Angela Mapes Turner, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, reports that Indiana ranked among the top five states in terms of erroneously denying or terminating food stamp benefits.
The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration’s “negative error rate,†which measures such denials, averaged more than 12 percent during the last fiscal year of October 2007 to September 2008.
. . .
An error rate of slightly more than 12 percent means about 75,000 people could have had their aid improperly denied or terminated. The error rate the previous fiscal year was 5.9 percent.The worsening error rates coincide with the rollout of the state’s modernized welfare program, which was introduced in 12 counties in October 2007. That month, the error rate was less than 4 percent; at the end of 2007, it was nearly 7 percent.
. . .
Not only were food stamp applications doled out less accurately, but applications were also being processed more slowly.
Let’s say you were a balanced budget minded governor. Let’s further say you were ideologically opposed to or indifferent to a social welfare program you didn’t actually have the legal authority to gut. A bureaucracy that consistently erred in favor of denied or delayed benefits sure would come in handy. As a buddy of mine would put it, “I’m not sayin’ . . .; I’m just sayin’.”
But thought privatizing always leads to better service at a better price.
Except, you know, that one time that Texas privatized its food stamp operations .
In the world Mitch’s party lives in, these errors are just a minor problem. Now, if some rich white boy paid a dime more in taxes than he was supposed to, we’d be obligated to stop the world and investigate.
As it should be. Food stamp programs are morally illegitimate, and anything that keeps the slavemasters who participate in it from taking something they have no morally legitimate entitlement to is a good thing. Taxation is equally morally illegitimate, and anything that keeps it from being more than it is is also a good thing.
Therefore, if someone thinks this is a problem, the only possibilities are that he is a lunatic or pure evil.
Tell me, which is it?
Speaking for myself only, of course, I’ll go with “pure evil.” Feeding the poor is, of course, only the first step in my diabolical plan. Soon, I’ll be taking care of the elderly. Before too long, there will be parks and green spaces. Air will be cleaned and water will be potable. Muahahahaaha!
Yes, engaging in slavery, theft, and murder of the human spirit is a diabolical plan indeed.
The end does not justify the means.
I’m calling it now: Kurt is a Poe.
Doug and Blue,
Would it be preferable to have the poor cared for through voluntary means? If so, then you’re allowing that the means are relevant.
Now, one might say that the means are “ok enough” given the importance of the ends, and so on. But dismissing the question of means out of hand will get us into all kinds of trouble– e.g,. with respect to civil liberties– yes?
i believe colonel mustard murdered the human spirit in the library with a book on darwinism.
eric, charity is insufficient, inefficient, and often comes with strings attached. I know that the libertarian fantasy world involves no altruism by the high and mighty, but life don’t work that way.
Blue Fielder –
As opposed to the smooth hum of mechanical perfection uniformly encountered in government operations?
Some times I think we’re mostly debating about what kinds of problems we want to have – since I think there will always be problems, until human beings learn perfect virtue.
BF seems to be answering my question at least indirectly.
Strings attached– yes, for better and sometimes for worse (compared to govt).
Inefficient? How so?
Insufficient? Probably so.
To clarify, I’m interested in the latter. If it was sufficient– in general or in any given context– is it better to take your money and give it to someone or for you to give it to them yourself (perhaps through a private agency)?
Any concern about means to agreed-upon ends– here or in general?
So what if it’s insufficient? The mere fact of one’s existence, after all, does not automatically entitle him to the means by which to continue that existence. If he can’t get it by his own hand, and he can’t convince others to give it to him, then tough for him. He’s not entitled to enslave others so he can live. You, sir, are quite depraved.
With every comment he posts, Kurt provides further proof that libertarianism has never been anything other than a pseudo-intellectual rationalization for being a sociopathic greedhead.
Kurt hasn’t talked about taking his money; he’s talked about those who take money. That sounds like a passion for justice and a condemnation of greed.
If my “Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar” based philosophy hasn’t misguided me, Justice is a virtue that combines truth and courage but lacks love. Ah, but I see my memory has misguided me — looking at the Wikipedia entry, it says that “Justice” is a combination of Truth & Love but lacks Courage. So much for my video game approach to learning ethics.
I’ve never thought of justice as lacking courage, but requiring it.
Justice also seems to imply action as one is able– as opposed to a mere emotion or sentiment. Olasky points out that “compassion” has changed from its original Latin “to suffer with”– a term that implied action– to its contemporary use as mere sentiment.
