Throughout human history various governmental forms have come and gone where the people had to rely on governments to get basic needs met. Those stories are case studies in failure with a very rare occurrence of an official having real compassion on his charges. People can rail against the disparity between the rich and the poor in capitalistic societies, however, history has shown that disparity has always existed regardless of the governmental form. The difference in America is that owning your own home is not out of reach for most people, and even though the government can take your home and give it to someone else with more money (thank you Kelo), they still have to pay you for it.
While the Left points out these problems and tries to solve them with solutions that will never work, to often on the Right people don’t think of them at all. If those on the Right wish to maintain limited government and ample liberty, they need to step up and help in their own communities and provide for some of these needs. There are legitimate functions of government that should remain with government (national defense, law enforcement, interstate commerce) but for those things that the people can do, they have a duty to do. As long as their exists problems that people are too selfish, lazy, or careless to do anything about, there will always be ready and willing bureaucrats who are willing to increase their power and cash flow who will step in and waste money. It’s up to those wanting to defend liberty to prevent them.
Article comments
1 - rbp0554
>>If those on the Right wish to maintain limited government and ample liberty, they need to step up and help in their own communities and provide for some of these needs.<<
Oh... so I guess you mean limited government advocacy from the right like on (1) the gay marriage issue, (2) the Schiavo issue, and (3) Bush's suggestion on how we should handle illegal immigration.
The pre-Reagan Republican Party could legitimately scold the left on "less government" issues; however, now when they do it now... they just sound hypocritical like Bambineck here.
- RBP
2 - Bob A. Booey
This was actually a fairly reasonable piece for once.
It's "Hobbesian," though. Otherwise, a more promising new direction, Bambenek.
That is all.
3 - Dave Nalle
Of course, RPG, if it's from the right and reasonable you immediately need to apply tar from the broad brush of right wing extremism. Did JB mention even ONE of the issues you brought up?
Dave
4 - John Bambenek
It's not meant to be Hobbesian... it was meant to say we need to move beyond that (and I don't think we're really totally there).
5 - Silas Kain
In order for a society to be and remain free the citizens must be sufficiently moral and community-minded.
I totally agree. People should be more community minded. And to me morality is to be supportive and nurrturing of different lifestyles. Morality is not determined by the gender of the sexes in the bedroom. Nor is morality determined by religious affiliation. Morality is as individual as a fingerprint yet common in the manner we treat each other.
An immoral people will eventually squander their liberty as a strong government will need to restrain them.
Or they will impose their belief system upon the masses and expect everyone to be assimilated into their mode of misguided thought. That is as Nazi as you can get in my book. Let's not forget that the cross was also used as a Nazi symbol. As confrontational as that may sound it is a stark reality and we do well not to forget that little snippet of fact.
Traffic tickets have become less of maintaining safety and more of a government profit center. It would not exist if people took due concern while driving.
Um, OK. I think they're doing quite well as a profit center.
The Left, if nothing else, does a good job at reminding us there is people with legitimate needs that are going unmet.
And historically people on the Left do more to help needy people than those on the Right. The Left provides the fish and the training to catch them. The Right dangles fish on the string and makes the needy beg. Imagine if Christ had provided fishing poles, nets and boats instead of multiplying the fishes. But that's the Right's approach -- throw them a loaf of bread and a fish today so that their bellies will be full. To hell with tomorrow.
People can rail against the disparity between the rich and the poor in capitalistic societies, however, history has shown that disparity has always existed regardless of the governmental form.
I agree. There will always be disparity. That's prt of human nature. The problem is that the disparity outside our borders has fed the terrorist hate machine. The disparity within our borders has made the rank and file so busy just trying to survive that they've forgotten that they've been screwed, blued and tattooed by a corrupt political system on both sides of the aisle. The Right wing bitches about parental responsibility and such but they've been the ones who have made it virtually impossible for middle class families to survive on the income of a father while the mother remains at home rearing her brood.
If those on the Right wish to maintain limited government and ample liberty, they need to step up and help in their own communities and provide for some of these needs.
