Uncle Sam Wants Me ... And My Children
Joe Spoor tells the story of how the state tried to rope his newborn into the system.
"Approximately 5 hours after Nolan's birth we received our first non-relative visitor. It was a nurse carrying a packet of information instructing us how to apply for state financial assistance to pay for various medical bills, as well as continuing care for our newborn. We also received a letter informing us we must submit information for his Social Security card, as well as details on the wonderful programs like Help Me Grow from the great state of Ohio.
"Perhaps the most surprising thing in all of this was the attitude of those who were trying to peddle public assistance. They actually looked offended at our polite refusals, at our sense of responsibility in all of this. This entire experience of helping my son dodge the draft of Uncle Sam's new public assistance army has been quite an eye-opener. Our nation is slipping away fast, and they are using our children as the crack in the door." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (63)
Joe, I enjoyed your well-written article, you raise many valid points and make many logical arguments.
However... I see from your article that your children attend public school. How can you possibly justify turning down free government medical assistance and aid, but then enlist your child to daily receive a free state-run "education?" Talk about having your child "on the rolls," as you say.... The monster of statist public education is much more damning than the (what was it again?) 'Ohio Help Me Grow' program.
If I misread your article and your children are privately or homeschooled, then I apologize. Otherwise, this article is hypocritical at best.
Published: September 20, 2007 10:41 AM
I really respect everything you had to say, I am a libertarian myself. One thing slightly offended me, although I am sure the offense was unintended at all. and it's not even related to the purpose of your article, It's when you called your son a 'little libertarian'. I'm sure he's very likely to be one when he grows up! But the problem is if everybody goes off calling their kids that's a republican girl, or this is a Muslim, or that's an atheist., or any other label that the child did not choose for himself, that will be very unfair for the child, and will send him/her a mixed message as to his real choices in life.
Thank you...
Published: September 20, 2007 10:45 AM
I remember with dismay realizing that I had to get a SSN for my homebirthed infant daughter if I wanted to claim an income tax deduction for her. The state is truly evil.
In other news, my children both (now) attend public school, and I don't think it is in any way hypocritical for someone opposed to taxation to do so. Our second-best world presents a number of real-life problems like this, and it is by no means clear that sending your children to public school somehow undermines one's case for ending public schooling.
Published: September 20, 2007 11:15 AM
Gil, the presumption that you must "educate" your kids at an empire-run school is disheartening. It's what I call lazy libertarianism, and it isn't worth its weight in federal reserve notes. Heaven forbid anybody take care of their own kids! Work a second job and pay for private school, or cooperate with your spouse and homeschool. I've been through it all, you have options my friend.
But your right, Gil... let's just go ahead and apply for welfare, medicaid, medicare and all the rest, let's submit to the draft when it comes, let's take the IRS lying down, and let's sacrifice our kids to the state at the local empire run statist temples...heck, it's only a "second best" world, as you say.
With attitudes like yours, it's always going to stay that way.
But your right, Gil... let's just go ahead and apply for welfare, medicaide, medicare and all the rest, let's submit to the draft when it comes, let's take the IRS lying down, and let's sacrifice our kids to the state at the local empire run statist temples...heck, it's only a "second best" world, as you say.
With attidtudes like yours, it's always going to stay that way.
Published: September 20, 2007 11:34 AM
Sorry about the double post by the way, not sure what happened...
Published: September 20, 2007 11:39 AM
Great post Joe. We might also examine our loss of liberty from the perspective that politicians used to send our children to fight for liberty, then they fought for democracy (not the same thing), now they fight for our "interests", but no one seems to be able to give a common definition to this last phrase. What is this ‘interest’ my son or daughter should defend and die for? Domestically, and historically, a crime is defined as requiring a minimum of two individuals and intentional encroachment on the rights of one person, or their property, by the other. A person under penal control for a “crime” involving only a single person has been referred to by Americans as socialism, communism, fascism, mob rule (democracy without liberty) and so forth—in other words rule by the force of government, rather than the natural will of people to be free. In 2006, 1 in 32 Americans were under penal control (Bureau of Justice Statistics). The number of people under penal control in our country since 1980 is staggering. When graphed creates a a 45 degree angle line. Seventy-five percent of those people were convicted by the government, in the name of “the people” for a crime involving only themselves. That is the new definition of justice. No longer does justice have a beginning, a middle and an end. No longer is it tempered with mercy and no longer does it involve restitution to anyone other than the government in three out of four “crime” statistics penned today. Interestingly, mandatory sentencing laws have moved the large majority of "crime" to a "trial by prosecutor" versus a trial by jury. This provides a statistical feedback mechanism of "guilty by plea agreement" which validates the need for these harsh laws because of soaring "crime rates".