Under what conditions is using the govt to take money from some to give to others: just, courageous, and otherwise virtuous?
Perhaps framing the question a different way would help point toward an answer. How much of an individual’s wealth is attributable to the infrastructure provided by the government?
After all, if you have chronically hungry people — to take an example since we’re talking food stamps — rioting in the streets (if you have streets without government taxation and condemnation of property, etc. etc.), threatening to take your stuff to feed themselves, you aren’t going be able to build up a successful business in the first place, let alone hold on to your profits afterward.
Lack of streets will impede commerce. Lack of flood control will diminish what can be done with property. Lack of sewage, sanitation, and water treatment will dramatically increase disease.
Even if you go ahead and “steal” (to borrow from Kurt) money from people (via taxation) to pay for police protection, courts, and prisons, to prevent the people from stealing (in the more traditional sense) from one another, you’re either going to need a police state or it won’t be effective. People aren’t going to starve quietly.
As Anatole France famously said:
Under a system where taxation is not progressive and where property rights are strictly enforced but a social safety net is not put in place, power and money will tend to aggregate, I believe, in a Gilded Age fashion. Those with superior bargaining power will be able to leverage their advantage into monopoly control and structure contractual relationships such that their property rights are always preferred to other considerations. Eventually, the majority will come to see the law as being strictly a tool to benefit those with significant property interests, and that’s when things would fall apart.
The law only really works when most people obey it voluntarily. If you have to compel more than a fraction of the people to obey the law, the financial cost and the cost in civil liberties would be huge.
Kurt is making some compelling pro-choice arguments.
As the eminent twentieth-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved clearly and conclusively, selfish greed is the highest of virtues.
“How much of an individual’s wealth is attributable to the infrastructure provided by the government?”
Answer: None of it.
Governments provide nothing. Everything of value is provided by INDIVIDUALS, all of whom got their due when they were paid their wages or paid for the products that were purchased from them.
And no, the police are not a benefit either. Consider this scenario:
I have a lamp.
Someone comes in and steals it.
The police track him down and return the lamp to me.
I still have a lamp–so I’m no better off than I was before.
Canceling a negative is not the same as creating a positive; I should not be compelled to pay to prevent people from doing to me or my property something they have no legitimate right to do in the first place. That reeks of extortion, of a protection racket.
Paying for infrastructure and keeping order (either through carrots and sticks) is one thing. The amazing size of govt– or even the extent of food stamps– is another
No, but they both have value. Or, does the lamp cease to have value once it is stolen?
Do you propose that we just keep building new lamps each time one is stolen? Isn’t that extortion as well, just giving the money to a different person?
Or, how about we spent a lot of money with safes, guns, security systems, etc to prevent the lamp from being stolen? That money is also extortion.
Unless we invent mind-control to eliminate crime, we have these negatives. The decision is what we do to cancel them, not if we should or shouldn’t cancel them.
Kurt is still a Poe, and libertarianism is still a failure.
BF,
If charity was sufficient–- in general or in any given context–- is it better to take your money and give it to someone or for you to give it to them yourself (perhaps through a private agency)?
More broadly, do you have any concern about means to agreed-upon ends–- here or in general?
Kurt,
I’m pure evil, just ask my ex-wife.
The government created an economic environment that made it possible for individuals to succeed. Your opposition to paying to support that system is ultimately contradictory.
The “libertarian” ideas Kurt espouses are nothing more than Social Darwinism by another name. That idea lost credibility many decades ago when people started to realize that millions created the wealth but it was held by just the tens. Such gross wealth and income equality quickly erodes the liberal democracy Kurt claims to embrace.
Libertarianism allows for taxes in the name of “public goods”– e.g., infrastructure. Beyond that, one is on far shakier ethical and practical ground.
Aside from a positive theory of Libertarianism, there is still the negative question: When should you– ethically and practically– advocate using the force of govt against others? Torture, redistribution of income to the poor (or as is far more common, to the non-poor), smoking weed or tobacco, compulsory education laws, govt monopoly provision of education, etc.?
Enforcement of contracts?
eric, “force” is a favorite buzzword of you liartarians, but it means nothing. To you, anything that impinges upon your childlike view of the world is “force”. I refuse to waste my time with you or your ilk.
Doug, absolutely…Protect “property” rights with respect to murder, rape, theft, significant fraud, etc. You know the basic (Constitutional) list, right?
BF, use whatever terms you like. So far, you haven’t added anything to the discussion other than assertions and ad hominems. Are you representing your ilk well?