I agree wholeheartedly. Where are the thousand points of light that G.H.W. Bush talked about? I strongly believe in community service and support that it be mandated for every young person in this land. Ethics, civic responsibility and accountability should be at the top of the list of curriculae throughout this land from nursery school through college. As long as politicians are allowed to contiunue operating in this corrupt environment we have no hope of digging ourselves out of the muck.
6 - rbp0554
Nalle:
>>Did JB mention even ONE of the issues you brought up?<<
Bambenek:
>>The Left’s ultimate downfall is the fact they believe the solution to the problem is more government.<<
Me:
>>>>If those on the Right wish to maintain limited government and ample liberty, they need to step up and help in their own communities and provide for some of these needs.<<
Oh... so I guess you mean limited government advocacy from the right like on (1) the gay marriage issue, (2) the Schiavo issue, and (3) Bush's suggestion on how we should handle illegal immigration.
The pre-Reagan Republican Party could legitimately scold the left on "less government" issues; however, now when they do it now... they just sound hypocritical like Bambineck here.<<
Actually, if you read the content... my comments apply.
- RBP
7 - RJ
When the Left sees a social problem, they think the solution is another government department.
When the Right sees a social problem, they think actual citizens should get involved. (However, some of the citizens might be actual Christians, so we cannot allow that...)
8 - Victor Lana
The word "morality" is a funny thing. You may recall Morality Plays from the Middle Ages, and what were they meant to do but instill the status of an Everyman? And what about a sense of "community" that the author refers to? What are community and morality if not very subjective concepts based on one's time and place and faith.
There are some people who probably believe they are serving their communities by committing crimes. It's the old Robin Hood mentality. Needless to say, the guy who straps TNT on his body and stands in a crowded bus probably believes he is a highly moral character sending the infidels to death.
I think the article is a good one, but I just want to point out how one person's morality just might be another's abomination.
9 - Dave Nalle
>>And historically people on the Left do more to help needy people than those on the Right. The Left provides the fish and the training to catch them. The Right dangles fish on the string and makes the needy beg. Imagine if Christ had provided fishing poles, nets and boats instead of multiplying the fishes. But that's the Right's approach -- throw them a loaf of bread and a fish today so that their bellies will be full. To hell with tomorrow.<<
Come again, Silas? Studies have shown substantially more charitable donations from those who are politically right rather than left. And it's the right wing which has pioneered things like Workfare and vocational education programs and urban enterprise zones. Your description of the right vs. left responses to poverty is exctly the opposite of what can be observed in recent history. The left's idea of helping people out is all about handouts and making the poor dependent on government. The right's approach is to help them take care of themselves and develop independence.
Dave
10 - Shark
Booey: "...This was actually a fairly reasonable piece for once."
It's also poorly written, barely literate -- and tries to make unexceptional statements sound profound.
========
Excerpts from another RAVING by John Bambenek:
> "In order for a society to be and remain free [insert comma] the citizens must be sufficiently moral and community-minded."
> "That statement will offend most libertarians [insert comma] but the fact remains liberty presumes a moral people."
> "An immoral people will eventually squander their liberty [insert comma or em dash] as a strong government will need to restrain them."
> "The more that people dont meet the two above items, the more government will be happy to step in and make a half-hearted [insert comma] half-baked attempt that will more than likely make things worse than better and waste a good deal of money to boot. [probably restate minus run-on/convolutions; yer call]
> "If people paid sufficient attention while they were driving there would be (1) a lot fewer accidents, (2) a lot less [should be "fewer"] laws on things like (don't talk on your cell, do your makeup, beat your kids, while driving)." [parenthesis not needed]
> "Traffic tickets have become less of maintaining safety..." [huh?]
> "The Left, if nothing else, does a good job at reminding us there is [should be "are] people with legitimate needs that are going unmet."
> "...the state was not the provider of human needs." [provider of needs -- or provider of 'solutions' to needs?]
> "Throughout human history [insert comma] various governmental forms have come and gone where the people had to rely on governments to get basic needs met." [just friggin' "OY"]
> "Those stories are case studies in failure with a very rare occurrence of an official having real compassion on his charges." [again: either 'Oy' or "huh"? Take yer pick]
> "...People can rail against the disparity between the rich and the poor in capitalistic societies, however, history has shown that disparity has always existed regardless of the governmental form." [No shit, Einstein?]
