What social programs should a government provide?

What type of social programs do you think a government should provide to the people. For example; education, healthcare, welfare...

 

Holy cow. How did I miss this one?

The answer is none. The market and charity should provide social programs.

The government has to steal (tax) under threat of violence (incarceration) to pay for social programs. I cannot reconcile how (sic) free education or medicine justifies violence or theft.

And I know people will argue for it, but it is theft and violence nonetheless. Any tax which is not voluntary is collected under coercion. And until the social spenders can address the moral right to steal or coerce, then I can't see any meaningful argument for social programs being managed by government, instead of the market or charity.

 

Police, courts, roads and national defense.

 

I disagree with roads.

 

Some of this was touched on in another thread, with at least one member arguing for the replacement of police, fire and other community public services by for-profit, private entrepreneurs (and following pages). In day to day life, there are nearly countless things provided for publically that we take for granted, and are best paid for in common, I would say. Off the top, very off the top, I would say police, fire and county medical services, locally, as well as roads and other in-common goods. Nationally, defense and some form of workable healthcare solution. Again, only a cursory view.

 

We could form our own militia so we wouldn't need police and national defense.

 

My .50 cal flintlock is primed and ready. Are the brits coming again?

 

I believe that was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I forget where I am getting this from, but I am fairly certain the Founders were not for a standing army. They believed it would be a tool of oppression.

And as evidenced by the wars, wealth destruction and redistribution of the last 100 years under the FED, they were probably right.

As far as roads, they are very tricky because to have roads, you must have eminent domain IMO. Not to mention all of the abuses of meddling in interstate commerce.

Private turnpikes were not abnormal as the country developed in the 19th century. I see no reason why such a model couldn't be considered and revised today. Certainly roads could be under state and municipal control, not at the federal level.

 

And I am 100% behind you with this one. I hate government social programs. I am a firm believer in leaving that to the people.

 

The United States Constitution provides for the "right" of the state to exert eminent domain:

I'm not cool with it; on the other hand, what does one do with finite resources, such as a growing population, and the need for adequate public schooling for citizens' children? Difficult dilemma. Regardless, it is constitutionally provided for, and any literalist cannot claim to accept the constitution in the parts that suit only.

 

First I'd ask what level of government you're talking about. The farther out the center of power I think the less they have a mandate with mundane affairs and moreso with the higher ideals of equality and human rights. If the U.N. wants to condemn wars and torture that's fine but they don't need their own army to go running around enforcing their way. Its like an information clearinghouse.

A federal government is a trade/defense pact and should be left as such. northpoint I agree eminent domain is outlined, but it is also in the framework of Congress' explicit powers. This public use of land would specifically be related to trade infrastructure like roads and ports, or military infrastructure like forts and ammo holds. Post offices are also mentioned specifically. Again, as a higher level, the federal government should be less concerned with micro-management and more on preventing the states from passing laws that are prejudiced or infringe on basic human rights.

States and municipalities are effective managers of public life and community infrastructure. They are more aligned with local norms and most effective in translating democratic will into existence.

Ultimately, defense is in your hands as the individual. The original concept of a militia is the entire able-bodied population of an area. Congressional military expenditures must not exceed two years, the intent being that an American professional military would be a temporary creature created out of emergencies.

 

I don't consider national defense a "social program" of course, but that's obviously one major aspect the government is there for.

Some more things I'm in favor of the Gov't providing:

Police, Courts, Roads, Schooling, Post Office, Health Care, Emergency Relief.

That's just some, I'm sure there are many more I'm forgetting. I think there's a great place for the government in our lives - It shouldn't be in telling people what they can't do in their personal life (I believe in civil liberties 100% although some will say since I support gun control that means I don't believe in civil liberties 100% - I think that's just a disagreement about what civil liberties means) but instead it should be there for basic necessities - to give all people a fair shot at success in life.

 

So you advocate the government taking money by force from the working class, and redistributing it to the poor and the wealthy?

And you advocate the deficit spending that social programs entail, which means inflation, and a lower living standard for the poor, the very people such social programs claim to help?

I just want to know if you believe that it is moral to take from others under threat of violence. Is that what constitutes a civil society for you?

 

#1 --- I do not believe in redistributing money to the wealthy. I think corporate welfare should be stopped. Poor folks welfare on the other hand - well I think there's a place for that. I do not think the system is necessarily ran the best it can be, but I do think there's a place for it.

#2 I do not think you need deficit spending to provide social programs. I think that's a GOP talking point - not reality. I believe in cutting the military budget significantly and spending that money on social programs and alternative energy development instead.

