Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Obama's 'emergency' economic plan


SkinsOrlando

Recommended Posts

About as clever as droning on about evil government incessantly, without ever attempting to specify, or at least recognize that the government does a lot of good.

I mean do you really expect to say that smaller government is ALWAYS the answer, and be given some sort of credence? Sometimes you need government, other times society has already set up efficient institutions. It is recognizing which is which that is helpful.

and yes, I am directing this comment at the "small governenment conservatives" and the libertarians.

I see nowhere in this thread where anyone argued for the elimination of government.

What some have argued is that continued and increased government intervention in the economy is evidence of what Friedrich Hayek called "the fatal conceit," or the belief that government is able to plan and steer the economy.

Government can no more plan an economy than it can construct a tree. What government can do, as you allude to, is provide a healthy environment that is conducive to growth. If government is able to do that, we find the tree grows by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About as clever as droning on about evil government incessantly, without ever attempting to specify, or at least recognize that the government does a lot of good.

I mean do you really expect to say that smaller government is ALWAYS the answer, and be given some sort of credence? Sometimes you need government, other times society has already set up efficient institutions. It is recognizing which is which that is helpful.

For a guy, who for a period of time identify himself as a libertarian, it is sad that you were so easily swayed by ridiculous straw man arguments. So once you stop throwing around managerialist liberal taking points, just maybe then we can have a serious conversation. A good start would be stop conflating the notion/concept of government with the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About as clever as droning on about evil government incessantly, without ever attempting to specify, or at least recognize that the government does a lot of good.

I mean do you really expect to say that smaller government is ALWAYS the answer, and be given some sort of credence? Sometimes you need government, other times society has already set up efficient institutions. It is recognizing which is which that is helpful.

and yes, I am directing this comment at the "small governenment conservatives" and the libertarians

I reciprocate

Liberty (interesting choice of handle considerring this post alone),

I think many advocates for limited government have varying reasons for their beliefs. What we should consider is what the founders intent was in the formation of our republic.

Their ideals were centric around natural law. The Declaration of Independence declares that "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" are the source of man's rights - not government. The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government, and in no way depend on government for their existence. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this fact.

Knowin g that this was the intent, it's easy to feel that any prospect of government ursurping those natural rights is a huge potential danger to the republic as a whole.

While some good has come from larger government, we also almost always see that good mitigated as the program dejour grows beyond it's boundaries and devolves into waste. :2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a guy, who for a period of time identify himself as a libertarian, it is sad that you were so easily swayed by ridiculous straw man arguments. So once you stop throwing around managerialist liberal taking points, just maybe then we can have a serious conversation. A good start would be stop conflating the notion/concept of government with the state.

I am not saying I would be swayed by my own argument, my argument isn't so much question your libertarian ideals, but to get your fellow libertarians to stop throwing around libertarian talking points unquestioned. It is getting annoying. Like I said, I reciprocate. When people here want to start having serious conversations is when I will start to have them again. Until then it is a waste of my time. Though I wouldn't put you in the same group as some of the other libertarians and small government conservatives, which is why you would rarely see me make a post like that directed at you.

I see nowhere in this thread where anyone argued for the elimination of government.

I am making a criticism of the same rhetoric seen in many threads.

Snyder Shrugged, I would change if I could, but I can't anymore. I admit my name doesn't suit me because I have come to the conclusion that liberty is not the all important value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington’s Intervention Addiction”

Congressman Paul’s latest Texas Straight Talk:

One problem with politicians is that when problems they create come to a head, they typically feel this irresistible urge to DO something, rather than to UN-do something, or to simply back off to avoid exacerbating the situation. Too often, that which they end up doing has very little connection to the cause of the crisis, but plays well in the press and superficially makes everyone feel better. Bills that are rushed through Congress under duress are never studied enough, providing too tempting an opportunity to quietly slip in unrelated provisions that erode freedoms in ways that would never pass as a stand-alone bill. We famously saw this with the PATRIOT Act, but Washington learned nothing from that.

The current housing crisis and the corresponding big government fix are another prime example. First of all, the so-called solution will actually make the problem worse. The problem stems from easy credit and a rush to flood the housing and mortgage markets with money. Relaxed or non-existent lending standards led many into mortgages and houses they could not afford. As more foreclosures hit, the lending institutions will continue collapsing like dominoes under the weight of all the bad paper they underwrote. Some are reacting and reintroducing lending standards. Thus the number of buyers in the market for homes is beginning to shrink back to its natural size, and hyper-inflated prices are falling back down to earth. In these ways, the market is trying to correct itself in the wake of the mistakes government intervention encouraged them to make through easy credit. However, this correction is causing pain, especially to Wall Street investors and those who bought homes at the top of the market bubble, never expecting it to crash, always assuming they would easily be able to refinance.

