Distributism and the welfare state

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, the Supreme Court fiasco was the low point of FDR’s presidency. But, in fact, the Justices did start ruling in favor of the people, instead of in favor of big business, after the threat. But it would be inaccurate to characterize the FDR presidency with that one low point. He did, in fact, change the nature of the presidency of the role of the federal government for the average person. The aggregation of power to the executive started with Kennedy, not with FDR, and has continued with each successor.

If the Supreme Court fiasco was the low point…I really can’t think of any “high point” of FDR’s presidency. His social programs prolonged the Depression until WWII ended it (mercifully).
Some historical economists point out that without WWII the Depression would carried on until the 1960’s because of FDR’s New Deal.

He may have had all the good intentions in the world doing what he did…but that was not how this country was founded and what he started is why we are where we are today.

More poverty, a huge “dependent class”, an enormous government complex and once proud industries fleeing to other countries just to survive. All of this due to the ground work performed by FDR.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So, you would not include defending our borders, or addressing our security concerns elsewhere in the world. To you a proper government only provides for police, but no military?

How in the world did you come to your conclusions regarding the “proper role” of government? In a democracy, the role of government can change simply by voting. By the way, you also fail to mention the role of representing the will of the people, and ensuring a fair electoral process. Or, is that also not a proper role?

I think when Free Radical says “To protect our life, liberty, and property from each other”
He means the foremost duty of a proper government…protection. Of course that would include our borders as well as military protection from foreign invaders, police and fire protection. These are legitimate powers granted to a proper government.

You are correct when you say “In a democracy, the role of government can change simply by voting.” That is true, and the primary reason we have a Republic, rather than mob rule by a democracy.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The law protects people from their own bad decisions in a thousand ways. One small example, it protects people from putting savings into ponzi schemes.

I’m sorry…I was just struck by the irony of your statement. There is a law against Ponzi games…but the government forces us to “play” The Social Security Ponzi Game.
Then again the law protecting people from ponzi achemes didn’t help Bernard Madoff’s clients.

Another: It (sometimes) prohibits or limits gambling, drugs, sales of liquor to minors, on and on. And it always has.

Warranted objective laws, applied and enforced equally, are proper laws

Same for deciding what is good for us and what is not. It decides that, for instance, heroin or candy laced with lead (both of which used to be commonly for sale) is not good for us, and therefore bans the sale, possession and manufacture of both.

Tobacco is bad for all. It is not banned. Why?

Deciding what is good for us and what is not may be a good intention but it leads to things like a national school lunch program that is in shambles or the abuses committed by Mayor Bloomberg in New York.

The majority of Americans know right from wrong and what is good or bad for them. They don’t need “Big Brother”.

Taking from one to give to another is not done in most literal sense, but if the government so much as pays its police and soldiers, it’s “taking from one and giving to another”.

Providing a military and police is a legitimate function of a proper government. In our case, the Constitution empowers congress to provide for the common defense. Paying soldiers and police is not “taking from one and giving to another”…it is Constitutionally authorized.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m sorry…I was just struck by the irony of your statement. There is a law against Ponzi games…but the government forces us to “play” The Social Security Ponzi Game.
Then again the law protecting people from ponzi achemes didn’t help Bernard Madoff’s clients.

Warranted objective laws, applied and enforced equally, are proper laws

Tobacco is bad for all. It is not banned. Why?

Deciding what is good for us and what is not may be a good intention but it leads to things like a national school lunch program that is in shambles or the abuses committed by Mayor Bloomberg in New York.

The majority of Americans know right from wrong and what is good or bad for them. They don’t need “Big Brother”.

Providing a military and police is a legitimate function of a proper government. In our case, the Constitution empowers congress to provide for the common defense. Paying soldiers and police is not “taking from one and giving to another”…it is Constitutionally authorized.

So, when the Courts thought slavery was constitutional (and it certainly wasn’t prohibited at the time) it was not a “taking” from one and giving to another?