Thank you for you post.
Published: September 20, 2007 11:49 AM
I have four children; none of my children have SSNs. When they turn 18, they can do what they want.
We homeschool, for all of the reasons listed above and more.
I have not paid a dime in federal income taxes since tax year 1998. (This is not a course of action for the timid or uncommitted, nor to those whose spouse is not "on board.")
I don't mean to highjack this discussion, but perhaps to encourage and inspire those who wish to be free, and not under the government's thumb. Read, and learn to articulate the message of freedom. Knowledge helps combat fear. And have faith in God, who delivered this nation from tyranny once before. We can do it again with his aid...
Published: September 20, 2007 12:24 PM
Can a parent refuse the SSN (Slave Serial Number) for his/her child? After all, is is extortion to force a contract on someone.
Published: September 20, 2007 12:31 PM
"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
Published: September 20, 2007 12:38 PM
I sent my kids to private school, BUT the curriculum there complies with State requirements, too, so except for having paid out thousands of dollars, I get little relief of my conscience for having done so.
It appears the author would forgive me for accepting Social Security (retirement) payments, which I do. I am not at all sure I should be forgiven.
What I am SURE I should not be forgiven for is paying taxes, which I also do, and the author freely admits he does, too, exhibiting no self-consciousness when saying so.
But I AM a spineless slug and I admit it. Anyone else holding the views I hold who pays taxes is also a spineless slug. A lot of us who hold "my" views ARE spineless slugs (we're alive, not in jail OR poverty, and still married, after all), but spineless or not, we're in fact not very numerous in the population overall. Fortunately, there are many ways to be spineless WITHOUT holding my views, too.
Published: September 20, 2007 12:46 PM
ScottJames - I guess that makes Murray Rothbard and H H Hoppe arch-hypocrits, accepting teaching positions at UNLV - a public institution of higher learning.
Published: September 20, 2007 1:00 PM
I prefer to think of Murray and Hans as "infiltrators"...fighting behind enemy lines for a higher cause. ;)
No really...I do.
Published: September 20, 2007 1:29 PM
I have to say that I am shocked by your comments. Do you not realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country that need these services? Most through no fault of their own. What about the father of five that was laid off because his company now does most of their business in China? What about those on minimun wage that can't support their families? The single moms that aren't getting what they need in child support and are working two jobs?Maybe you don't need those services and that is wonderful but don't put blinders on. There are a lot of common, ordinary, everyday folks that do. I would like to say that my family is not one of those. We do not even use the public school system but I would be stupid indeed if I thought that these programs were not there for the greater good. Some parents don't "forget" to make their children's lunch, some just don't care or can't afford to. The welfare system, free lunch and Medicaid may not be perfect but they serve a purpose. Do you want to start adopting children whose parents can't afford to raise them on their own? What about being a foster parent to all those kids whose parents "forgot" to feed them?
Published: September 20, 2007 1:46 PM
If you want to help them, Stacey, then in a culture of freedom, no one will stop you.
Can you possibly understand this? Can you possibly grasp the value of "freedom"?
Nobody has a moral right to force anyone else into the enterprise.
Published: September 20, 2007 2:06 PM
One of the reasons libertarians fail to change things is because they'd rather not change anything than compromise. Attacking school lunches is the epitome of arrogance and political stupidity. Ideals don't mean much when you have nothing to eat.
Published: September 20, 2007 2:14 PM
Stacy,
All the examples you state are examples of people who got themselves in over their head. You shouldn't bring children into the world if you can't afford to support them. This requires a certain combination of saving, earning, and calling in favors. It NEVER means ignoring the writing on the wall until things go wrong, then demanding others fix your problem under threat of violence.
I am sure you would not want me to have a say in whether a mother is permitted to have a child. None of my business, right? And anyway I would refuse that authority if you offered it. But since I have zero authority in the matter, how can you possibly expect me to have responsibility for the outcome?
The 'programs' you defend encourage people to live in a careless, dangerous way, never considering the consequences of their actions, and making risky choices, because the state takes the harm and spreads it onto everyone to bear.
The result is a diseased society, no different than what you'd expect if the air in a hospital was freely circulated to all the patients, instead of carefully sterilized.
The bottom line is: you see people in pain, which puts you in pain, and so you put me in pain, and demand that I help alleviate all our pain. You fight fire with fire, and everything burns.
Published: September 20, 2007 2:28 PM
Stacey says: "We do not even use the public school system but I would be stupid indeed if I thought that these programs were not there for the greater good."
