43 Million Americans on Food Stamps?

[sabertooth]

Another point:- the reason why Christianity was one of the other main reasons for the destruction of the Roman Empire was the existence of slavery, as slaves were the most devoted/fanatical of the Christian followers.

So an ideology held by slaves has the power to overthrow empires(interesting), I can see in the power of Christianity the ability  to bring chaos to an orderly civilization  and understand why it caused such a ruckus within the empire of Rome. Slaves should not be allowed to have a faith in a higher power, for if they do then the masters authority is negated, Its the ultmate your not the boss of me, God is> mentality that gave Christianity its power.

A civilization that relies on slavery must not allow the slaves to become educated or to let them worship a higher power unsupervised. The holy spirit if given any slack, will rise up and break the chains of bondage for those with faith and can cause the mightyest tyrants to lose control, there is power in the powerless.  That I am sure of.

[SkinnyDevil]

To me it just seems obvious in regards to this issue alone that REAL people would be in a worse spot if there were not such systems in place - as immediate or even gradual removal of such policies would not automatically mean more jobs or tools and resources - so everything else just seems pretty theoretical/judgmental to me.

KD - First off, of course its judgmental. We ALL make judgments about the perceived efficacy of a given idea or set of ideas. But is it theoretical? Not at all. America existed & did quite well without federal taxes or social security or foodstamps (for 3 examples) for most of it's history.

Second, whether real people would be worse off is certainly a matter of debate. However, you seem to miss one of my earlier points. Namely, it is not within the purview of the federal gov to provide these services. However, these services can certainly exist by various other means, from private charities to community-based groups to local &/or state governments.

My point is simple: We can have services without the federal government providing them.

The way I see it, technology is advancing to the point where real, personal freedom is potentially attainable within perhaps 50 years or less.

Tyler - One of the points I was making in the "2020" thread. There, I said, "...with the combination of the pace of technology and the organic/primitivist leanings of western culture.....(we'll reject the idea) for government & traditional authority structures to solve human problems..."

Inspite of all the glamour of science i really doubt humans will merge with technology.

Turkish - But we already have. Eyeglasses & wristwatches (superficial integration) gave way to Cochlear Implants, insulin delivery systems, artificial hearts & voice-boxes, neural-control prosthetic limbs, & pace-makers (full integration via surgery) are just a few examples of how we've already merged. Most of these are medical uses of technology, but communications isn't far behind...from implanted RFID chips (already being done) to experiments with embedded tele-communications technology (essentially implanting your cell phone or web capability), we're swiftly moving into other areas....with no end in sight.

Provided each of us can opt in or out of any technology and at any level, I see no cause for alarm.

[KD]

KD - First off, of course its judgmental. We ALL make judgments about the perceived efficacy of a given idea or set of ideas. But is it theoretical? Not at all. America existed & did quite well without federal taxes or social security or foodstamps (for 3 examples) for most of it's history.

Second, whether real people would be worse off is certainly a matter of debate. However, you seem to miss one of my earlier points. Namely, it is not within the purview of the federal gov to provide these services. However, these services can certainly exist by various other means, from private charities to community-based groups to local &/or state governments.

My point is simple: We can have services without the federal government providing them.

hmm, to me the this is just an argument of many is what I am saying. My problem is its often portrayed as 'the way things are' which can be easily refuted by just saying 'things change'. Obviously these things at some point were popular enough to be implemented and remain so by hook or by crook perhaps, but nonetheless. Other than people stating such things loudly, I am unaware how these things are indeed beyond the purview of government, since government in fact does them, and since the documents that create the government allow for the government to shift and change. So while many criticisms might be entirely accurate (and they usually are), I don't see how such things appear to anyone as so cut and dry, absolute.

As for pre-modern America not needing such things, I think that is just too simplistic for me. In my opinion, gasoline, cigarettes and people who make fortunes selling Fig Newtons and other things should be taxed to all hell, because these things are harmful for the world and impact others. Even if I don't buy gasoline or cigarettes these things effect me, so I should receive some kind of benefits in the forms of parks, or street sweeping, or public care for my parents so they don't have to live in my house and annoy me. To me these are the kind of issues that government at least has the potential to solve, and I can say this without thinking that these things are at all efficient or fair because everything about acquiring wealth is unfair and has consequences and drains resources. At the end of the day most peoples issues seem indeed how much money they have left over, yet the intrusiveness of government is usually the tactic that is used to place fear over such 'theft' which ultimately is really not that new historically - as pointed out.

without any form of government, or public space, there is absolutely nothing to do other than to vote with my money , and no mechanism to achieve any kind of retribution for all the complicated shit that is completely out of control yet affects me regardless. There really is no rebutal for things like civil rights, child labor, minimum wage etc...which wouldn't have ben resolved through free markets and choice to takes ones business elsewhere. When you have the ability for massive oil spills and people setting off dirty bombs and all kinds of deranged social pathologies due to chemicals and drugs and stuff, this brings things out of the Wild West days and into a more complex chemical equation to balance.