There has to be moderation in all things. It is preposterous to suggest that government has no role in preventing human tragedies just because it isn’t mandated by the Constitution that they do so. I wasn’t alive during the Depression, but my grandfather was, and he told me some people literally starved to death during that time. Are you really saying it would have been inappropriate for the government at some level to have prevented it? I am no fan of FDR, but when I was a kid I did know a guy who had worked as a young man in the CCC camps, mostly cutting and digging out brush that didn’t need to be cut or dug, and was let go right back to brush after the program was over. The salary for it was pitiful but it was the only income his family had at the time. It would have been better had the government not done that and they all starved?

If your point is that the Constitution does not mandate any governmental action that it doesn’t mandate, that’s a circular concept, but it would be true. It’s a different question whether the government ought to do anything other than provide enforcement of existing laws regarding property and defend against outside invaders.

I suggest that any government that does that is going to be faced with serious civil disorder, and will deserve to have it. The various aids to the poor have not been declared unconstitutional by the Courts. But even if your argument is that the courts should so declare, I suggest that it’s not only a prohibition that’s not in the Constitution, but it’s very unchristian.

Now, if your thought is that current programs are excessive and do not follow the principle of subsidiarity, I would agree with you. But if you are saying there should be no aid to the poor on a government level, I say there’s no basis in the Constitution to say that. Nor have the courts these many years.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This conversation begins to remind me of some of the arguments of some of the backwoods nuts around here who claim the courts are invalid because lawyers’ are given the title “esquire” and, since titles of nobility are prohibited, they have lost their citizenship and can’t be judges.

They also claim that no federal or state level law enforcement is directly authorized by the Constitution, (and that’s literally true) so they don’t have to obey summons or appear in court if charges are filed against them.

Nor do they think they are required to pay taxes because the Constitution vests in the Treasury the power to issue coinage. (and that’s true) So only coins are really money, and dollar bills are not. Since they draw their incomes in the form of dollars issued by the Federal Reserve, they didn’t really get any constitutionally valid money, and don’t have to pay taxes.

Oh yes, and there’s the business with the flag. Another disqualifying factor for the courts is that they have American flags in courtrooms with fringe on them. That’s an “admiralty flag” and so they have no jurisdiction over anything that happens on land.

The courts, of course, don’t agree with any of that. But the adherents of those beliefs agree with it, and that’s enough for them.

Total Constitutional subjectivity is what it is.

 

[epan]

I think when Free Radical says “To protect our life, liberty, and property from each other”
He means the foremost duty of a proper government…protection. Of course that would include our borders as well as military protection from foreign invaders, police and fire protection. These are legitimate powers granted to a proper government.

You are correct when you say “In a democracy, the role of government can change simply by voting.” That is true, and the primary reason we have a Republic, rather than mob rule by a democracy.

I disagree with you. I don’t think that the Great Depression was for the social good, any more than the last recession. You understand, I hope, that unregulated capitalism will result in horrible social consequences for rich and poor. The countries which have the highest standard of living, by every measure which is generally used, are the ones in which the governments play the most active role in the welfare of the people. The great irony is that even the rich people in those countries are better off by every measure which counts. Basically, the flatter the income distribution, then the better of everyone is, whether you measure infant mortality, suicide rates, child welfare, social mobility, level of education achieved, life expectancy and morbidity rates, and so on.

But what I’m curious about, is on what basis do you make your claims? There is no evidence which I have seen that FDR prolonged the Great Depression? In fact, even Reagan, who opposed government job creation, and deficit spending to stimulate the economy, found that he had to resort to that exactly in order to end the recession which he inherited. He increased military spending by 35% and incurred the largest deficits per capita since WW2, completely contrary to his stated beliefs, but necessary to achieve the goal of economic recovery.

I would agree with you, if your claim is that, it has not been conclusively proved that government stimulus shortened the Great Depression. It’s really not possible to extrapolate what would have happened without the New Deal. However, we do know that every attempt at austerity in similar circumstances has failed.