> "While the Left points out these problems and tries to solve them with solutions that will never work, to [TOO] often on the Right [insert comma] people don't think of them at all."
> "There are legitimate functions of government that should remain with government (national defense, law enforcement, interstate commerce) but for those things that the people can do, they have a duty to do." [Wow. How fucking PROFOUND! -- and why am I picturing yet another grad student who recently discovered his ability to "think" and write online essays?]
> "As long as their [THERE] exists problems that people are too selfish, lazy, or careless to do anything about, there will always be ready and willing bureaucrats who are willing to increase their power and cash flow who will step in and waste money."
[Less coffee, fewer convulutions, thank you]
======
Have a nice deigh!
11 - Bob A. Booey
Shark, it's the teacher in me :)
I try to help and encourage even the most difficult students, even if the ideas aren't the best.
That is all.
12 - ss
'The left's idea of helping people out is all about handouts and making the poor dependent on government. The right's approach is to help them take care of themselves and develop independence'
Well, things change fast in today's world. Bush's overhaul of MedicAid and S.S. drug benefits makes his administration responsible for the largest increase in social welfare programs since FDR (source: USA TODAY)
I'm not criticizing, or (looking at GAO projections) endorsing this, just thought I'd point it out.
This actually relates to the post in a way too. Look sometime at the projected cost of medical benefits payed out by the feds over the next thirty years. If you try to solve it with old private/public debates you'll see it's going to cost somewhere either way.
Hopefully a country willing to argue so much over junoir high sexual morality will step up with real morality over something, maybe, nearly as important. The health of millions of it's fellow citizens.
13 - Natalie Bennett
The problem with this thesis is that you are saying on one side is the government and on the other the community.
But the government is part of the community, comes from the community.
The schoolteacher, the social worker, the school crossing attendant , even the congresswoman - they're all "government", and members of communities.
14 - ss
Since I'm discussing the real moral dilema America will soon be facing, and since right wingers are so smug when they explain the economy to us poor befuddled lefies, I thought I'd go ahead and post it here too.
It's from the Comptroller General of the United States
Given these important national priorities and relatively weak economic performance, historic budget deficits have returned and are projected to continue for the next decade. But, perhaps more disturbing, the long-range fiscal outlook appears to be unsustainable, given existing federal commitments and the challenges of caring for a growing elderly population.
If the near-term deficits represented a short-term phenomenon, there would be less cause for concern. Unfortunately, these short-term deficits are but a prelude to a projected worsening long-term budget outlook.
The United States faces a long-term structural deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that on the basis of current rules for benefits, federal spending, excluding interest payments, will rise considerably as a share of national income. According to GAO's long-term budget simulations, demographic trends and rising health care spending will drive escalating federal deficits and debt. Assuming, as in figure 3, that discretionary spending grows with inflation over the next decade and that current tax cuts expire when scheduled, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would consume over three- quarters of federal revenue in 2040. If all expiring tax provisions are extended and discretionary spending keeps pace with the economy, by 2040, federal revenues may not even be adequate to pay Social Security and interest on the federal debt.
To balance the budget would require massive spending cuts, massive tax increases, or some combination of the two. Neither slowing the growth of discretionary spending nor allowing tax cuts to sunset--nor both together--will eliminate the long-term imbalance. While additional economic growth will help ease any burden, the potential fiscal gap is too great to grow our way out of the problem.
(all emphasis added by me)
Source:
David M. Walker: Comptroller General of the United States
GAO Strategic Plan updated 2004-2009
The link
http://www.gao.gov/sp/d04534sp.pdf
15 - John Bambenek
Natalie:
Some of those are government workers but the bracket was more meant to be drawn around bureaucrats and decision makers. Yes, the Congressman is from the community, and it would be real nice if they were community-minded too. I'm not saying government doesn't have a place, I am saying government needs to have it's growth checked ironically because of the reason ss posted above.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>It's from the Comptroller General of the United States<<
And it was issued more than a year ago and you're totally misrepresenting the nature of the document and the totality of what it suggests by just posting an excerpt out of context.