A lot of people think they are serving 'the greater good' when they support social programs. That's why so many people support them. Not because they are greedy or jealous or evil people, but because they genuinely think these programs do good.
The sad truth is, these people, you among them as I once was, are being tricked. The snake oil is NOT going to heal you, no matter what the spin doctors say. The fatal flaw that poisons every one of these social programs is the idea that violence can be used as an engine of good. Violence can never be used to build anything good; it taints all that it touches.
Responsibility, prudence, mutual respect, and maybe charity if it comes to that, are all non-violent ways of helping each other to help ourselves.
But social programs are tainted by violence. They cannot escape that heritage. For all the good you think they do, you are blind to the harm. And that is why we still have victims 'in need'. Not because we have too few programs; but because the few we have are built on a mentality that permits violence.
Published: September 20, 2007 2:39 PM
Stacy,
No libertarian will deny that there are those in society who need help from others at times. Our objection to public programs such as these is that they are forced upon us, and to a lesser degree, that they are of dubious benefit especially to those they are intended to help. If you wished to help someone in need, would you feel comfortable going from door to door in your neighborhood and forcibly extracting $10 or $100 from each of your neighbors at gun-point even if you feel it's for the "greater good"? No, of course you wouldn't. But this is exactly what happens when government "helps" people. People should help each other voluntarily. When a group of individuals decide to help someone in need, and they pool their resources or ask others to donate help or funds voluntarily they naturally ensure that help goes to those who are most in need and/or most deserving thereof. Additionally, assistance provided by private charity can be tailored individually to better meet the needs of the recipient, and there is a clear incentive to do as much as possible to help the recipient out of the situation that brought about the need in the first place, thereby helping that person to become independent. By contrast, forced government charity must necessarily be "one size fits all", and in so being it fosters dependence on government.
Libertarians are not heartless, by any means. We care a great deal about our fellow man. Charitable giving is part of that caring. The other part is fighting for an environment of freedom wherein each person has the opportunity to create the best life possible for him or herself.
Published: September 20, 2007 2:40 PM
Nelson, the whole conclusion of anarchist thought is that, to feed the hungry, you need only take away their free lunch.
That may seem paradoxical on the surface, but giving it its due study (this is neither difficult nor time consuming; it's actually refreshingly simple and common-sensical compared to so much that confronts us in modern life), you will quickly see it is not a paradox at all, but just an incredibly simple, powerful, truthful observation about how the world works.
So what's the point in compromise if it's dishonest? The fact of the matter is, 'school lunches' as they're provided today (i.e. by threatening people with violence to fund them) do more unseen harm to the health and stability of all of society, than they ever do good to the child who eats from it.
That's why we attack it. There can be no compromise that embraces an evil thing.
Published: September 20, 2007 2:54 PM
For me it highlights the most difficult part of being libertarian, that is; How should we live under an imoral system? When or how to fight.
In my country (denmark) you automaticly recieve quaterly checks or bank-transfer for every child you have, one family send it back, only to have a comission descend upon them to "evaluate" whether they were suited for child rearing.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:07 PM
ajax, Murray and Hoppe were right to take jobs that allowed them to think and influence students. The framework for discussion a state-funded university (non-compulsory, where teachers like those mentioned are sometimes found) and public school (compulsory, with no free thought tolerated) are manifold.
But seriously... I mean, really... how can somebody believe that public school is so immoral, illegal and harmful that it needs to be immediately done away with... but THEN ALSO SEND THEIR OWN CHILDREN TO IT EVERYDAY! There is not an argument in the world that will get you out of this one.
It boils down to laziness, and people making of thier views on freedom nothing more than a hobby with some books, some blogging, some conversation and no heart. Makes me sick.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:10 PM
For me, the most difficult part of being a libertarian is being told you're a corrupt, greedy, immoral, hateful person, when my whole reason and path to becoming a libertarian has been the journey and struggle to become a good, generous, helpful, moral, loving person.
That's the supreme frustration.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:11 PM
Of course there is a value in having ideals when you have nothing to eat. Look, you're not going to live forever, and your lifespan is a drop in the bucket compared even to the lower-range estimates of the age of the Earth (around 6000 years for Biblical literalists.) Stealing for bread will gain you, what, 50 years at the most? Small compared to 6000, much smaller still compared to the scientific estimates. So by giving up your ideals, you won't gain that much. What will you lose? Any effort you've ever put into those ideals previously. Not a worthwhile bargain.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:11 PM
ScottJames, feel free to be sickened at the people who embrace the state wholeheartedly with salivating mouths...