Without a large national tax base, Libya could drop napalm on my farm due to a bad bid for GE and who is going to pay for the damage? the league of extremely wealthy untaxed citizens? The world is just too complicated for such 'fairness'.

[SkinnyDevil]

...I am unaware how these things are indeed beyond the purview of government, since government in fact does them, and since the documents that create the government allow for the government to shift and change....

It is very cut and dry: The US Constitution delineates the powers & responsibilities of the federal government AND the means by which we change said powers & responsibilities (the amendment process). Anything done (by law or tradition) outside of that is outside of their mission and subject to be struck down once it is heard by the Supreme Court.

That they engage in activities that are outside their perview (and thus illegal) doesn't magically make it legal or right. This sort of flagrant disregard for process & law from lawmakers is appalling.

In my opinion, gasoline, cigarettes and people who make fortunes selling Fig Newtons and other things should be taxed to all hell, because these things are harmful for the world and impact others. Even if I don't buy gasoline or cigarettes these things effect me, so I should receive some kind of benefits in the forms of parks, or street sweeping, or public care for my parents so they don't have to live in my house and annoy me.

Good point. However, this has nothing to do with food stamps. This has to do with government taxing businesses who provide goods that possess a negative impact, then using that money to positively impact the entire community. Food stamps are presumably used to the benefit of select members of society.

There is a separation between levels of government. State government provide for "free and appropriate education", so it is properly their place to provide schools. There is no such mandate in the US Constitution (federal level government), so they should not be involved in any way. Not by collecting & distributing taxes, not by setting policies, etc.

The subject/example at hand is food stamps. This is not a power or responsibility delegated to the federal government. As such it should be left to some combination of the following: communities, private organizations, local governments, & state governments.

To my knowledge, ALL state governments have a legal obligation to work with a balanced budget (even those who find themselves in the red). Federal gov has no such requirement, and thus engages in all manner of higher dangerous deficit spending and is notoriously irresponsible, fiscally speaking. Note my former example of 90% of public assistance monies being soaked up by administration.

Communities, private orgs/charities, and state & local govs are FAR better suited than federal gov to work assistance programs efficiently.

without any form of government

Who said anything about no government? Not me!

I said food stamps & similar assistance programs were not within the perview of the federal government. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. I said the federal government is incredibly wasteful. That too is a fact. But my proposed solution is not to abolish all government. I never said anything at all like that.

Without a large national tax base, Libya could drop napalm on my farm due to a bad bid for GE and who is going to pay for the damage? the league of extremely wealthy untaxed citizens? The world is just too complicated for such 'fairness'.

Not so. First, it IS a delineated responsibility of the federal government to provide for the national defense.

Second, if Libya dropped napalm on your farm, the US military is going to bomb Libya, but not pay for your farm.

[KD]

There is a separation between levels of government. State government provide for "free and appropriate education", so it is properly their place to provide schools. There is no such mandate in the US Constitution (federal level government), so they should not be involved in any way. Not by collecting & distributing taxes, not by setting policies, etc.

The subject/example at hand is food stamps. This is not a power or responsibility delegated to the federal government. As such it should be left to some combination of the following: communities, private organizations, local governments, & state governments.

Most of the things which are the most rational and the most doable criticisms/solutions revolve around this states/federal kind of issue. I couldn't agree more. the problem is with the wide spectrum of anti-government (don't fool yourself) philosophy, even when the 'ideal' libertarian state provides for no such structure to 'force' the kinds of social and 'unfair' policies that communities usually have to face to do things positive collectively because usually these things don't make sense rationally to those who don't need them. If you have small communities in some distant land with no massive history of unfairness, these things make perfect sense, but its virtually impossible once seen so black and white - to make people accountable for such actions without such particular governmental bodies. Claiming how corrupt or wasteful things are doesn't really prove anything in this regard, just states the obvious.

heres a recent kerry speech on growth vs..

http://leadenergy.org/2011/01/kerry-speech/
not vouching for it, but according to many folks, i'm sure kerry is just some foolish zombie so these ideas are defacto false. The problem is, is people say they don't have some kind of philosophy when obviously they will dismiss anything that has to do with action by the federal government without acknowledging any positives along with negatives throughout history. Or worse..they WILL deviate from some libertarian hard-line theories, and then obviously just vote unilaterally for reductivist policies anyway, even when they say their primary motives are liberty in social issues which might get sweat under the rug in such administrations. The reason it has to do with food stamps, is by my logic even if you can prove that food stamps shouldn't be issued by the federal government, it doesn't mean people here don't need food stamps or these things will be provided elsewhere, or that these things are just 100% enabling for 100% of people, it just means that perhaps better strategies could be created. Many people DO NOT believe people should HAVE to pay for others misfortunes, although its obvious the web of success/failure implied and effect of resources/pollution etc... in any system even sans corrupt government, so I think you may be fairly unique in your altruistism or acknowledgment there.