There is a business professor at Wharton who teaches MBA students. With every new class, she has them play a game of Monopoly. 1/2 of the students are required to sit out the first ten minutes of the game. In her many years of doing this no student who has sat out the beginning of the game has ever failed to go bankrupt. The point is that severe inequalities, which are never fixed, accumulate over time in the libertarian model of government which you suggest to be the only legitimate form.

Just where do you think a government gets its legitimacy? I’m also curious about that. My opinion is that this comes from the majority of the governed, and specifically not from minority business interests.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

]So, when the Courts thought slavery was constitutional (and it certainly wasn’t prohibited at the time) it was not a “taking” from one and giving to another?

There has to be moderation in all things. It is preposterous to suggest that government has no role in preventing human tragedies just because it isn’t mandated by the Constitution that they do so. I wasn’t alive during the Depression, but my grandfather was, and he told me some people literally starved to death during that time. Are you really saying it would have been inappropriate for the government at some level to have prevented it? I am no fan of FDR, but when I was a kid I did know a guy who had worked as a young man in the CCC camps, mostly cutting and digging out brush that didn’t need to be cut or dug, and was let go right back to brush after the program was over. The salary for it was pitiful but it was the only income his family had at the time. It would have been better had the government not done that and they all starved?

If your point is that the Constitution does not mandate any governmental action that it doesn’t mandate, that’s a circular concept, but it would be true. It’s a different question whether the government ought to do anything other than provide enforcement of existing laws regarding property and defend against outside invaders.

I suggest that any government that does that is going to be faced with serious civil disorder, and will deserve to have it. The various aids to the poor have not been declared unconstitutional by the Courts. But even if your argument is that the courts should so declare, I suggest that it’s not only a prohibition that’s not in the Constitution, but it’s very unchristian.

Now, if your thought is that current programs are excessive and do not follow the principle of subsidiarity, I would agree with you. But if you are saying there should be no aid to the poor on a government level, I say there’s no basis in the Constitution to say that. Nor have the courts these many years.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
― James Madison

The founders of our Country did not create a government to act as a National Charity.

Our government is not expected to be “Christian”. That’s our job. We are Christians. We provide charity.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So, when the Courts thought slavery was constitutional (and it certainly wasn’t prohibited at the time) it was not a “taking” from one and giving to another?

There has to be moderation in all things. It is preposterous to suggest that government has no role in preventing human tragedies just because it isn’t mandated by the Constitution that they do so. I wasn’t alive during the Depression, but my grandfather was, and he told me some people literally starved to death during that time. Are you really saying it would have been inappropriate for the government at some level to have prevented it? I am no fan of FDR, but when I was a kid I did know a guy who had worked as a young man in the CCC camps, mostly cutting and digging out brush that didn’t need to be cut or dug, and was let go right back to brush after the program was over. The salary for it was pitiful but it was the only income his family had at the time. It would have been better had the government not done that and they all starved?

If your point is that the Constitution does not mandate any governmental action that it doesn’t mandate, that’s a circular concept, but it would be true. It’s a different question whether the government ought to do anything other than provide enforcement of existing laws regarding property and defend against outside invaders.

I suggest that any government that does that is going to be faced with serious civil disorder, and will deserve to have it. The various aids to the poor have not been declared unconstitutional by the Courts. But even if your argument is that the courts should so declare, I suggest that it’s not only a prohibition that’s not in the Constitution, but it’s very unchristian.

Now, if your thought is that current programs are excessive and do not follow the principle of subsidiarity, I would agree with you. But if you are saying there should be no aid to the poor on a government level, I say there’s no basis in the Constitution to say that. Nor have the courts these many years.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
― James Madison

The founders of our Country did not create a government to act as a National Charity.