...but attacking the people who are making an honest effort to adopt a libertarian ideal in a hostile and treacherous world, doesn't help anything.
Point well taken that public schools suck and there may be a contradiction in sending your kids there, but... c'mon. It's a given that we're all cowardly victims, or we'd have been thrown in the gulag or shot long ago. Let's not dwell on that. Let's instead celebrate our moments of courage, however small and disconnected.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:19 PM
Published: September 20, 2007 3:23 PM
Platitudes.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:30 PM
Learning about the world is good. If I ever choose to have kids, I will make very sure that there are ample resources set aside to make sure they will be safe and well fed as they learn about the world.
On the other hand, state-designed brainwashing, paid for by robbing people under threat of violence, is not good. It is poison.
See the difference?
Also, note that there is no need for anyone to battle their way out of poverty when poverty doesn't exist.
You might ask, why does poverty exist in a world of overflowing abundance?
Could widespread robbery and violence IN ANY WAY correlate to poverty? Could it?
The cure is worse than the disease Nelson. That's the simple fact of it.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:39 PM
I'm going to cut this to the chase with Nelson, because reason is impossible with him. ready? Here goes:
You cannot have my money for anything for which I do not voluntarily approve. If you think differently, then get up on your hind legs and bloody come get it.
Pack a lunch, son. You're in for a long day.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:40 PM
"If I misread your article and your children are privately or homeschooled, then I apologize. Otherwise, this article is hypocritical at best."
This article is not hypocritical. He's simply explaining the experience he's had with his new child, and with his existing child.
And to call people hypocritical or lazy just because they haven't made the exact same sacrifices you've made is rude and unkind, in my opinion, and doesn't help the libertarian cause very much.
A lot of us attempt to fight the behemoth of evil, our government, in as many ways as we can. Just because we don't move out to the wilderness and build our own home, forage for our own food, and try to raise an army to overthrow the government or something doesn't mean we don't want change.
"It boils down to laziness, and people making of thier views on freedom nothing more than a hobby with some books, some blogging, some conversation and no heart. Makes me sick."
People such as yourself making these comments makes me kinda sick. We all make sacrifices in different ways. Some of us just play along with the system for other reasons, even though we disagree with the system and we are striving for change.
Try being a bit more accepting and encouraging to those that are trying to make a difference, even if it's just with words.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:50 PM
I doubt that those who attack people making an honest effort to move toward a free society do not, in some way, make use of public roads.
I agree with Jean Paul. Think before throwing stones.
Published: September 20, 2007 3:57 PM
Great article. It is interesting that the State is so concerned with the new born being drafted into their state apparatus while at the same time sending them off to war to die. How far down the road away from freedom have we travelled in the United States, once the beacon of individual liberty.
Published: September 20, 2007 4:33 PM
"Try being a bit more accepting and encouraging to those that are trying to make a difference, even if it's just with words."...
So you just came out said it... this is all a pseudo-academic exercise for some of you, and not a way of life. Seems like such a waste; their much more enjoyable hobbies out there.
I think I understand the "you can't fight city hall" / "well, we all do the best we can" argument.
But I'm not talking about the fact that you don't have what it takes to not file income taxes, or refuse to register your car or boat, or whatever. While you not have any viable options in those situations, education is different.
I'm talking about actually getting up early in the morning, before the sun comes up, smiling at your little child, telling them you love them, and then actually voluntarily sacrificing your own precious flesh and blood child and sending them to their statist temple of "education." There is just straight up no justifying it. Either you don't care that much for your kids or you don't take the problem of our corrupted state serious enough.
It's true, I pay my income tax, property tax and register my car... but they had better send the gestapo if they think my children will ever step foot in a public school.
Published: September 20, 2007 5:23 PM
"ScottJames - I guess that makes Murray Rothbard and H H Hoppe arch-hypocrits, accepting teaching positions at UNLV - a public institution of higher learning."
Their seats are privately funded.
"The welfare system, free lunch and Medicaid may not be perfect but they serve a purpose. "
Yes, robbing us and making us dependent, after the government has aided in wrecking the economy and putting many in a state of need. What wonderful purposes they serve.
"One of the reasons libertarians fail to change things is because they'd rather not change anything than compromise. Attacking school lunches is the epitome of arrogance and political stupidity. Ideals don't mean much when you have nothing to eat."
I'm sorry, I had no idea attacking "free" services paid for with other's hard-earned money is "arrogance". I am all for compromise, should it lead to greater liberty (and always press for full liberty), but not in the direction of more etatism.
Please do not expect to tax my income to prop up some indoctrination facility and expect no complaint. A stupid argumentum ad misericordiam ("oh, but it's the children!!!") will not suffice to shift my view.
