interesting ... though from Michelle Obama's speach they seem to be
promoting a "more free" american, which of course means a more "care-free"
american (no need to bother with health care, education, the works, heck why
bother at all, right?). Though it is true that what Obama is suggesting will
limit american freedom, I do think he could benifet american pride, which is
been lacking greatly. I mean, how many people do you know who don't vote or
barely follow the race? I know I know a lot. I think he's really pushing
americans to take action. Which is needed. Yet, the question is how far is too
far?
I myself am a believer in the equality of opportunity and better education.
I think taxes need definite tweaking (sales tax=stupid, but legalizing marijuana
and taxing it that instead wouldn't be a bad idea). schools whos building is
condemned, with no books or computers not getting any funds while other schools
get a new pool or tennis court = stupid. It's all public, and it's the
governments job to educate, so therefore public education should be equal, it is
a RIGHT denied to these schools because the more money is out of the question,
so other schools would lose money (and really there's only about 1/46 of schools
that have the right amount of money). hmm how much have we spent on the war in
Iraq?
oh and tax cuts make sense since we as a nation are in debt ... even though
that is almost the exact same amount of money needed to make schools whos
buildings are condemed (but kids still go there) be ... well legal(I'm mocking
bush and his timing, not you and your beliefs).I do believe americans need to
have more responsibilities as citizens, and I believe that a boost in the
economy would make problems like health care go awayyet ... how are we going to
boost the economy? The reason many people I know hate politics, and politicians,
and especially republicans is because since republicans have a history of
supporting big bussiness, and big bussiness through contracts and money and
power take away freedom believe it's the republicans campaigns that take away
"liberty".
People say "representing the african american's intrests, or the
homosexuals intrests, or the animal rights interests is only concentrating on
the minority of the country, and not the majority"... yet, how many people are
big bussines CEOs, or millionares, or even make over 80 grand a year?not
many..... and how many americans can't afford what they coul 8 years ago,
because of gas prices, jobs, education prices and even the war?a lot.
Did you know that everytime Kerry's numbers went up in the last election a
new terror elert thingy was sent out ... and people know about that ... whic of
course is very discouraging
people feel large towers all around them ... whos offering them back their
freedom in a way they understand and if they dont understand, is that their
fault, or the fault of a lack of intelect?
Did you know that if a school doesn't meet standards in test scores they
will lose funds rather than gain funds to make the school better.
They way I understand it Democracy is about what the majority wants.the
question is who is the majority?Also, how does not making it legal for gays to
marry differ at all from forcing people to do things?you can't vs. you
mustliberty sounds limited in both to me.
I mean, bush did a lot more damage than billions of dollars in debt ......
have you ever heard of Karl Rove ... you should look up things he's done in the
past ... ... it's frightening ...also, any attack isn't on you, it's my general
frustration with all parties. I mention republicans more because honestly I'm
befuddled by the idea of anyone who obviosly researches their oppinion to join
any political party ...... why? ... cuz they all crazy!!
oooooooooooh and what I was trying to say is that corporations have the
same right as a person, but people aren't equal to them. When it comes to things
like computers(Microsoft) and even health care we are overcharged (I got a cat
scan once ... 1,500$ ... it took 15 minutes) but we can't do anything about it
...
So after another long winded, and kind of unclear comment, I challenge you,
since democracy is about representing the people, or the majority, and the US
"liberty, freedom and justice for all" where's the liberty in our daily lives?
Where's the "free market" in the economy? doesn't the market just naturally make
it's OWN rules/barriers, which then makes itself inefficient?
Here's my unreasonably long response:
Thanks, as always, for the compliments!
As usual, there was much
too much there to respond to everything I disagreed with, so I’m going to try to
narrow it down a bit, and take one general shot at the whole.
J
It is not the job of “the government” to educate. To the
extent that it is government’s job at all, it is the job of state governments to
educate, and not the federal government. This is part of the important
separation of state and federal powers outlined in the Constitution. This
fact also negates the idea that the money used in the Iraq War should have been
used for education; the federal government’s most important job is national
defense, and education is not one of their jobs at all.
Schools in the United
States have more money than schools anywhere else in the world. The most
heavily-funded school districts—those in Washington, D.C., that have around
$14,000 per pupil—are also among the worst in the Western world. Schools
are not underfunded; instead, they are doing a very poor job with the money they
already have. That being the case, it makes sense to take money away from
failing schools: the possibility of a lack of money provides an incentive
for schools to do a better job. It’s the same concept behind firing bad
employees. The idea has worked wonders in the Florida state school
system.
This is perhaps the most important point: Democracy is
definitely about what the majority wants, but America is not a democracy.
It is a republic. We elect representatives who go to Washington, D.C., and
our state capitals to discuss and vote on matters of state. We have a
Constitution to prohibit those officials from taking actions that infringe upon
our rights. The Founders spoke at length on the danger of the “tyranny of
the majority,” which is the same thing you’re speaking of approvingly.
This is why democracy is not inherently good: who cares whether it’s a
tyrant or fifty-one percent of a country that takes away your freedoms?
What’s most important are the freedoms.
