Facebook conversation, solving problems

A friend posted this story, and a conversation ensued. Typical Leftist, unable to follow train of logic and respond to it.

"Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates." (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133253327/cbo-social-security-will-run-permanent-deficits?ft=1&f=1001)


BC: This is a very scary problem. The longer we wait to raise taxes and cut benefits, the worse it will be.

Me: SS is empty now. The Trust Fund contains government bonds, not cash. The government takes the cash out issues the bonds. The cash is then spent in the general fund.

BC: And it's caused by the mentality of the American voter - government must do things and provide services ... but the immature voter resists paying taxes equal to the costs. So, government makes up the difference by borrowing, including taking all Social Security reserves and replacing them with debt. The American voter will retire and suffocate on his own foolishness.

Me: When has raising taxes ever solved a social problem?

BC: Taxes were raised to pay for World War II. They were raised to pay for the Social Security and Medicare that have already helped millions pass through old age in dignity. They were raised to pay for the finest public university system in the world. They were raised to eradicate polio. The list of problems solved and conditions improved through communitarian revenue and expenditure is long and noble.

Me: What social problem did WWII solve? What problem has been solved by by raising taxes for SS and Medicare? And University funding? And disease is a social problem? I did not ask for situations that were improved, sir.

BC: It's consistent to support low taxes, if you also support low public services. That's how things work in places like Mississippi and Alabama.

BC: Then define "social problem" and define "solution." But I needn't accept your terms. I regard Jews in concentration camps as a social problem. It's social. And it's a problem. I define polio as a social problem. It's social. And it's... a problem. I define every violent criminal a social problem. They harm others. That's social. And it's a problem. Tax dollars paid to bring about an end to the Third Reich's concentration camps ... a virtual end to polio ... and cessation of harm by each violent criminal when arrested and incarcerated. These achievements aren't matchable by private enterprise. You won't ever see Walmart fighting the Third Reich, eradicating polio, or policing the streets. The private sector has its mission ... and so does the public sector. And when the private sector steers itself into a ditch, it's the public sector that sends out the tow truck.

Me: Of course you wouldn't accept my terms. The broadest possible definition of "social problem" as well as the loosest defintion of "solve" allows you to argue whilst moving the goalposts to suit your big government advocacy.

Any casual observer would easily discern that government hasn't solved crime, poverty, social unrest, or disease by even a loose defintion of "solve." Indeed, one could make a convincing case that government has worsened many of these problems.

BC: So let's not have police. Let's not have schools. Let's not have public health departments. Let's not have the University of Washington. Social problems will be ... well, pretty much like they are anywhere in the world with low public services. Think "Somalia." That might be a poster child of libertarianism. Pretty much no government or public services, while private citizens slug it out. I prefer places like Norway.

Me: Several non sequiturs. No one has argued for no government. Libertarians are not anarchists. Somalia was not established on libertarian ideals, nor was it founded on capitalism or free markets.

BC: Actually, Somalia technically does have government. It just has a very low profile. Somalia's an example of low taxes and limited government. I prefer Norway. Love that high education level, good health, and social stability. But I guess it's your prerogative to prefer places like Somalia or regard states like Mississippi and Alabama as an attractive image of America's future.

Me: I did not claim that Somalia does not have a government. I did not claim that I prefer Mississippi. Perhaps you could argue the points I raise. I asserted that Somalia was not established on libertarian ideals, nor was it founded on capitalism or free markets.

JW: BC - I've got to chime in with Rich here. It's not fair to equate libertarians with anarchists, that's a logical fallacy. Some libertarians are indeed anarchists, but many libertarians believe in state-provided services.

BUT - my experience living in Europe ("socialist" Europe as my dad used to say) has opened my eyes to the tradeoffs of a higher level of state services. Don't get me wrong. Just because the state provides a service doesn't mean its good. Britain's NHS is probably a good example of that. And Europe's universities are mostly awful compared to America's universities; that has more to do with the fact that European students pay little or nothing for their education, whereas American students are expected to pay a significant part of it.

But why - despite draconian sentencing - am I more likely to get mugged in almost any American city than in most European cities? It may have something to do with the large, increasingly permanent underclass existing in America - a social problem.