What does ‘contract’ mean? Doesn’t it mean any agreement, about anything,usually signed, but sometimes even with just oral agreement, and would be binding in a court of law? Theoretically, couldn’t any contract be judicable in court if someone is hoping for a judgment to their benefit? Maybe I’ve been watching too many of these judge TV shows,where a judge decides whether one person owes money to another on the care of a cat.
And could a fight over a cat be a ‘constitutional’ issue?
sign me, ‘no background in law'(anyone should feel free to ignore this post).
The basics of contract are “offer,” “acceptance,” and “consideration.” Offer & acceptance are reasonably clear. Consideration just means that each side is giving something — and it doesn’t have to be much, courts won’t typically go back and try to figure out whether someone actually got a reasonable deal when trying to figure out whether there was a contract.
The question of what damages are appropriate in the event of a breach can be much trickier.
But, at the end of the day, it’s an agreement between the parties that is enforceable through the courts — i.e. the government can be called upon to use force against the breaching party to make the contract good.
I believe libertarian thought does allow for government force to be used to allow one party to, for example, collect on the 25% interest obligation created by a contract. It doesn’t, on the other hand, much like force to be used to collect taxes used to pay for –to take an example– food stamps. The rationale, as I understand it, is that the person who agreed to the 25% interest chose to agree to it whereas the taxpayer didn’t choose to become obligated to pay those taxes.
The choice distinction can become a little bit specious. For some, the need to purchase necessities (food, shelter, etc.) and a lack of available resources make their “choice” largely illusory. A person entering into a contract under dire straights has less of a choice in the terms of the contract than a taxpayer has of remaining in the taxing jurisdiction.
Maybe I’m just burning down straw men here, though. I’ll let those with a firmer libertarian grounding speak for themselves.
“The government created an economic environment that made it possible for individuals to succeed.”
No, it didn’t. Individuals did, and they got their due when they got their wages.
“Libertarianism allows for taxes in the name of ‘public goods'”
No, it doesn’t.
“their ‘choice’ largely illusory.”
An individual is free to choose whether he wishes to live or die; neither is more privileged than the other.
“than a taxpayer has of remaining in the taxing jurisdiction. ”
My property is mine not by permission or privilege but by right. I am not obligated to abandon some of my property in order to avoid having other of my property taken from me; those who are taking any of my property at all are simply obligated to stop taking it from me.
If not by government, from whence comes this property right you speak of? Is the government obligated to assist in its protection?
If not, how much good does your right do you being coextensive with your personal ability to defend it?
If it’s helpful to on-lookers, Kurt is making arguments from within the anarchic wing of Libertarianism.
“from whence comes this property right you speak of?”
Objective moral principle.
“Is the government obligated to assist in its protection?”
Of course. That is the sole purpose of its existence. But the sanctity of my property is a natural right, not a mere privilege for which I am obligated to pay. To claim that I am obligated to pay in order to avoid having people doing to me something they have no business doing in the first place is little more than extortion or a protection racket.
“Kurt is making arguments from within the anarchic wing of Libertarianism.”
You, sir, are the anarchist. You are the one making the argument “A lot of us want it, and we’re going to make you pay for at least part of it whether you want to or not because there are more of us than there are of you, we’re stronger than you, and we can get away with it”–that, after all, is the essence of taxation, and THAT is anarchism.
Kurt, how will you pay for the govt you want to protect property rights? What if I don’t want to pay for that?
Most people don’t actually own their property. What about them?
“Kurt, how will you pay for the govt you want to protect property rights? What if I don’t want to pay for that?”
Several ways. Seizure of the assets of those duly convicted of bona fide crimes, for one–since violating an individual’s sacred natural rights involves the renunciation of one’s own humanity (and therefore his rights) and the proper punishment for violation of an individual’s sacred natural rights is lifetime imprisonment or execution, the criminal won’t be needing it any longer.
The government can also run business concerns, and use the profits to finance its own operations. Since there’d be no taxes to subsidize a poorly-run business, then as long as the government doesn’t legislate itself special privileges it’s no different than any other participant in the market.
And those two are just off the top of my head.
Well, this being a representative democracy and all, we’ve kind of decided that the government’s going to do more than just protect Kurt’s lamp. And so anyone who doesn’t like that can either get enough representatives to agree, pass a law, get it signed, and have it pass judicial review. Or they can just suck on the way it currently is.
