Goodbye PBS and NPR! (Page 4)

What's the alternative? No, seriously, what's the alternative? Not produce and join the welfare state? There is no Galt's Gulch to run to.



The rules have changed. They change every every tax year. I've been working since I was 15 years of age. I've seen both sides of the coin as an employer and as an employee. The rules are NOT the same now as they were when I was 15.



No, quite the opposite, I'd want the best room available because I've already paid for it. Of course I won't get the that will I...



Yes. Maybe so many Emergency rooms in Los Angeles wouldn't be closing down right now. Not sure if this is a problem in your neck of the woods, but in Los Angeles we have a huge illegal alien problem and hospitals are shutting down emergency rooms left and right.



This is what insurance is for (health, automobile, life, home, etc...) The safety nets are there. It would seem that I have to provide safety nets for others...



I stand by my convictions. I've paid for the service. I've also paid for the service for other people. The problem isn't whether or not I have paid. I will take advantage of the service that I have paid for if my options are limited (ie. go to county hospital or die, but then again they charge my insurance if I did go there wouldn't they...).



Totally agree. We see eye to eye on that. But I don't force others to build me an island.



No, society exists because we are social creatures. Dogs don't have medicare, but they run in packs. We are the same, albeit more sophisticated (I'm not saying we are dogs).

Society was working just fine before all of these gubment programs.



What fruits other than my security and the infrastructure would you be refering to? All of the government programs that I don't take advantage of? How am I a hypocrit? Don't say public education...



Medical care would be there anyway, I have insurance. Assistance in times of hardship, that's a good one. As a man, to be the burden of another man is the most shameful act that I could engage. I've earned every dime that I've worked for. Never has my hand been out.

How about just paying for the services I consume? Are you in favor of communism?



Same argument, apply it twice. I don't want to pay for welfare. I don't like the idea of rolling over to other countries and whooping a$$. How much would our defense budget be if we just concentrated on our security? I don't want to pay for x and I don't want to overpay for y.



Two wrongs don't make a right.



If my house has a leaky roof and the garbage disposal is broken, should I not fix them both? you keep saying that x is broken, so why do you concern yourself with y. They both are BROKEN, fix them both!



So what do you suggest, stick my head in the sand?

My family members who lived through the Great Depression would not agree with this at all and they would decry it as revisionism.

So would the people who endured the depression of the late 1880's. I had long-lived relatives who would tell stories about it. It was that depression and the resulting human suffering that sowed the seeds of Progressivism in this country. Our safety nets are not the result of wishful thinking and bleeding hearts. They are the legacy of those who have seen and experienced first hand what happens when these safety nets are not there.

How many shantytowns have been erected since 1940 in the US? How many were erected in the previous 65 years? Something was working in the later period that wasn't in the earlier.

To my mind, neither Libertarianism or Socialism are truly workable. There is, hoewever, a balance between them to be found. One that secures and respects personal liberty while showing compassion and humanity and securing basic human rights for all citizens.

Therein lies the challenge. I believe our representative democracy coupled with a reasonably regulated caplitalist system is our best bet.

The neo-cons, or non-cons as I call them, are throwing theocracy into the mix which can only f&*( it up for everybody. The Libertarians and Liberals need to join together and defeat the non-cons and then get back to what we were arguing so well about before we're all totally screwed.

CAPITOL HILL (AP) -- There's celebrating on "Sesame Street."
The House has voted to restore a proposed 100 (m) million-dollar budget cut for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The move came after P-B-S launched a high-profile campaign to rescind the proposed cut. Lawmakers were flooded with letters and phone calls.
The vote of 284-to-140 showed the enduring strength of public broadcasting as supporters rallied behind popular programs like "Sesame Street" and "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."
The vote came as the House considered a massive 142 (b) billion-dollar spending bill for health, education and labor programs for the coming fiscal year.

Many economists agree that the government made the depression worse. You can do a search online for supporting material. Banks are failing, personal bankrupsies are rampant, and even city/county governments are failing, but yes there is a safety net. But at what cost? Who's paying and when? How about the federal deficit and the government's inability to balance the budget, let alone pay off the debt. The safety net is there, but we are just passing the buck to our children in the form of our national debt. Man, I hate being all doomy and gloomy

But ultimately Marmadaddy, I offer you this:

The Libertarian's Predicament
Oscar B. Johannsen
[reprinted from Henry George News, February, 1961]
As a reaction to the socialistic miasma which has permeated intellectual circles, a school of thought has arisen which variously calls itself libertarian, conservative or individualistic. From the pens of this rising intelligentsia have flowed many brilliant articles on the economics of a free society and especially on the menace of the omnipotent state.