BC: America's excellent public universities are state services, as are Europe's apparently-worse set of universities. So all that indicates to me is, sometimes state services do well, and sometimes they don't. As for existence of a chronic underclass, that apparently exists in America (where state services are lower) and Europe (where they're higher). Maybe we should experiment? Maybe we should measure improvement or worsening of these underclasses by eliminating all social safety nets? Well, I do regard improvement vs. worsening as the proper yardstick. In my mind, the term "solution" only means comparative improvement over what would otherwise exist.

Me: I don't recall JW saying "public universities."

If the "chronic underclass" is defined as, say, the bottom 12%, then there will always be a "chronic underclass."

However, there is no such thing as a "chronic underclass," as far as a notable permanent level of poverty. The bottom quintile is extremely dynamic, with high percentages of people moving into other quintiles.

There is a small number of people who never rise out of their self-imposed destitution, however. No matter how much "help" they receive, they are content to live under bridges and hold cardboard signs.

I don't regard "improvement" as a significant indicator as to whether or not a social program is a success, first because improvement rarely results from profligate goverment largesse, but mostly because my first critieria is constitutional authority. The constitution ennumerates the specific powers of government. If it ain't in there, government can't do it.

BC: As an attorney and former drafter of laws at the state government level my observation is that many opinions about the U.S. Constitution are uninformed about how it's worded. Precise language with fixed meaning is avoided, in favor of broad, abstract language requiring constant interpretation. For example, the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." No one ever is literally sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment; instead a judge imposes a particular form of punishment which might not have been contemplated, one way or the other, by the individuals who wrote and voted at the Constitutional Convention. Apply the Constitution, and since it doesn't explicitly mention capital punishment by burning at the stake then it's not banned. But apply the term "cruel and unusual punishment" as it was intended - a term of abstraction to be applied to changing and unforeseen conditions - and many forms of punishment are revealed to be unconstitutional. It's not a Betty Crocker recipe book with clear formulas. Instead it was deliberately written to elicit interpretation and change as the American experience unfolded.

Me: Ok, Sir, I challenge you to a poker game without fixed meaning to the rules.

BC: You won't find due process of law canned and sitting on a shelf at the general store. It doesn't work that way, and the founders knew it. That's why the centerpiece of the Bill of Rights requires interpretation in the face of realities never mentione and never forseseen by the document's drafters. The doctrine's meaning evolved with inventions like internet, telegraph, transcontinental railroad, and jet airplane. The Constitution isn't stereo instructions. It's not a Betty Crocker recipe book. And everyone knew so, from the very beginning. For example, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in the famous 1801 decision, Marbury v. Madison.

JW: Every society is in a constant process to find the "best" way to live. In the most notable cases extraodinary documents accompany this process - the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the United States, just to name a few that popped into my head. That does not mean that these documents can or should be taken as all-inclusive blueprints, never to be changed, never to be reinterpreted.
Comparing the organization and functioning of society to a game of poker is not very apt, in my opinion.

BC: The framers deliberately built adaptability into the Constitution. Besides using abstract terms like "due process" and "cruel and unusual" - phrases whose abstractness necessarily required interpretation - they also included so-called elastic clauses. Article I Section 8 says Congress has power to pass any law which is "necessary and proper" to effectuate a power of Congress specifically enumerated. So besides the powers specifically mentioned, there are additional implied powers. Regarding individual rights, the Ninth Amendment says the people hold rights in addition to the ones specifically mentioned in the wording of the constitution. Elastic phrases such as these show that the document as a whole isn't written to be a narrow and precise set of recipes, but instead something more elastic.

Me: James Madison, Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

BC: This was written about a year before the Constitution was enacted, when various drafts were still circulating. Madison expresses the view of slave states, a position in a debate resolved more in favor of the opposite side of the debate, especially when the Bill of Rights was subsequently passed.

Me: So the father of the constitution was wrong? Really? Source?

BC: Nobody's all right. And probably nobody's all wrong. But on the issue of the jurisdictional line between states and federal government, it was Hamilton who prevailed, not Madison or Jefferson. I'm glad. States' rights has often been a stalking horse for America's most low-minded instincts, including racism in public institutions, slavery, and environmental permissiveness. It all loops back to my earlier reference to the mentality of places like Mississippi and Alabama.

Me: I call BS. Source?

JW: Let's keep this civil! I don't have a source at hand, but having recently read the well-known John Adams biography, I tend to agree with the history of what Bob is saying (and I agree philosophically).