Our government is not expected to be “Christian”. That’s our job. We are Christians. We provide charity.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I disagree with you. I don’t think that the Great Depression was for the social good, any more than the last recession. You understand, I hope, that unregulated capitalism will result in horrible social consequences for rich and poor. The countries which have the highest standard of living, by every measure which is generally used, are the ones in which the governments play the most active role in the welfare of the people. The great irony is that even the rich people in those countries are better off by every measure which counts. Basically, the flatter the income distribution, then the better of everyone is, whether you measure infant mortality, suicide rates, child welfare, social mobility, level of education achieved, life expectancy and morbidity rates, and so on.

I don’t believe I alluded that the Great Depression was for the social good…???

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin was a great example. The difference between North and South Korea today is remarkable.

What countries are you talking about?

If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of Capitalism and as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that the actions blamed on Capitalism were caused, necessitated, and made possible only by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to Capitalism, are not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power over industry.

Governments that play the most active role in the welfare of the people are getting money from some source. How else would they “spread the wealth around”.

But what I’m curious about, is on what basis do you make your claims? There is no evidence which I have seen that FDR prolonged the Great Depression? In fact, even Reagan, who opposed government job creation, and deficit spending to stimulate the economy, found that he had to resort to that exactly in order to end the recession which he inherited. He increased military spending by 35% and incurred the largest deficits per capita since WW2, completely contrary to his stated beliefs, but necessary to achieve the goal of economic recovery.

The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can – and does – deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.

newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
online.wsj.com/articles/SB123353276749137485
object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

There is a business professor at Wharton who teaches MBA students. With every new class, she has them play a game of Monopoly. 1/2 of the students are required to sit out the first ten minutes of the game. In her many years of doing this no student who has sat out the beginning of the game has ever failed to go bankrupt. The point is that severe inequalities, which are never fixed, accumulate over time in the libertarian model of government which you suggest to be the only legitimate form.

What a great lesson…change the rules and go bankrupt. Obviously this professor (?) has never been in business.
Let’s take that idea to Las Vegas. Change the rules at the tables and watch the casinos go bankrupt.

Wharton…humph!

Just where do you think a government gets its legitimacy? I’m also curious about that. My opinion is that this comes from the majority of the governed, and specifically not from minority business interests.

You are correct.

The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government, as such, has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

A society needs an institution charged with the task of protecting individual and property rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—its only moral justification and the only reason why we need a government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m sorry…I was just struck by the irony of your statement. There is a law against Ponzi games…but the government forces us to “play” The Social Security Ponzi Game.

That is not an argument against outlawing Ponzi schemes. That might be an argument against Social Security, but it has no relevance to the question being addressed.

Then again the law protecting people from ponzi achemes didn’t help Bernard Madoff’s clients.

That is an argument for stronger laws against Ponzi schemes. You are not helping your case.

Warranted objective laws, applied and enforced equally, are proper laws

Again, that is not an argument for your position. Laws that don’t allow us to hurt ourselves can certainly be objective and equally enforced.

Tobacco is bad for all. It is not banned. Why?

It is severely limited. The fact that there are harmful things that are not completely outlawed is no argument against outlawing other, potentially more harmful things.

Deciding what is good for us and what is not may be a good intention but it leads to things like a national school lunch program that is in shambles

You may think it is in shambles, but there are kids getting lunches at school that way who might disagree with you.

The majority of Americans know right from wrong and what is good or bad for them.

If we could trust Americans’ knowledge of right and wrong, there would be no need for police or prisons.

Providing a military and police is a legitimate function of a proper government. In our case, the Constitution empowers congress to provide for the common defense. Paying soldiers and police is not “taking from one and giving to another”…it is Constitutionally authorized.

The fact that it is a Constitutionally authorized function does not ensure it is not “taking from one and giving to another”. It is just a Constitutionaly authorized instance of “taking from one and giving to another”.

 

[Hobbes42]

The good of others.

Many, if not most, would disagree with this, but it was long a part of western thought that the state has an interest in many things people now discount.