It’s not totally clear what you mean
by the market creating its own rules and barriers and therefore becoming
inefficient. However, you’re likely talking about inefficiency in a way
very different from how economists talk about inefficiency. I would
encourage you to read an economics book to learn about such things. I
would recommend Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell…he’s a great economist and a
great philosopher. Anyway, the fact is that markets exist for everything,
and no one can control that or take it away. All things face scarcity, and
everything has a price, whether it is expressed in money, time, or the fact that
you could have done or bought something else. You can’t make it so that a
market is gone; you can just admit that it’s there and work through that, or
pretend it isn’t and suffer the entirely predictable consequences. For
example, one consequence of everyone only paying a co-pay on health care because
they have insurance provided by the government or a company is that we’ve seen
dramatic inflation in health-care costs over the last fifty years. People
in general are surprised and angry, but economists predicted this
repeatedly. If we privatized health care, health care prices would drop
massively.
Political parties are a necessary part of politics. The
United States’s winner-take-all electoral laws means that only two political
parties at a time can ever be truly viable. This two-party system, which
can seem crazy because of the strange coalitions it produces, also performs the
important task of slowing the pace at which government takes action, which is a
very good thing. Parties do not themselves have a philosophy; they are
simply vehicles for philosophies to gain influence. Refusing to be active
in one means taking oneself out of the possibility of having any influence in
politics. The alternatives are worse: parliamentary systems that
have many political parties inevitably result in hasty, bad government action
because philosophies are considered to have mandates. One-party
systems…well, that’s obviously the worst. The last thing we need is
national “unity” on government action; that is the surest road to tyranny.
What we need is vigorous debate and disagreement.
Now I’d like to
make a few general statements about your comment. First, I’m going to make
a list of things you said that were totally unsupported by any
facts:
--The tax cuts cost the government the same amount of money
that schools need to be repaired. (Tax cuts do not, strictly, “cost” the
government money. Tax cuts have a way of stimulating the economy, which
then causes tax revenues to be higher. This is, in fact, exactly what we
saw: tax revenues increased 29% between, I think but can’t remember
exactly, 2004 and 2005. That is huge. In any case, I’d feel better
about your analysis if you told me specifically how much money, in your
estimation, schools need to become…I guess, good. Or what the tax cuts
actually consisted of.)
--Republicans support big business. (This is
almost entirely a non-factual stereotype. Republicans receive their
biggest support from the small businesses, and there is a very good reason for
this. High regulations drive small companies out of business because they
create high overhead costs that large companies are able to afford. In
this way, regulations are actually beneficial to bigger companies, because they
give them a bigger market share. This is why a lot of big business people
actually associate themselves with the Democratic Party. Think about that
the next time you hear about corporate executives pleading with Congress for
more government regulation on their corporations, which happens all the
time.)
--Businesses take away freedom through money, contracts, and
power. (How that could even be true is beyond my ability to
comprehend. Nevertheless, I realize that it is a powerful idea to
many. Anyway, if you could provide examples of how a business has done
this, or how they even could do it(!), then I could more adequately rebut this
opinion.)
--Many Americans are worse off today than they were eight years
ago. (Unemployment is low, inflation is still low, and the entire
country—with the exception of our state—has experienced a nearly seven-year
economic boom. We have not faced a single quarter of recession since
perhaps 2002, even when Hurricane Katrina ravaged an entire area of the
nation.)
--When Kerry’s numbers went up, Bush used terror alerts to push them
down again. (This is simple conspiracy theory unsupported by
reality.)
--The debt is all Bush’s fault. (Debt has two sides:
taxation and spending. Taxation depends on economic performance and tax
levels. Tax levels went down over Bush’s term, while economic performance
improved dramatically. Spending, on the other hand, and especially social
spending, ballooned massively. That was, for the most part, a result of
old-style liberal social programs like Medicare and Social Security. If we
phased these programs out, the debt would shrink quickly.)
--Karl Rove has
done many frightening things. (This is mostly a stereotype. I defy
you to find one frightening thing Karl Rove has done. He’s mostly a
liberal bogeyman whom most people like when they meet him.)
--Microsoft
overcharges for computers. (Microsoft doesn’t sell computers. Apple
does, and they charge far more for the same computer than any other company I’m
aware of.)
Whew! Okay, finally: I appreciate very much
your comments on my blog, as I appreciate all comments on what I have to
say. Especially those that make me think, or that make me take the time to
fully explain what I think on a subject. At the same time, I notice that
many of the opinions you express in those comments are not really supported by
any facts at all and/or are based on extreme stereotypes, like the “Republicans
supporting big business” meme. I know you’re an intelligent person and a
thinker, and that you’re very interested in these issues; however, I think you
have a haphazard, spur-of-the-moment way of thinking about them that hurts your
analysis and results in conclusions that don’t really make sense. I say
not to discourage you from commenting, but to encourage you to have a more
focused style—you have a good heart and a good mind, and your voice would be
much more powerful if it gained clarity and focus.
And a follow-up:
The country is not really doing badly. At all. Even in Michigan, which has
been in, technically speaking, a one-state depression, people are generally
doing well. That's not to say there's not a lot of doom and gloom out there. But
it isn't justified.
I'm going to ask you to look at the country. Look at how it's doing. Not at
how people SAY it's doing, but how it's actually doing. And be happy! Then
you'll see how unreasonable it is when (inevitably) liberals complain about the
way things are.
There simply is no crisis here. This would be a good thing to think about
the next time people accuse conservatives, ironically, of using fear to
manipulate the electorate.
Also: ThinkCarpeDiem! I think it would be best for you to continue blogging, because it's important for you to express your thoughts on your own rather than simply go after someone else expressing his opinion. I don't say that because I don't like you commenting on my posts--I do. What I'm saying is that it's important to express your own philosophy/ideas, not merely criticize someone else's. Then maybe I can leave comments for YOU to read :)
Posts