Some mistakenly identify the falling home prices as the disease instead of merely a symptom – which they plan to fix with more easy credit and more liquidity to push more unqualified buyers back into the market for homes they still cannot afford. This is akin to the drug addict identifying withdrawal symptoms as his problem and searching for another fix as his solution. The cycle continues and the problems compound themselves. The addiction deepens.

Addicts are told the first step to recovery is to admit their problem. To cure this addiction to intervention we have to honestly admit the problem and once and for all, kick the habit. That will involve some pain, without a doubt. There is no easy, painless solution to the mess the disastrous economic interventions of the past have wrought. The question is – do we allow some lending institutions to collapse, or do we allow the dollar to collapse? To extend the metaphor, do we endure the temporary discomfort of withdrawal, or do we continue on until there is a fatal overdose? We can delay the agony, but only for a little while, and then we will all end up paying the price for the mistakes of a few.

With the final passage of the Housing Bailout Bill quietly on a Saturday in the Senate, and the President’s signature, our government has unfortunately chosen the latter…

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=288

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberty (interesting choice of handle considerring this post alone),

I think many advocates for limited government have varying reasons for their beliefs. What we should consider is what the founders intent was in the formation of our republic.

Frankly, this founding father fetish you have is disturbing( never mind the fact that there was no one held belief shared by all the founding fathers). The Ron Paul campaign is over SS, you don't have to use this taking point every damn time when talking about small government. There are serious and smart arguments for a small state, but this isn't one of them ( stick with the power corrupts theme). There are limits to constitutionalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

am not saying I would be swayed by my own argument, my argument isn't so much question your libertarian ideals, but to get your fellow libertarians to stop throwing around libertarian talking points unquestioned. It is getting annoying. Like I said, I reciprocate. When people here want to start having serious conversations is when I will start to have them again. Until then it is a waste of my time. Though I wouldn't put you in the same group as some of the other libertarians and small government conservatives, which is why you would rarely see me make a post like that directed at you.

Fair enough and you are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure there is one, I know there are multiple core values, and sometimes one has to be sacrificed to a degree for the others.
Virtue? Truth and Understanding? Happiness? Prosperity? Life and Health? Love? Beauty and Art? Work and Responsibility?

All these values are promoted if Liberty is promoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Virtue? Truth and Understanding? Happiness? Prosperity? Life and Health? Love? Beauty and Art? Work and Responsibility?

All these values are promoted if Liberty is promoted.

It's generally best not to make absolute statements like that. There are always shades of gray.

Truth and understanding are not promoted if allow people to lie

Life and health are not promoted when people are allowed to make foods with trans fats, or advertise dubious claims

Love... complicated

Beauty and Art are subject to my preferences, and not yours, so your liberty in this case can hardly promote it

etc

point is, that I can think of exceptions... it's too tempting to think of everything in such a simple way. Your theory may be elegant, but I don't think it is ultimately as accurate as we can have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, this founding father fetish you have is disturbing( never mind the fact that there was no one held belief shared by all the founding fathers). The Ron Paul campaign is over SS, you don't have to use this taking point every damn time when talking about small government. There are serious and smart arguments for a small state, but this isn't one of them ( stick with the power corrupts theme). There are limits to constitutionalism.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to try and escalate our discussion into tripe. I wont bite. What is most interesting is that you were the person who introduced me to Ron Paul way back in 2004. Thanks for that by the way.

It's not a talking point, no matter how you try to frame it. It's an undeniable fact. My views have nothing to do with Ron Paul's campaign. He just happened to exemplify what my personal beliefs are. The only limits to constitutionalism that I see is the fact that it allows those who dont hold the ideals of what our nation was founded on the chance to undermine them.

So feel free to childishly disparage all you like, your target will never be hit if you think that viriol will change my beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a guy, who for a period of time identify himself as a libertarian, it is sad that you were so easily swayed by ridiculous straw man arguments. So once you stop throwing around managerialist liberal taking points, just maybe then we can have a serious conversation. A good start would be stop conflating the notion/concept of government with the state.

He never was a libertarian. I'm sure there was a brief flirtation with it when he heard libertarians want to legalize drugs, but once he learned you don't get free goodies from the government all bets were off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never was a libertarian. I'm sure there was a brief flirtation with it when he heard libertarians want to legalize drugs, but once he learned you don't get free goodies from the government all bets were off.

I'm debating whether or not you are worth a decent response...

nope

but I will point out that you are wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...