One, of course, was marriage and the rearing of children. It was thought that the sovereign or state had an interest in having a robust population of parent-raised children. The “overpopulation” and “gay rights” people totally discount that as any kind of societal good. Still, many would say that widespread harlotry and/or a collapsing population like that of Russia or Japan bodes ill for a society.

And things like smoking crack harm a society in more direct ways. People have to have money to buy it, and since its use can be disabling both physically and mentally, such people often become thieves or burden society in other ways. One wouldn’t have to talk to a prosecutor very long to be informed that most crime is drug related in some way. Any industry plant manager will tell you that a substantial number of injured workers fail the drug test. And if they weren’t impaired, would the costs of their care be imposed on society? No.

And, of course, besides the loss of citizenry potentially involved in shooting Niagara Falls, there is the possibility that society may end up giving lifetime care and support to a person for no reason other than that person’s foolishness and whimsy. And, too, should you be allowed to corrupt the minds of impressionable children who might, upon your example, decide to do the same thing or something similar?

I sometimes find it amusing that some claim the Church itself should not consider certain things “sinful” if they “don’t hurt anybody else”. Problem is (completely aside from biblical prohibitions of things) most everything sinful does have ripple effects that affect others. Difficult to think of many (perhaps any) that don’t.

Ridgerunner, I oft find myself in disagreement with you, but this is stated phenomenally.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

LeafByNiggle…I have missed you. Hope you have been well. Nice to hear from you again.

Here we go…

That is not an argument against outlawing Ponzi schemes. That might be an argument against Social Security, but it has no relevance to the question being addressed.

That is an argument for stronger laws against Ponzi schemes. You are not helping your case.

Ridge brought up Ponzi schemes. I am simply commenting not arguing. This thread is way off topic…I don’t want to get deep into Ponzi schemes vs Social Security here.

Again, that is not an argument for your position. Laws that don’t allow us to hurt ourselves can certainly be objective and equally enforced.

It’s pretty hard to enforce anti-suicide laws after the fact.

Sure, laws that don’t allow us to hurt ourselves can be objective and equally enforced but they are pretty stupid in most cases and only exist as “feel good” measures for legislators.

It is severely limited. The fact that there are harmful things that are not completely outlawed is no argument against outlawing other, potentially more harmful things.

Perhaps…but could it be that outlawing things like tobacco will never happen because over-zealous legislators still remember the repeal of a stupid Constitutional Amendment that was supposed to save us from ourselves…???

You may think it is in shambles, but there are kids getting lunches at school that way who might disagree with you.

I am sure there are a few…However the vast majority of kids are dumping their “free lunches” into the dumpsters. That’s our $$$. Yours and mine.

If we could trust Americans’ knowledge of right and wrong, there would be no need for police or prisons.

I’m sure you don’t mean ALL Americans…

The fact that it is a Constitutionally authorized function does not ensure it is not “taking from one and giving to another”. It is just a Constitutionaly authorized instance of “taking from one and giving to another”.

It can hardly be construed as “taking from one and giving to another”. Providing for the common defense is a SERVICE provided by the government that benefits all equally.
Whereas a federal program that grants educational benefits to minorities and/or economically disadvantaged students and nothing for ALL students…IS “taking from one and giving to another”

 

[Ridgerunner]

If, indeed, Christians provided adequately for those who cannot help themselves, then it would be my position the government has no business providing it. And if Christians did not do so privately, then the city, county, state all before the federal government. That’s what “subsidiarity” is.

The government acted as a National Charity from the beginning, offering free or nearly free land to those who would settle it. Yes, the government had an interest in doing it; settling a wilderness and keeping colonial powers out. But it has an interest in civil order as well.

 

[freeRadical]

If, indeed, Christians provided adequately for those who cannot help themselves, then it would be my position the government has no business providing it. And if Christians did not do so privately, then the city, county, state all before the federal government. That’s what “subsidiarity” is.