I would rather focus on creating better strategies by any means/administrations in the near future, than focus on how inherently wrong everything is, and would never exclude any possibilities (even roles of large governments) in making those kinds of changes. In the end, like anything, libertarian philosophy embraces a variety of spectrums with many probably not caring one bit about actual social rights, or on the other end, genuinely believing they have no obligation to help/educate/pay-fairly-others/clean-up-the-environment as long as their is some proper survival-of-the-fittest unfettered setting.

[Brother]

I disagree.....but before I go on, I need to make clear that I am not personally attacking you - I am addressing multiple posters who see "gaming the system" as a functional alternative.

I dont see it as functional. I sincerely hope the burden will make the system default. Because at the core I share your beliefs. The state should be a minimal arrangement that forces people to honour willingly and fully understood contracts, punish those that break the social contract and provide a basic framwork of infrastructure that allows for peoples creativity to flow easily. I have come to believe that there are certain businesses that should fall in under "basic infrastucture provided by the state". Central banking (banks can be privately owned but should hold no power to create money) e.g.

[SkinnyDevil]

I would rather focus on creating better strategies by any means/administrations in the near future, than focus on how inherently wrong everything is...

On that we agree. I hope my comments in this thread weren't taken as me seeing everything in the negative. I typically focus on positive & constructive avenues. However, I gotta take a shot now and then!

I dont see it as functional. I sincerely hope the burden will make the system default. Because at the core I share your beliefs. The state should be a minimal arrangement that forces people to honour willingly and fully understood contracts, punish those that break the social contract and provide a basic framwork of infrastructure that allows for peoples creativity to flow easily. I have come to believe that there are certain businesses that should fall in under "basic infrastucture provided by the state". Central banking (banks can be privately owned but should hold no power to create money) e.g.

Agreed across the board.

===

Of course I should add that I in no way speak for the majority of libertarians. My personal brand of libertarianism pisses most libertarians off....especially with regard to Intellectual Property, lands held in trust by the government, land as property, and the like.

[Brother]

Of course I should add that I in no way speak for the majority of libertarians. My personal brand of libertarianism pisses most libertarians off....especially with regard to Intellectual Property, lands held in trust by the government, land as property, and the like.

Same here. There is only a single world and we share it. What we can produce from it, obviously, should be ours to keep, But there must arise some consensus that the raw materials used, comes from a shared pool and as such some level of taxation to be used for the common good is fair and reasonable. Most libertarians I know abhor such a line of thinking. Also, more and more I have come to understand the label 'libertarian' as a badge of self congratulation and I in return loathe that.

[KD]

On that we agree. I hope my comments in this thread weren't taken as me seeing everything in the negative. I typically focus on positive & constructive avenues. However, I gotta take a shot now and then!


===

Of course I should add that I in no way speak for the majority of libertarians. My personal brand of libertarianism pisses most libertarians off....especially with regard to Intellectual Property, lands held in trust by the government, land as property, and the like.

no, I think most of your arguments are reasonable and fairly constructive to me and I agree with many of them on some level. The problem is some (or many) peoples' arn't. I've certainly come across people who will argue there should be no public spaces or protected parks and resources, as well as people who will use terms like 'coercion' and 'force' to try to make arguments definitive when they are not so. Certainly the Social Darwinists and the like and many others often do reflect racial or other biases. The social contract alone is full of such enforcement that does not exist in the state of nature as that is the whole point. ...I think you have argued against this before, but I still have yet to figure out how within a accomplished libertarianism people can set up democratic governments based on taxation if they decided those were better, it seems to me that those with power at that point have very little need to enter into such a system willingly. Perhaps that is for another day. But at least there is some acknowledgment that within the reason of libertarian thought there is alot of uh..unreasonable people perhaps...

Basically what it comes down to is that in the present situation what I am saying is in every case less government will not always translate to the most good, particularly because all of the other corresponding factors will have experienced minimal progressive change. So when these ideas permeate the culture it does not always bode well for all individuals as actually seen in our history which does oscillate between these things (70's, 80's etc..). Popularity of tax criticisms can result in popularity of 'flat tax' and similar theories which make 0 sense and would just leave for less funds and more debt for the same crappy systems. I gave a pretty superficial point with my bike path thing, but its totally true! just universally stating food stamps are not good, just makes little sense to me in the present environment of which we cohabitate, not saying their arn't better solutions or even minimalist solutions.