Published: September 20, 2007 7:29 PM
"ScottJames - I guess that makes Murray Rothbard and H H Hoppe arch-hypocrits, accepting teaching positions at UNLV - a public institution of higher learning."
Their seats are privately funded.
"The welfare system, free lunch and Medicaid may not be perfect but they serve a purpose. "
Yes, robbing us and making us dependent, after the government has aided in wrecking the economy and putting many in a state of need. What wonderful purposes they serve.
"One of the reasons libertarians fail to change things is because they'd rather not change anything than compromise. Attacking school lunches is the epitome of arrogance and political stupidity. Ideals don't mean much when you have nothing to eat."
I'm sorry, I had no idea attacking "free" services paid for with other's hard-earned money is "arrogance". I am all for compromise, should it lead to greater liberty (and always press for full liberty), but not in the direction of more etatism.
Please do not expect to tax my income to prop up some indoctrination facility and expect no complaint. A stupid argumentum ad misericordiam ("oh, but it's the children!!!") will not suffice to shift my view.
Published: September 20, 2007 7:30 PM
But I'm not talking about the fact that you don't have what it takes to not file income taxes, or refuse to register your car or boat, or whatever. While you not have any viable options in those situations, education is different.
Right, the difference is that homeschooling isn't even illegal (yet). So sending your kids to public school is voluntary in every meaningful sense of the word, and, I agree, sickening.
Published: September 20, 2007 10:13 PM
Published: September 20, 2007 10:42 PM
Published: September 20, 2007 11:07 PM
I have never filled out an IRS form in my life! Unlike Alan, this is because our robbers call themselves the ATO (australian Taxation Office). Perhaps you should write a book about your life Alan, especially the tax-escaping parts!
As for the rest of you, what's wrong with branding kids with 666? It will teach them that the world is painful, and give a job for life to the brander, and the numbers might inspire some of them to have a career in numbers. All to the good! AND they'll have an interest in religion (mum, what does antichrist mean?)
Published: September 21, 2007 2:40 AM
Don't forget about the individuals at the margin.
Remember, the state produces nothing. So, to provide free lunches, the state taxes income, property, etc.
For little Johnny to get a free lunch, little Debbie's parents will not have enough money to send her to the dentist, or doctor, or buy her glasses.
This is the reality. To live in the seen -- without looking for Hazlitt's unseen -- is to engage in theft in order to make yourself feel good.
Sure, you voted for Johnny's lunch -- which makes you feel oh so good, but, consider Debbie for once. Just for once.
note: Don't justify yourself by saying that you would support Debbie's needs through taxation. If you venture down this route -- the route we appear to be traveling, then we are headed toward full-blown socialism.
Why, because each new tax pushes someone else to the margin. That is life in a world of scarcity where the state steals for someone else.
As Mises said, there in not third way. It's either market or the state. You choose.
Published: September 21, 2007 7:09 AM
I meant to add: When you vote YES or support a school tax issue, you are simply exchanging your advantage -- supposedly free education -- for the disadvantage of others. Is there anything ethical with that?
Published: September 21, 2007 7:11 AM
Fair enough. I have nothing against eliminating free lunches for those who can pay. But for little Johnny who can't afford the lunch the argument can be made that a taxpayer paid lunch today will keep him in school today and out of the doctor's office or jail tomorrow, producing a net gain over the long term.
Also, if taxes are low enough then Debbie will still be able to afford glasses and doctor visits. However, other government programs may have to be cut. My point is, the school lunches produce a tangible long term benefit for our society, our economy and individuals. They should be near the bottom of "things we want to eliminate" not near the top.
Finally, don't say "Hazlitt's unseen." Bastiat popularized the idea before Hazlitt was even born.
Published: September 21, 2007 9:05 AM
"Think of the children" is indeed one of the classic lines of the statist - an excuse for just about anything.
Ohio is one of the higher tax-and-spend States in the Union, but the attitude is univeral - not just in the United States, but in most other nations.
And the public generally support the line - as can be how they vote when they think there is real threat to the "caring" government (as opposed to platitudes about cutting "pork" and "waste and corruption"). In both 1936 and 1964 it was 60% to 40% against us (these days I suspect it would be worse).
Of course in the end the entitlement program Welfare State will collapse in bankruptcy (in the United States and everywhere else), but it may not be followed by the restoration of Civil Society - I suspect that things will just fall apart into violent chaos.
Still we can but try to convince people to turn away from the path that leads over a cliff.
