nicely put. My compliments.
- on September 5, 2005 at 12:06
Our society is based on a whole assortment of things, but theft isn't one of them. In any society, some form of government needs to exist if there will ever be any advancement in the society. And in fact, government funds much of the research that improves the lives of citizens. In an unrealistic world like you portray, corporations would assert even greater power than they already have. And this is not something I find appealing or beneficial. If you consider taxation theft, then be bitter about it until the end. But you can't deny we live in a society. The US is not a loose federations of fiefdoms, but a vast sprawling country that needs revenue to maintain order, fund important infrastructure improvements, and deal with catastrophic disasters. You may not want to do your part, but that would mean others would have to pick up your share, while you would continue reaping the benefits from government that you are too blind to acknowledge.
- on September 5, 2005 at 12:50
Ah, more of the end justifies the means. Your entire argument rests on a two part-premise, the first of which is true, and the second of which is false. It's true that we require certain things for survival and well-being. It's false that such values wouldn't exist in abundance without government.
In any society, some form of government needs to exist if there will ever be any advancement in the society.
What do you mean by "some form of government?" Let's not mince words. What you really mean is that there must be a mechanism in place to force people to pay for things they otherwise wouldn't pay for voluntarily.
That there would be no advanced without some sort of forced-pay mechanism is simply a false assertion. What you really mean is that some of the "advancements" you value could not be financed any other way but by force. So, you don't wish to bother with persuading people that certain things would be in their best interest and asking them to ante up (without the huge transfer cost associated with government, I might add). Much easier just to take.
The scope of goods and services provided by business dwarfs that "provided" by government. The complex, often multi-national capital investments we see outstrips even the complexity of the US tax code. The worldwide distribution of goods and services far outshines even the temporary stepped-up logistics the government engages in when going to war.
And all this takes palace because people all over the world desire and voluntarily pay for the goods and services they receive. Attempting to flat-out assert that people will not voluntarily pay for goods and services that are currently being provided by the government flies in the face of all observable behavior, which is beside the point.
The government is an agent of force, existing by means of money it takes, by force. You can wail all you want about the benefits of such an arrangement, and it still doesn't make what they do any less forceful.
And not only is there no "need" for it, there is no practical purpose to it, either. People will always willingly pay for those things they find value in, and that's an established fact.
What it all boils down to is that people don't find value in much of what government provides, or, they find value but know they could get a far better deal elsewhere, but don't have that option.
But people like you persist in not only shoving what people don't want down their throats anyway, you make them pay for it, under threat of imprisonment, and then have the impudence to proclaim that you are benefiting them.
while you would continue reaping the benefits from government that you are too blind to acknowledge.
I have no more failed to acknowledge necessary benefits provided by government than a slave would deny that the mater's food, clothing and shelter keeps them alive.
It is inescapably the same argument, differing only by degree. I'm only about a 40% slave to government, not 100%.
- on September 5, 2005 at 15:07
Money is absolutely being stolen from us. We are under this mistaken notion that this is a Democracy and the the people have control over the government. There are hundreds of government programs that are sucking the money out of our pockets. We should be demanding accurate accounts of where our tax dollars are being spent. For instance, we've been paying the vie president for quite some time. Does anyone know what he's been doing?
- on September 6, 2005 at 07:47
"From our own perspectives we are both right so perhaps I will leave it at that"
No, you're objectively wrong and your perspective is invalid. I'd be happy to leave it at that, except that the likes of the IRS are on your side, and they refuse to leave it at "agree to disagree".
- on September 6, 2005 at 04:56
I was going to write some long piece refuting your narrow individualistic view of the world but frankly I really cannot be arsed.
At the end of the day we have differing views on what constitutes a societyy and how society interacts both with its members and those outside.
From our own perspectives we are both right so perhaps I will leave it at that
That, of course, depends upon your values and standard for judging values.
See, I could be the first to agree that the government has "failed
miserably," but that would be an odd way of putting it. Suppose someone
steals from me, but promises to "help the poor" with some of it. Am I
to be surprised that he either doesn’t "help the poor," or tries to and botches it? I suppose I could characterize it as a
‘miserable failure,’ but it kind of misses the point.
Of course, that’s not what you mean, is it? You probably mean that
the government has not been a good steward with the money it takes
from you (let’s not mince words, k?). I can accept that you personally
find value in the government taking your money and promising to do
certain things that are of value to you. That’s your business. And so it
logically follows that if the government does not carry out your
values as you would want them to, you’re going to be upset and dissatisfied.
But in your dissatisfaction and resultant condemnation, you’re affirming that it’s your money they’re messing with. Well, doesn’t it seem odd that you’d be
comfortable with them taking any more of it? Why is that? How often are you happy
with the results?
Why don’t you just associate with people of similar values, and you can
all chip in and have the money spent as you would see fit? Or, is it
that you prefer to have the government use some of the money it takes
from you to force other people who don’t share your values, in order to pay for your
values nonetheless? That’s one of your values too, isn’t it? Do you see the hypocrisy? You want the government to spend money as you would see fit, but others who have different values from you don’t have such a say, right?
Either people ought to have a real say, or not. If they do have a real say, then that would consequently include being able to withhold tax money if it was not being spent as they would see fit (otherwise, they have no real say). It logically follows, then, that unless you agree that people should have a real say, and thus be able to withhold funds, that you believe people should have no real say, which is to say, no say, which includes yourself.
Unless you, dear "taxpayer," agree that you, as an individual, should have an absolute right to withhold 100% of the government’s takings from you in taxes, then you are unavoidably taking the position that you ought to have no say in how taxes are spent, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Folks, STOP being so fucking stupid. The only way "government" will ever, EVER deliver the values you want is if your tax monies are 100% voluntary, down to the last penny. But then, of course, that would hardly make them taxes and it would hardly make the taxing authority a government as we know them, would it? In fact, we already have a word for what I just described: business.
It’s funny. I was in the company of a leftie the other day, and he was non-stop talking about "corruption in business" and how they "lie" and there’s "no accountability," and bla bla bla. So I finally said: "Suppose all that’s true. Don’t you generally not have a recourse? You can take your business elsewhere, or usually abstain altogether, can’t you? You don’t have to pay them anything. In business (25 employees) and my personal life, I conduct hundreds of voluntary transactions per year with businesses of every sort. Sometimes, dozens per day, and I’m generally happy with all of them–on the order of 99%. Yet, every single transaction I have ever had with all governments of all sorts, at all times, has been completely and totally unsatisfying. How do you reconcile that for me?"
That was the end of the conversation, but at least he stopped talking.