The government acted as a National Charity from the beginning, offering free or nearly free land to those who would settle it. Yes, the government had an interest in doing it; settling a wilderness and keeping colonial powers out. But it has an interest in civil order as well.

I do agree with you on the principle of subsidiarity.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If, indeed, Christians provided adequately for those who cannot help themselves, then it would be my position the government has no business providing it. And if Christians did not do so privately, then the city, county, state all before the federal government. That’s what “subsidiarity” is.

If the taxpayers of a city, county or state want to empower their local government to provide for the poor…fine. Pass a law. If a local community wants the local government to build and maintain a homeless shelter, by vote, they can authorize the local government to spend their tax money for that purpose.

The government acted as a National Charity from the beginning, offering free or nearly free land to those who would settle it. Yes, the government had an interest in doing it; settling a wilderness and keeping colonial powers out. But it has an interest in civil order as well.

The early government of the United States did not own land to give away or sell. The government granted “title” to lands settled or farmed as homesteads.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The early government of the United States did not own land to give away or sell. The government granted “title” to lands settled or farmed as homesteads.

Same as.

You suggest that government was merely a grantor of “title” to lands already settled. That was sometimes the case, but mostly not. It actually induced people to go out and select free or nearly free land in places that had never been settled before. It was a giveaway, pure and simple. It had very rational purposes, but it was still a giveaway.

In fact, one of the causes of the American Revolution was that the British government would not allow settlers to go get “free” land in British owned lands west of the Appalachians.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Same as.

You suggest that government was merely a grantor of “title” to lands already settled. That was sometimes the case, but mostly not. It actually induced people to go out and select free or nearly free land in places that had never been settled before. It was a giveaway, pure and simple. It had very rational purposes, but it was still a giveaway.

In fact, one of the causes of the American Revolution was that the British government would not allow settlers to go get “free” land in British owned lands west of the Appalachians.

That was because England CLAIMED all the land that was not already CLAIMED by the Royal Monarchs of Spain or France.

The United States government did not “own” land to sell or give away until the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That was because England CLAIMED all the land that was not already CLAIMED by the Royal Monarchs of Spain or France.

The United States government did not “own” land to sell or give away until the Louisiana Purchase.

Oh no. The original U.S. definitely claimed land west of the Appalachians after the Revolution; considerably more land that in the 13 original colonies. And it definitely gave land to settlers.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Oh no. The original U.S. definitely claimed land west of the Appalachians after the Revolution; considerably more land that in the 13 original colonies. And it definitely gave land to settlers.

Now you have done it…Ridge.

Now we are going to hear from the Native American contingent about taking hunting grounds.

Now this thread will go further off topic…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now you have done it…Ridge.

Now we are going to hear from the Native American contingent about taking hunting grounds.

Now this thread will go further off topic…

Might as well. Interestingly, some of the lands in the original claim against the Brits and in the Louisiana Purchase were nothing but hunting grounds. Tribes along the Ohio River kept most of Kentucky depopulated so they could hunt in it. In the Missouri Ozarks where I live, it was similar. The Osage, which lived along the Missouri River (having previously lived in Minnesota or somewhere) depopulated the Ozarks of its former Indian settlers so it would be their “hunting preserve”.

So a lot of the areas into which white settlers moved really were unpopulated. Indian settlers from the east moved into the Ozarks at about the same time white settlers did. The Osage fought them both for awhile, but then moved on their own to Oklahoma and Kansas. Some of the “new” tribes were pretty good fighters and despised the Osage.The white settlers were good fighters as well, but the Osage move was (some say) more motivated by the scarcity of game once the eastern Indians and whites moved in.

Some of the “new” Indians moved on into the “Indian Territory”, but a lot of them (maybe most?) stayed and just intermixed with the whites. So, in that sense, they’re still here.

It didn’t turn out too badly for the Osage even so. They moved into the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma and became very wealthy when oil was discovered there.