Published: September 21, 2007 9:35 AM
" My point is, the school lunches produce a tangible long term benefit for our society, our economy and individuals. They should be near the bottom of "things we want to eliminate" not near the top."
They do far less damage than other programmes, that is true. I don't think anyone suggested prioritizing the abolition of 'free' lunches though. There are much, much bigger fish to fry (e.g. IRS.)
Published: September 21, 2007 9:49 AM
Measurement of benefit is done on an individual-by-individual basis according to each person's unique values. It is an impossible and meaningless statement to say "this is good for society" because society isn't a real thing having an objective value scale by which to measure benefit. Any value scale attributed to 'society' is arbitrarily assigned by the assigner, and subordinate in all things to individual valuations.
Nelson says: "school lunches produce a tangible long term benefit for our society".
Only in the opinion of some - an opinion not shared by all. School lunches may provide a benefit to some individuals, and may impose a cost on others; depending on who you are you may be net up or net down.
Absent violence, participants who expect to be net up will willingly participate, and participants who expect to be net down won't. No one will willingly incur a cost for no benefit.
Violence is used to change people's valuations by inflicting a cost on non-participants (that cost being violent punishment for disobedience). No matter what the beneift to anyone else, the only thing that needs to be considered is the crime of inflcting costs on others against their will.
Using violence as a means poisons everything. It doesn't matter how wonderful it is to cure a child's hunger - in the end that meal is tainted with the unseen blood of innocents.
Published: September 21, 2007 1:42 PM
Don't forget the free rider problem. Even if a person would be net up compared to no action, they would be even more up if they let someone else pay.
Published: September 21, 2007 2:33 PM
I, for one, am not nearly as worried about the ill effects of government, taxes, public schools and free lunches as I am worried about corporate entities in control of textbooks, TV, radio, cell phones, social websites, voting machines, movies, toys, banks, insurance, health care, energy and a long, long list of other things including all advertisements. Do we think it was "government" that demanded for liquor and cigarettes to be sold alongside gasoline in front of children at nearly every so-called "C-store" in the country?
Was it government that manufactured and marketed pseudoephedrine so that basement drug-cookers would have a ready supply of the essential raw material to poison society with methamphetamine? Is it really government that puts the tabloid headlines out at the grocery checkouts as some kind of social truth for us all to read while we stand in the line? Count me as one who wishes the libertarians were working more on freeing us from corporate domination than freeing us from government and its programs. Especially going into 2008. The "individucrats" are not nearly as much to be feared as the "corpublicans".
Published: September 22, 2007 2:19 PM
Daniel, the government IS to blame for everything you list.
The government gives and takes away economic power according to its whims, contrary to public (consumer) demand. Corporations are neither iherently good nor inherently bad, despite what you might thing - but their morally-neutral nature is purely to satisfy their customers - and today the customer is NOT you, but the state.
As for drugs, the state controls what substances you can put in your body. It makes a big mess of things by prohibiting many safe substances, so more dangerous and addictive alternatives gain popularity instead.
Government also distorts research and development with its regulations and subsidies, and overall suffocates innovation through the IP system, meaning we all wait longer to discover the harms of existing substances, wait even longer for safer alternatives or technologies to be developed and placed in consumer hands, and finally we pay exorbitant prices, if the alternatives are permitted at all (which they typically aren't, due to scandalized and ignorant protest from the 'moral majority').
That's why you have an underground market in dangerous drugs. Not because there isn't enough government regulation - but BECAUSE the regulation and ineptitude of the state makes an aboveground market in safe alternatives literally illegal.
Ditto the grocery checkout thing - the government didn't put the tabloid there... They just created the social pressures that turn people in credit-addicted, zombie-like wage slaves, with so little of genuine value in their lives that they fill the void with empty pursuits such as celebrity worship.
Final and general point - coprorate domination is made possible ONLY through government power. If you truly want to declaw the corporations - as I and most here do - then it's the government you're truly after.
Knock the state down any way you can, and be amazed as the problems nearest to your own heart miraculously begin to vanish.
Published: September 22, 2007 3:05 PM
"I don't think anyone suggested prioritizing the abolition of 'free' lunches though. There are much, much bigger fish to fry (e.g. IRS.)"
Anthony,
I am actually suggesting that we end 'free' lunches.
You have the cart before the horse ...
We will never be able to get rid of the IRS and the income tax until we get rid of the programs they support. Until then, the plaintive cry will be, "How can we get rid of the income tax? The kids will starve!"
What will our response be? Unless we admit that such programs are unethical theft, we have no response. And, the tax will remain.
Once the underlying reasons for an income tax are exposed as frauds -- and not before then -- will we be able to end the income tax.