The result has been a renaissance in economic thought which is slowly taking place in our colleges and universities where increasing numbers of young men and women are listening with respect and thoughtful attention to the libertarians' principles of freedom, which are so opposed to the statist's concept propounded by many of their professors.

But this very intellectual awakening has brought with it a problem and that is how to answer the awkward questions of these students. Despite any disclaimers by the libertarians, the students feel that the views advanced constitute essentially the advocacy of a return to the type of society which existed prior to the depression of the early 1930's, with the government's role reduced to that of the so-called negative one of protecting life and property. Now, while these young people are favorably disposed to this freedom, nevertheless they are skeptical. One thing which bothers them particularly is this. If a return to pre-1933 is so desirable, why, did conditions existing then result in the great depression with its subsequent welfare statism? Won't a return to such conditions bring the same result again? If so, why bother making any change?

The answer given is that the depression was caused by the interference of the state. As a generality, this is true enough but the students ask which interferences were primarily responsible? While such restrictions as the absurdly high protective tariffs may be enunciated, the explanation usually offered revolves around the one propounded by the Austrian school of economists.

Briefly, it is their contention that a depression is the result of an inflation of the exchange media. Certain distortions in the economy occur, as when unions, through their monopolistic power, force wage rates above productivity rates. To correct this the government inflates the exchange media in order to reduce its purchasing power and thus nullify the wage increases. The initial inflation causes a revival of business but after the effects of this economic narcotic wear off, the state must inflate at ever greater rates each time the effects become absorbed and business drops off. If this process is continued a run-away boom eventually develops which results in a complete economic debacle, as people rush to rid themselves of the exchange media for any kind of wealth. Rather than let this happen, the state at some point must get up sufficient courage to cease these periodical injections, which means that a depression will ensue once the artificial stimulus is removed.

Inflating the exchange media is undoubtedly one of the principal factors in magnifying and extending a boom, far beyond what it would have attained in the absence of such manipulation, and the state's decision to cease the inflation may trigger the depression. Nevertheless in a market economy inflation is not the fundamental cause of a depression. It is true that if prices drop, and if, in particular, speculative land prices drop sufficiently so labor and capital can go back to work, business will revive. While this process would actually cost the least in terms of freedom and economic well-being for each generation, it does, however, mean that the standard of living will tend to drop although this is not generally recognized as it is a very long term effect.

The students recognize that the cultural and educational level of the people is such that they simply will not tolerate this painful purgative process. What is probably not realized by the libertarians is that in the depressions up to the early part of the 20th century, the people did not make any real demands for governmental interference as long as there was a safety valve in the form of free land or cheap land. It was probably much easier to survive the depressions of the 18th and 19th centuries because more people lived on farms, or could, in one way or another get access to the land, directly or indirectly, and could eke out an existence until land prices dropped sufficiently so that business could revive.

But the 20th century finds enormous numbers of people who have been forced by our system of private land tenure into the city areas, much as happened in Roman times. The escape valve has been so greatly weakened, that the people are more receptive to the blandishments of the socialists and do-gooders now that it is the government's duty to aid them. And in one sense they have a valid argument. If the government by its interference enforces the unsound system of private ownership of the only means of survival men have -- the land -- and thereby restricts their opportunity to make a living, why should not the government by its interference protect the people from the results of that erroneous policy?

So the politicians give the people bread and circuses, as in Roman times -- bread in the form of all kinds of welfareism, and circuses in the form of grandiose space and other scientific spectacles. And the result will be the same, the ultimate destruction of our civilization.

The youth's skepticism prevents the libertarians from completely convincing them. It seeks something new, something which has the ring of truth in it. The time now seems rip to give it to them, for the renaissance in economic thought which the libertarians have brought about has made the climate propitious for an assault on, the land question.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." The flood-tide is here now. Will the libertarians make the most of it? Will they boldly discuss and analyze the cancer afflicting our society -- the cancer which is the source of the statism infecting the world private property in land?

To ignore the cancer and instead concentrate on the ills which are largely caused by the cancer is to confess defeat, for youth will then, albeit reluctantly, turn back to the welfare state offered to them by their professors. Their rationale? Better a full belly under governmental paternalism than starvation under freedom.

Another good post. I guess not everyone in this country has forgotten the people starving in the streets during the depression. The old people with nowhere to go. 1 in 3 people unable to get a job. I suppose according to conservatives these people were just lazy and mooching off others.

The last time the country was this badly overextended debtwise was right before the great depression. I hope it doesn't take another one before people are jolted out of their self-centered cocoons.

CHUCKY: I can't be bothered answering the questions put to me by your completely impractical philosophy. If you want my answers to your questions you can find them here: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

I will sum up my answer by saying that you see the government as the taker of liberties, when in fact it is government that gives us liberties. As Renee has said, taxes are the price you pay for your liberties.