What the comptroller general is saying is that we have to get social security and related social spending programs under control. That's what it comes down to.
Now, the fact is that despite this problem, the current budget and economic estimates show growth coming close to or eliminating the deficit before the decade is out, regardless of what the GAO says.
However, the GAO is quite right to promote fiscal responsibility. Something needs to be done about the social security problem. But as we've seen, Congress is absolutely unwilling to take the issue seriously and consider the kind of wholescale reform that's called for here. We're just lucky the economy is doing so well that we can survive a bit longer before the monster comes back again and crushes us.
Dave
17 - ss
I saw the man give a presentation Dave, and the problems he says singled out were the growth of Medicare and the unsustainabilty of tax cuts.
Your correct in saying Mr. Walker also wants spending cuts, but if you have a problem with tax cuts not being sustainable, please address it to presumeably the most qualified accountants and analysts in America. The ones at the GAO.
The growth of Medicare is quite a problem. If the government doesn't eat the cost ($30 trillion dollars over the next 35 years) who does?
(the comment below is directed to Bambenek)
I'd say America is facing a moral question that will make homophobia, and your laundry list of sexual hang-ups, seem as petty as it actually is.
18 - Dave Nalle
I lump Medicaire in with Social Security. It's part of the same overall pattern. Both need to be reformed completely and radically.
His argument for the unsustainability of tax cuts just doesn't hold any water. He has a vested interest in easy solutions to problems - and for him that means solving problems by throwing money at them. IMO that's not good for the country in the short or long term.
The real answer, but not the one which the GAO is ever going to embrace, is real spending restraint, total reform of social security and medicaire, and ultimately a restructuring of the entire tax system.
Good luck with all of that. My guess is we'll keep limping along with half assed patches to the current system for the forseable future.
Dave
19 - John Bambenek
ss:
I'm not afraid of homosexuals, homophobia is such a dumb term. Not to mention I can't think that I've written much on the subject and if I have they've been an occasional comment. I have opinions, yes. But what gives you the idea that I'm talking about "sexual hang-ups" in this post?
Does it have less to do with what I said and more to do with your desire to impose meaning on conservatives so you can demonize them? Were your parents conservatives? Do you have a good relationship with them? Did you have a bad church experience one time?
20 - Nancy
Well, I'll admit I'M afraid of homosexuals, especially if they're wielding a gun, or a machete...come to think of it, I'd be afraid of a heterosexual doing that, too. Never mind.
21 - ss
Bambenek:
I was refering to yesterdays' post
That diatribe against god hating, sexually promiscuos pagans spreading VD...
And the rant about college faculties being home to transgendered, polyamorous, and pedophiles.
Trangendered and polyamorous I'll give you.
Calling your enemies pedophiles because someone made a crack about a vest?
I'm afraid you can't be my moral compass anymore.
22 - Shark
Move along -- nuttin' to see here.
21 comments are too many for a Bambi thread.
Don't encourage him.
Let this little digital street corner, tambourine wavin', foot stompin' rehearsal for a future Senatorial stump speech sit idle.
Thanks in advance,
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to the English Language
23 - gonzo marx
but...but ..but ...Shark...
i ain't even said, "you can't legislate morality", yet!!!
dreck
Excelsior!
24 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Mr. Bambenek, why do you think the statement, "in order for a society to be and remain free the citizens must be sufficiently moral and community-minded," would be offensive to libertarians?
The idea that "liberty presumes a moral people" is the very foundation of libertarian principles.
Conversely, the basis of authoritarianism (whether it is left or right leaning in its ideology) is a lack of faith in the moral character of one's fellow man, the arrogant, yet baseless, presumption of moral superiority that creates an assumption of moral authority.
25 - Bob A. Booey
Bambenek: are you are religious? You don't really strike me as a regular church-goer or devout Catholic for some reason.
I was thinking more like techno-punk conservative rabble-rouser. Which is more accurate?
That is all.