The issues of infrastructure and education are the two that did the most to turn me against libertarians because the ones that I knew of wanted both of those to be privatized along with pretty much every government function except defense and law enforcement.

The issues of infrastructure and education are the two that did the most to turn me against libertarians because the ones that I knew of wanted both of those to be privatized along with pretty much every government function except defense and law enforcement.

The individual will always be in a love/hate relationship with societal pressures (be they governmental or other). That's just in the nature of things, and I find it futile to expect a final, definitive answer to our conflicting urges. Individuals come together to form communities, because the power of the many can benefit the individual. Then they splinter if the expectations of the community trample too heavily on inherent individualism.

The indivicual/societal relationship gets more complex by the day, as we finally begin to realize how interrelated the entire globe is. What happens in China or Africa has an impact on us, and vice-versa.

IMO, no -ism can answer all our urges, as they ebb and flow. The best we can do is look for ways to balance them.. The yin and the yang.

The individual will always be in a love/hate relationship with societal pressures (be they governmental or other). That's just in the nature of things, and I find it futile to expect a final, definitive answer to our conflicting urges. Individuals come together to form communities, because the power of the many can benefit the individual. Then they splinter if the expectations of the community trample too heavily on inherent individualism.

The indivicual/societal relationship gets more complex by the day, as we finally begin to realize how interrelated the entire globe is. What happens in China or Africa has an impact on us, and vice-versa.

IMO, no -ism can answer all our urges, as they ebb and flow. The best we can do is look for ways to balance them.. The yin and the yang.

You just defined liberalism, and why history vindicates it.

You just defined liberalism, and why history vindicates it.

Solutions have problems; that's a given. Democracy gives rise to problems, for heaven's sakes. Would we be better off without it?

The only thing required is an open mind, as opposed to ideological loyalty, in assessing what the problems are and how to adapt and adjust the program accodingly.

Solutions have problems; that's a given. Democracy gives rise to problems, for heaven's sakes. Would we be better off without it?

The only thing required is an open mind, as opposed to ideological loyalty, in assessing what the problems are and how to adapt and adjust the program accodingly.

One traditional answer is the notion of the “public good”. Under some versions of libertarian-ish philosophy, government should only be involved in genuine public goods, and let the others remain private issues. A public good, as I understand it, is something which can only be achieved when the polity act as a single unit. Military defense is a classic example. In modern warfare, it is simply impossible for private individuals to defend their state working privately. They must come together, coercively, to accomplish the task or it cannot be accomplished. Even in colonial days with “well-armed militias,” those were put under a central command with compulsory force when an actual war began.

Another public good would likely be infrastructure. We couldn't have a transportation system that connects the vast majority of the nation easily from private interests. There's not enough money to be made by building a private road to 3 houses outside of town. Other public goods might be interstate commerce or public health measures, such as the CDC handles. Of course, it's not always clear what is or is not a public good. How about education and health care? Can they truly be achieved privately?

One might also be a pragmatist in investigating what government does well and what it does poorly. Governments are great at massive projects that require the coordination of huge resources — an Apollo program, for instance. It's usually much worse at anything that requires efficiency, being nimble, and reactive (in the good way). Perhaps we can try to keep government away from the latter type projects even if we think they are otherwise worthwhile.

In short, instead of simply debating more or less government, we can also debate where. I've longed hope to develop some coherent philosophy that would allow me to cut certain govt. programs on a rational basis, allowing govt. to focus on what they do well, but I've never had time to really think it through.

Change is not the same as improvement. However, one cannot Do Nothing as one's choice or alternative all the time. This isn't a world of Middle Ages stasis (nor were the Fifties, you critics…).

I think life is like that, though.

Plus, there is an entire political argument dedicated to the idea of cutting spending. It's well-funded. It has it's own alternative media. And it wins elections. But when its politicians get elected, they never actually cut very much spending. Yet those who trumpet this idea–cutting spending–never seem to have problem with that logic. In fact, they continue to talk about cutting spending as if they were doing something that is about to, you know, cut spending.

The incrementalism situation Superdestroyer refers to (the “ratcheting”) is related to the very good analogy and metaphor I described earlier about government (and especially Washington-based) programs as the equivalent of medications, which are prescribed to resolve ailments, but which produce side effects (sometimes worse than the original ailments), but which too often are seen as best addressed not by questioning the medicine, but by adding new medicine atop the old to address the side effects. Then comes additional medicine for the side effects of the earlier additional medicine, and so on. The fools insist that there's nothing wrong with medication as practice for everything, despite decades of side effects and other unforeseen (and many foreseen) unfortunate consequences.

The problem with pragmatism is that it is not really pragmatic. The ratchet effect is where spending only goes up. It comes from the economic cycle. The problem with pragmatic politicians is that they always find an excuse to increase spending in the good times but raise taxes during other times. Long term spending increases based upon short term economic conditions cause government spending to always to up. The other problem with people claiming to be pragmatic is that they will just not cut spending during the good times.

The other idea is that when new spending is added and new programs are started, the government is making the argument that the every existing program is more important than the new program but that the new program is so important, it must be done. Many people have problems with that logic. Cutting existing programs to fund new ones would be a better statement of a new programs importance.

While periodically being drawn into the passion of particular issues, in the end I always return to a basic theme: the need to step back from particulars to survey the entire landscape. How are things working out?

Our political debates suffer because they are oversimplifications. Whether it's governement or private corporations, global markets or local enterprise, society is managed by people, and people don't change their basic character just because they operate in a different structure. People have both good and bad impulses, and what we are all looking for is a way to encourage the good and combat the bad..
We need to recognize, I think, that there is no magic answer to this quest. It's more to do with finding a workable balance: One set of principles inevitably impinges on another set, and the mistake, in my view, is to frame these debates as good vs evil. Instead, we need to acknowledge both the positive and negative effects of each and look for a pragmatic balance.

Of course, sometimes one simply has to choose which single principle takes priority, and a balancing act is simply not possible. If the federal governemtent had bowed to states rights issues, we would still have segregated schools mandated by state laws, By and large, though, such stark decisions are not necessary. They are only made to appear necessary by the absolutists among us. who deign to even acknowledge the legitimacy of others' concerns. That human characteristic is omething we should all strive to rein in, severely.

2. Government ultimately is power over people and is inherently dangerous. (Consider the elements of truth buried in the mountain of anger and hatred for the Bush administration by those who view that administration as abusive.) The burden of proof for government interventionism is always on the advocates or the supporters; that is the American way as well as the moral, not merely the truly libertarian, way. Where things go wrong is in the (truly) rare instances where it is government that is made into a demon, is demonized, is the object of irrational antagonism. This in fact is rare in this country (those on the Left favor excess government interventionism in select areas and do not see things accurately) but it does exist among some in the true (and in fact small) libertarian fringe as well as among anarchists.

He's right. Most folk do things, then rationalize after the fact- be it on votes, lovers, jobs, etc.

This is essential politicking. It's never an issue of more or less taxes, or gov't's hand or not, but the efficacy and return on things. If gov't does well, it's good, if not it's not. If taxes are spent on real things people can see, it's good, if not, and it's pork, it's bad.

Libs tend to overlook the bad, and Cons ignore the good. In toto, gov't is a good thing, it's the small details that cause problems.