Edited by lablover 2005-06-23 8:11 PM

Great! Now Oscar can live in his can in peace!





Attachments
----------------
oscar.gif (23KB - 55 downloads)

In light of this decision, I feel that in full disclosure mode, I should post this picture of myself:

http://dump.segv.org/sea-may-05/sea-may-05-Pages/Image20.html



-C

For those PBS haters out there. I challenge you to tell me what other media outlet provides programs of this quality: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

Watch the program. I bet you'll learn something.

This is the reason that the neocons hate PBS. PBS airs programs that actually air news and not the latest missing white girl or celebrity scandal.

Chris, I brought this up because you said that my statement that Ayn Rand got it wrong was an opinion based on nothing.  It wasn't.  It was based on several things, the origin of Liberty being just one.

I'm having trouble understanding how you can espouse a philosophy based on objective reason, and then throw that reason out the window when it comes up against a difficult problem.

The question of where Liberty comes from is very important.  If it can't be answered, then saying that Liberty is essential seems itself to be an opintion based on nothing.

Edited by dontracy 2005-06-24 6:44 AM

I didn't want to argue my fundamental philosophy any more than I want to argue religion. The application of our fundamental beliefs is what concerns me more than the "why". But I'll play along

Liberty is a natural right. It is not a "legal right" or a "moral right" - it is simply a natural right. By being born, I have it. It is not given to me by some legal institution or some religious community. It may be infringed upon by those institutions, but it is not granted by them. If you challenge my liberty, I can respond by any means that I reason appropriate. To put simply, if you try to kill me (the ultimate challenge to my liberty), I have a number of ways to respond. I could kill you, I could pay someone to kill you, I can run, or I can do nothing and let you kill me. Sooooo, what am I protecting? My life and my liberty. Life is a state of being, liberty is a natural right. There is a distinction between life and liberty.

Now there are different views on this. I think Thomas Hobbes got it right. I'm guessing you think John Locke got it right (assuming you agree that we have natural rights). Either way, same result.

You can only say that someone got it wrong with empirical evidence to back up your hypothesis. If I say that I think George Bush is gay and I don't have any factual grounding, then it is nothing more than my opinion based on nothing. You say he is straight, I say he is gay. You point out that he has a wife, children. I still say he's gay and that he just hasn't slept with another man yet. He looks gay, he talks gay, he must be gay.... For the record, I don't really think Bush is gay, just using him to illustrate a point. Rand's theories have never been put to the test. We will never know if she got it wrong.

Oh, someone said that neo-cons and conservatives want PBS to go away. Libertarians are quite liberal, just not in the same fashion as Democrats. We want changes too

Don, hopefully I didn't ruffle feathers.

I agree with you completely!!! I would add that while it may be infringed upon by religious or legal institutions, it also may be protected and illuminated by them.

Still leaves the question of where natural rights come from. (sorry Renee, they don't come from social evolution... we didn't give them to ourselves... if we did, then we could also take them away from ourselves...)

I think the question is important because if there is such a thing as natural rights that are given to us, then it raises the possibility that there is also such a thing as natural responsibilities (my words) that we ought to fulfull.

If you agree with that, then we can talk about what those responsibilities are. But the conversation would assume that those responsibilities do not spring from our own will but are imposed on us by the same entity (I'll leave it to you to name that entity) that gave us natural rights.

No feathers ruffled here, bro. I've always liked talking with you.

Natural rights aren't given to you, if they are given, then they are not a natural right. Take the right to vote for example, this is given to us by the government, so it is therefore not a natural right. I'm not born with that right. If governments disappear, so does this right. However, if there is no government, and I have the ability to reason, then I can exercise my freedoms or natural rights.

What I think you're getting at is, what higher power (if any) granted me life and the ability to reason, or my liberty. I don't have an answer for this. Nobody does. Isn't that the sixty-four million dollar question? I will certainly listen to reason though Not having that answer doesn't mean that Objectivism fails.

wocka wocka! Time to enjoy a weekend

have fun! Gawd, you guys are sooooooooooooooooo serious all of the time! j/k

I still get misty eyed when I read this:

When in the course of human Events,it becomes necessaryforonePeople to dissolve the political bands which have connected themwith another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, theseparate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and ofNature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions ofmankind requires that they should declare the causes which impelthem to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men arecreatedequal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure theseRights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their justpowers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Formof Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Rightof the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute newGovernment, laying its foundation on such principles andorganizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem mostlikely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,will dictate that Governments long established should not bechanged for light and transient causes; and accordingly allexperience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves byabolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably thesame Object evinces a Design to reduce them under absoluteDespotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off suchGovernment, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Worth reading again from time to time.  I'm guilty of forgetting where it all started, and what's at stake.