It’s not up to Kurt, or Rand, to decide the “sole role” of THIS government. Now, the government they’ve dreamed up in their minds can have whatever role it wants. The role of the government I’ve dreamed up in my mind is to fluff my pillow and occasionally rub my feet. That’s just me, your fantasy government may differ somewhat. But this here government we have going on here now, in the real world, has many roles, many of which have been noted above.
The cost of running that system would easily outweigh the assets seized as recompense.
The govt can run business concerns? You’re kidding, right? Where does the govt get the assets required to establish such a venture? Where is the objective basis for the govt doing such things in your worldview?
So government can be an agent for the property owner by enforcing his rights, but those without property are left out in the cold.
So the wealthy, as they accumulate more wealth, become the only people with actual rights. This is exactly why Social Darwinism failed. It undermines popular sovereignty.
“Well, this being a representative democracy and all, we’ve kind of decided that the government’s going to do more than just protect Kurt’s lamp.”
It doesn’t work like that. The morally legitimate functions of government are independent of the form government takes. If the form of government allows for government to take actions it has no morally legitimate authority to do, then the form of government becomes illegitimate.
The form of government is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Stop fetishizing it. It’s irrelevant.
“but those without property are left out in the cold. ”
Is one’s person and his life not his own property? Please pay attention to what I’m actually saying.
Popular sovereignty is not a legitimate type of sovereignty anyway. The only legitimate sovereignty is individual sovereignty.
“But this here government we have going on here now, in the real world, has many roles, many of which have been noted above.”
Most of which are illegitimate, and must be stopped.
T said:
You’ve got a weak imagination, T. I’d be em brassed to list what my fantasy government does for me!
Re: individual sovereignty being the only legitimate form of sovereignty and roles that don’t serve individual sovereignty being illegitimate.
This begs the question of how legitimacy is conveyed. “Objective moral principle” doesn’t really answer the question. At least not without more explanation for a dim bulb such as myself. To me, those are just words shoved together. I understand what each means individually, but combined they remain a sort of word salad. I found this entry on moral objectivism.
In any case, I take an objective moral to be morality that is constant no matter the context and identifiable by any observer. That doesn’t tell me much about how to make the leap that individual sovereignty is the only legitimate kind.
And, to quibble a bit, “legitimate” means “in accord with the law.” Law comes from governments or, in the Constitutional sense, from “the People.” I know others refer to “natural law” — but near as I can figure, “natural law” essentially means “rules the speaker wishes were true.”
What is going on here? Some people are marvelous at hijacking threads for spouting their own agendas–real or phony.
I thought that the original post from Doug was something like this: There is a government program (food stamps) that Mitch and his Mighty Minions don’t believe in. The MMMs have neither the authority to get rid of it nor the courage to come out and say they don’t believe in said program. Therefore, they make an abundance of errors in distributing benefits,possibly in the hopes of discouraging applicants, and probably in the hopes of saying that under the Daniels administration, fewer people received food stamps.
The issue here is the dishonesty of the MMMs about their motives and the deliberate gaming of the system against the very people it is supposed to serve. If the governor doesn’t personally believe in government-run social welfare programs, that’s fine. Let him say so out loud for everyone to hear. What is not fine is using underhanded methods to sabotage existing programs.
It sounds like religion. These concepts, like government only having one legitimate function, sound like they’ve been revealed to Kurt by somebody. They’ve been revealed to be some unchanging truth and that’s that. To him, government should be extremely limited. Well, goody. So what. Someone said it, and he believes it.
In practice, however, governments end up being a way that individuals can accomplish those goals they may be incapable of accomplishing as individuals. People would rapidly tire of having to build their own roads, apprehend their own tormentors, spend time trying to figure out what the hell a foot, or a pound, or an ounce really is, regulate the quality of their own pharmaceuticals (or just believe the claims of the guy who comes to town to peddle them), etc.
I would ask, if there is only one legitimate role for the government, then when do people keep forming governments that do so much more?
T: To the libertarian, anything government does can be done by big business. In their minds, it’s more efficient, more fair, and better for everyone. In reality, it’s worse, thanks to the inerring greed of the few at the top. The mortgage crisis should’ve shown the whole world this.
Also, get out of my head, if you please.
T: Are you practising psychiatry now, or is BF fantacizing something that somehow includes you, your pillow or a good foot rub?
Yeah, I don’t know.
My first inclination was to say that my government should provide me with food, legal recreational drugs, live music, and a bevy of attractive women, as well as making sure my favorite sports teams always win the big games. But I didn’t want to come off sounding too needy.