Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin
The entire premise is, that somehow...the government is capable of providing every person's needs effectively and efficiently.
Actually, the premise is that the government is capable of providing for the needs of every person who is unable to meet those needs through private efforts. Government as supplementer and guaranteer, not primary provider.
ETA:
Massachusetts's relatively good state is due directly to the fiscally responsible attitude Mitt Romney brought to the state. He was a businessman, who ran the state like a business. Before he came in, the state had a serious deficit. When he left office, it had a surplus.
You mean like that liberal Bill Clinton -- before his work was undone by that conservative George W. Bush?
Texas has no state income tax.
And it would be interesting to see how well that would work for Texas if it weren't a state with a lot of natural resources like oil and if its demographics were different.
Meanwhile, for all that you enjoy talking about how Texas is doing well, bear in mind that its
personal per-capita income in 2007 was $37,187 -- making it 21st out of 51 (including the District of Columbia).
By contrast, that dirty hippie commune of Massachusetts had a personal per-capita income level of $49,082 -- making it 3rd in the nation.
I think I'd rather live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts than the State of Texas.
They had tort refrorm, etc.--and as a result, health care is far less "broken" than the average state system.
I for one have no problem with tort reform, provided it doesn't go so far as to deny a means of recompense when patients
are the victims of malpractice.
But I'm curious...what do you think is the explanation for the prosperity of Texas?
As I just noted, I'm not convinced it's quite the wealthy paradise you're painting.
Having said that, I think that the presence of oil simply cannot be underestimated in making an otherwise poor polity comparatively wealthy. Goodness knows Venezuela and Saudi Arabia would be far less important in world politics were it not for their oil.
We classical economists have a saying:
1. You're an economist, now? A few weeks ago, you told me you were a 19-year-old just starting on his Political Science B.A.
2. Your views are more akin to Friedmanism than classical economics proper.
"Capitalism is the unequal 'distribution' of wealth.
Statism is the equal distribution of...poverty."
Nonsense. In a country where
1% of the population owns 34.6% of privately-held wealth, the next 19% of the population owns 50.5% of the wealth, and the remaining
80% of the population owns only 15% of private wealth? Capitalism is the lopsided distribution of poverty.
Is the free market absolutely perfect? No.
That 80% having to share 15% of the wealth amongst themselves almost certainly agrees with you.
"But Rush, but Rush--what about those who honestly can't work their own way?"
Well...that's what private charities are for.
Someone else once argued that he shouldn't be obligated to help the poor.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides—excuse me—I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
Certainly, private charities are important. But to imply that they can end poverty is just absurd.
Quite frankly, The Red Cross and The Salvation Army are far more efficient and far more succesful than anything the state can come up with
When I was growing up and my mother couldn't find work, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army didn't pay for our food. When I needed a primary and secondary education, the Red Cross and Salvation Army didn't pay for my schooling. When we needed help paying for school lunches, it wasn't the Red Cross or Salvation Army that paid for my meals. When my grandparents were in need of funding to pay for large medical expenses, the Red Cross and Salvation Army didn't pay for their lifesaving drugs. When I went to university, the Red Cross and Salvation Army didn't pay for my tuition.
The government got us through all of that.
That's not to disparage them. When we suffered a fire, the Salvation Army was an
enormous help. So was the government. They're important parts of society with important roles to play.
But they simply aren't as able to help people as the government is.
As private charities have a limited, non-guaranteed supply of income, they have to make sure that every dollar counts, and that nothing is wasted on red tape.
Actually, plenty of private organizations spend more money on bureaucratic costs -- aka, "red tape" -- than government programs. Most insurance companies, for instance, spend far more on administrative costs than Medicare.
They also have to make sure that the people they help are legit, and not mooching "welfare queens/kings" who are just trying to exploit the compassion of the people
As someone whose mother was forced out of unemployment benefits in a time of need because of a
prior time of need, let me assure that the government makes an effort (I would argue an overzealous one) to weed out the people who are "mooching."