Oh, we may replace the income tax and IRS with a "fair tax" and an Internal Fair Tax Service (IFTS), but we will rever reduce tax burdens until we successfully remove the reasons for them.
In my view, the fights are local, and are about the ethics behind redistribution. The national scene is just a reflection of the views of each local majority.
Movement are begun -- and won -- in the coffee houses and local papers, not to forget the local blogs.
Published: September 22, 2007 6:45 PM
JP, excellent points. I relish people blaming libertarians of ignoring the effects of corporate power... when in fact we see the corporation as an arm of the State (as opposed to the free market firm.)
Jim, point duly noted.
Published: September 22, 2007 8:22 PM
And it all started with "Uncle Sam Wants Me... And My Children" We are all headed down the road to Perdition, there is no way out it's locked-in, in our Genes. We are all doomed to turmoil and pain and occasional moments of Happiness.
Published: September 22, 2007 10:08 PM
I am actually suggesting that we end 'free' lunches.
And the vast majority of American's DO want taxpayer funded lunches for school children. They save money over the long term. A child who stays in school, who otherwise wouldn't due to lack of nutrition, will more likely end up as a productive citizen.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics:The median income for a high school graduate who had not continued to secondary education was $8,943. For a high school drop out, that income fell to $6,778.
From Urban Education, Vol. 26, No. 4, 401-422 (1992) Dropping out and its Ultimate Consequence A Study of Dropouts in Prison: In a New York state prison, 79% of convicted male felons are high school dropouts.
And why should we provide this program through the government? Because government can tax everyone. Taxpayers benefit from educated neighbors (higher tax revenue, lower prison rate), but free riders wouldn't pay by definition. Therefore it is in the interests of the members of the state to have the state compel said members to pay their taxes for this purpose.
Published: September 23, 2007 3:04 PM
Nelson, I would love to refute what you've written, but to do so would be pointless; it's your entire worldview that needs refuting.
You view the state as the sheltering hand that protects us in our warm haven from the cold and fathomless evils that lie unseen beyond.
I view the state as the barbed wire walls of a tiny squalid cage forcing us upon each other to huddle in filth and hunger.
Why is my view right and your view wrong? That requires more exploration than a few paragraphs can provide, but I suppose it comes down to the non-aggression axiom - or the golden rule, or even karma, if you prefer. They're really just different expressions of the same truth: what goes around comes around.
If you provide for your wants by way of violence, then no matter how indirect the chain, and no matter how many mob together with you, you WILL NOT escape the consequences of that violence.
Maybe someone else can argue this more convincingly in a line or two?
Published: September 23, 2007 4:42 PM
Nelson said, "And why should we provide this program through the government? Because government can tax everyone. Taxpayers benefit from educated neighbors (higher tax revenue, lower prison rate), but free riders wouldn't pay by definition. Therefore it is in the interests of the members of the state to have the state compel said members to pay their taxes for this purpose."
Taxpayers benefit from educated neighbors, but neighbors benefit from educating themselves. It is a mistake to assume that subsidized education causes crime rates to decrease just because criminals are uneducated. Correlation does not indicate causation. And if increasing tax revenue is good, increasing it even more is better, and in theory all production can be confiscated through taxation.
But the issue is one of morality. The benefits of an educated populace are not evenly distributed through taxpayers, and the benefits of a subsidized education are not equally beneficial to students. This means that there are taxpayers paying for benefits they can't receive (Can one avoid the tax if economic conditions force you to go to a public school with criminals who are subsidized but haven't dropped out yet?), and there are taxpayers receiving benefits that they don't need (Is a high school diploma necessary to become a felon?) Because the benefits from education accrue mainly to the educated, students should pay for their own education. That way people who will not benefit from school don't waste the resources of those who would benefit. In fact there is no reason to assume that schools don't breed crime. After all, subsidizing felons so they remain in school hardly seems an improvement over holding them in jail.
Published: September 23, 2007 6:25 PM
If someone produces a good and it is known that it will have positive externalities, they have no right to force the recipients of these benefits to pay for them, unless said recipients in fact request their provision.
Nelson, are you a libertarian even?
Published: September 23, 2007 7:44 PM
So say the madmen:
"Quickly, more fire! The house is still crumbling! It's working, but the crumbling is going faster than we can add fire to stop it! We don't have enough fire yet! We must add fire faster! More fire! We must add more fire before the house collapses!!!!"
"Quickly, more government! Society is still unravelling! I think it's working, but the unravelling is going faster than we can add government to stop it! We don't have enough government yet! We must add government faster! More government! We must add more government before society disintegrates!!!!"