#3 Yes I think taxes are "moral." I don't really see the connection, that's where you libertarian folks lose me - I just don't agree with Dr. Paul that's there's no difference between civil liberties and financial liberties. Just flat out don't agree with it. I can see the idealism behind it but in the end I think you end up with a real sick society if you treat wealth as if it is liberty.

 

There is a place for theft and violence? There is a place for extorting a man of the fruits of his labor? Oh really?

Then why did FDR fund the New Deal with deficit spending? Why is every war funded with deficit spending? Why are our entitlements going to bankrupt this country in the next 20 years? If I gave you an article, and promised to leave you alone forever if you read it, would you read it?

You have to understand that without the right to own property, you cannot be free. If you cannot own your own shelter, your own clothes, transportation, land and/or food, then how can you be free? You cannot sustain yourself. In this regard, you are little more than a slave.

As far as morality, that which is given freely, is charity. That which is taken by force or threat of force, is extortion or theft. Are taxes taken freely, or by coercion?

Forget idealism. Why not actually do some research, and understand that the notion of economic freedom is a true liberal ideal, part of classic liberalism?

If you truly understood how taxes enable deficits, which enable inflation, which destroys the middle class, and removes upward mobility, creating total dependence on the state by the lower class, and eventually becoming a tyranny (numerous examples in history) then you wouldn't be a fan of taxes.

But you prefer not to learn, or have the discussion. It's almost like you're concerned you might hear a compelling argument and have to re-evaluate what you believe in.

Your call re: my offer above.

 

How would k-12 work without government paying for education?

Not being argumentative, I'm actually curious, I've heard this talked about before but didn't understand it.

Would it be like the college system and only those of wealth or greater than average intelligence that can earn scholarships being able to attend?

Would truancy laws be abolished? What kind of costs would parents be looking at? Would it be no more than what they pay for it in taxes?

 

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor and middle class, is how it's done here.

 

The smoke and mirrors is how you define middle class?

 

What is middle class?

 

There is a wonderful quote to which I was recently reintroducted about one of the underlying fundamental principals from the constitution. Its application within society is very widespread, and as appropriate in the time of the development of the nation as it is today. It relates to government's role:

Government as a representative of society as a whole, operates at its best when it establishes checks and balances so one element of government can't take control.

Similarly the populace, its representatives, its votes, its typical division everywhere between local entities and larger entities should serve as a check against the ambition or overreaching actions of government and government can serve as the check against the overreaching ambition of individuals or groups established through physical or military power or financial means.

Maintaining this balance creates greater levels of freedoms for all by blocking the ambition and power that arises, no matter what the source.

To operate government requires money. Taxes are a part of the process of participating in society and maintaining a govt that can block the ambition of groups or anyone individual.

What should government provide as part of this social contract?

Legal protections= a legal and court system and all its support. Enforcement capabilities for those legal protections = police and penalty capabilities.

To provide for the overall health of a society I see big benefits to the entire population through forms of income redistribution in taxing and then helping those that are less well off for countless reasons.

Creating an education system works dramatically well to create skill and talent that enrich society. Take a look at wealthy versus poorer nations. Take a look at nations with few resources but lots of education. Far more productivity comes out of better educated societies. Even where industry creates wealth through cheap labor, it is the meshing of education and technical skills that can organize the labor to end up being productive and profitable. Education followed by opportunity creates avenues where skill, drive, dedication, and focus can create greater wealth.

Protecting the environment. In the modern world, any entity can despoil the environment that can impact thousands or millions around them. In the US we live in a nation that has already addressed this situation. It is far more in control than in China. Anyone who has seen China over a 2 decade period has seen the incredible change in the Chinese environment. Much of it is misearably filthy and dangerous. Only now, China is working to undue the dangerous impacts on millions from uncontrolled growth and industrial development without any environmental controls.

The impact on the environment is one where the impacts of one, or the impact of industry can drastically and negatively impact immense numbers.

Govt, in representation of the larger society can step in to weigh and balance these impacts.

National defense.

The health and welfare of the poorer, older, etc.

I believe societies make big gains when able to address these issues. They clearly arose in the 20th century around the world through various nations.

At the extremes this is seen as an all or nothing question. In most modern and wealthy societies government has stepped in, where possible to establish social nets to assist those that are less well off.

In my belief, it is a statement of the greatness and strength of a society if it tackles and addresses these issues.

Again its administration is difficult and subject to change over time. Its application enriches society IMV.

Government, with family, organized religeon, organizations, work environments are the elements that articulate the dynamics of life that represent how humans interact within society. It is the richness of the interactivity of people that expand the human condition.