Perhaps the time is come in this thread to "agree to disagree"?

Me: I asked Mr. Casey for a source, which he did not provide. I asked again, and now I'm uncivil?

Oh, and is insinuating that someone is racist civil?

BC: I don't regard these kinds of online discussions as obligating anyone to run to the library to satisfy somoene else's request for documentation of views expressed. These aren't doctoral dissertations. Instead they're opinions. I also don't regard you as obligated to run to the library and provide documentation for your own views.

The reason why I think Hamilton ultimately won a small tug of war between himself and Madison is the Bill of Rights ultimately vindicated a viewpoint more similar to Hamilton's than Madison's.

There's a twist. You could call it a role-reversal.When passed, the Bill of Rights was widely regarded as check against federal power. So, it was more pleasing to states' rights advocates like Madison and Jefferson, than centralized power advocates like Hamilton. But after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was also passed. And it has had the effect of extending the Bill or Rights's prohibitions against abuse by the federal government, to prohibitions against abuse by state government as well.

That's how we ended up with rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, which shut down the ability of southern states to enforce segregated schools under the rubric of "states' rights."

By eventually coming to bind both levels of government, the Bill of Rights became nation-wide law something which (in my opinion) would please Hamilton more than Madison.

Me: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claims are completely contrary to the raison d'etre of America. The fundamental purpose of the constitution, restraining government, came about as a result of the heavy-handed, oppressive, centralized British monarchy.

Editorial, compassion is human

My friend Ron and I have interesting discussions from time to time. He is a self-avowed liberal, and gently prods me whenever he gets the chance. He has obviously thought deeply about things, and he never name-calls like liberals tend to do. He also has done decades of sacrificial work on behalf of the less fortunate. This is a man I really respect.

So that’s why I take notice when he speaks. The other day he was sitting at my desk and said to me, “Rich, I’m a Christian, and I have one question. What do we do about the poor?” I told him that it was a good question. Have you noticed that people will complement the quality of your question when they don’t have a good answer?

Well, I propose to answer his question here. It would seem timely given our annual homeless controversy has once again arrived.

First, let’s analyze the question itself. Who is “we?” Does “we” mean “me and you?” Well, no. When you hear someone say, “What do we do about the poor,” the doctrinaire leftist is really saying “What is government going to do about the poor.” In fact, the farther left you go politically, the more inclined you are to accept the idea that if there isn’t a government social program the problem isn’t being fixed. They wouldn’t think to get out their own checkbooks and do something about it themselves.

Further, if someone opposes or criticizes a government social program, by extension that person is in favor of perpetuating the problem. And that’s why you hear things like, “Republicans hate the poor,” or, “Conservatives want people to die.” These of course are nonsensical criticisms, but some people actually believe them.

Indeed, opposing a government program in any way draws the inevitable criticism that one consequently hates all government, is prone to violence, and is a slack-jawed extremist. This has the effect of dampening debate, shifting the focus from the issue to personalities, and reducing honest dissent into a caricature. This should trouble any thinking person.

So, what do we do about the poor? First, let’s stop doing what hasn’t worked. Government social programs have not eliminated poverty. In fact, one could easily make the case that government social programs have perpetuated and increased the problems they are supposed to be solving. Second, let’s stop calling it compassion. Income redistribution is not compassion. A government check is not showing kindness.

Third, let’s free people to do what they are demonstrably good at: Giving of their time, their wealth, and their talent to assist those who have needs. Despite difficult economic times and burdensome government, Americans still give. Sacrificially. It amazes me that people still choose to help, even after government has taken from them such a large part of their income.

People are compassionate, not government. People sacrifice, not government. People deserve the credit, not some bureaucracy in D.C. Government is the obstacle that keeps people from being more generous. Government steals opportunities from caring people and inserts itself into the equation as the compassion bully.

People make the difference. United Way, Family promise, the soup kitchen, dozens of churches, and thousands of people in the Gallatin Valley step up every day to do the right thing. The fact that people are filling these needs is prima facie evidence that government has failed.

My friend Ron hasn’t told me if he thinks government is the answer to his question. I do know his answer will be well-considered and intelligent. I’m hoping, however, that given the overwhelming failure of government to fix our social problems that he will reach the same conclusion I have.