!!!!!! (shrieking)
PANIC!!!!!!!!!
Published: September 23, 2007 8:24 PM
Jean Paul:
It is quite improbable to reverse years of statist indoctrination in just a few lines.
Those that do not believe in liberty simply believe in the illusion that some mystical entity - a dictator or an institution which exists outside themselves and their neighbors will right wrongs and bring about a better world rather than than the reality that this entity will simply serve as just another life absorbing parasite.
Published: September 23, 2007 8:47 PM
Jean Paul, re your comments to Daniel (me), I just can't agree that GOVERNMENT caused us to
worship celebrities via tabloids because it has somehow made us into zombie-like wage slaves. Nor will I try to "knock down the state" as you advocate. Rather, I believe many corporations will exploit us for profit to the edge of whatever limits we rationally impose upon them through elected government. And I will work to ask citizens to elect leaders who believe the rights of human citizens take priority under our constitution to the rights of paper entities.
Published: September 24, 2007 6:16 PM
Corporations are just another arm of the State, most of them anyway. They merely cater to the population's desires. In a sense, JP is correct; the State is the client in that it plays a crucial role in shaping up future generations via the educational system.
And BTW, elected governments are themselves chief exploiters - they in fact aid statist corporations in pushing their agenda.
Published: September 24, 2007 7:52 PM
Daniel, like I said, the government didn't do the specific things you protest. The government just set the stage. These things would be improbable at worst, and impossible at best, in a world without a violent tyrant enslaving us all.
'Paper entities' get priority over citizens because an armed state recognizes and subsidizes them - and that same state will ultimately kill you if you don't fall in line with it's worldview.
Corporations will exploit us to the limits we impose as consumers. The state has tricked us into waiving our power to set those limits, and now holds us hostage.
It's a simple thing: corporations are as strong as the consumers that support them. When the state compels that support, even though you wish to withdraw it, the corporation becomes as powerful as the state. It is a simple thing, yet people attack the symptom while praising the disease.
The state is the disease. From it all evil flows. You may realize this one day, if your anger is ever enough to lift the blindness from your eyes.
Published: September 24, 2007 8:02 PM
When I hear people talk about whether children want to or should be allowed to work -- which itself is not one question but two -- the teenage people are the ones who usually say young people do want to work and should have the choice. The old, who remember when kids normally did work, generally agree. Those in between panic over visions of three-year-olds chained to giant greasy iron gears 16 hours a day, 365 days a year, for three cents an hour. But are adults working like that now? No. When children worked in such conditions, so did adults. Now that adults usually work in offices, restaurants, call centers, grocery stores and department stores, 40 hours a week, at about 12 dollars an hour, I hink kids given a choice will work in similar places, say, 15-20 hours a week, at maybe eight an hour after an initial lower-paid training time. Effective homeschooling takes so little time that it should hardly affect the schedule, and no expensive materials are necessary. One simply shows the child how to read, add, use logic and look things up, and get around town without danger.
The term "productive citizen" upsets me. I prefer "creative citizen" or "free citizen" but it's really supposed to be up to the child which of these is most important.
Published: September 24, 2007 9:05 PM
Jean Paul, I guess I underestimated you guys when I took this site's admonition "post an intelligent and civil comment" seriously on my these, my first visits to this nutball blog war. I sort of imagined (wrongly) this might be a place for serious debate.
But being called blind because I won't join you in some backwoods conspiracy to "knock down the state" is a pretty good sign I've run into some "regulars" here who must prefer bully-mouthing to sense. As much as you (and maybe some others) may think you can pretend to be embattled hermits independent of a society with a government, it just ain't so. I'll bet tonight you're drinking government-protected water, sleeping in a place with government police protection, in a government fire-protection district, driving places on government streets, and possibly even eligible someday for government
Social Security and Medicare--even if griping about all of it.
My point with the insidious effect of control that some corporations exert upon our lives is not that we should invoke intellectual or economic warfare upon them or upon the government, but that we should fill the Congress and White House with people who legislate for people first--not for "entities" first. As for your comment that the government may "kill me" if I don't fall in line with its worldview, I just haven't been running with vigilantes long enough, I guess, because I not only don't believe it, I find myself thinking of that ole phrase, "crazy as a hooty-owl". Thanks for the introduction to the asylum. I'll show myself out.
Published: September 24, 2007 11:00 PM
Daniel: OK. Go vote on someone's life or something.
Published: September 24, 2007 11:23 PM
We do not even use the public school system but I would be stupid indeed if I thought that these programs were not there for the greater good
You know what the road to hell is paved with?!
Published: September 25, 2007 5:02 AM