When researching other topics, I came across this interesting quote from FDR's 1937 inaugural speech:


Full text of speech

Do you agree with FDR that as civilization and human relationships become more complex, that the power of the government to solve problems for individuals must also increase?

Is this an appropriate justification for the increase in the scope of government?

Great topic.

Short answers: yes then no.

Long answer... I think that the first question has only one answer. The fact is that our lives are infinitely more complex than those of our ancestors; at least in terms of interactions. The fact is that we interact with hundreds of people (directly and indirectly) every day, whereas in the past this was largely not the case. More importantly, as the "private sphere" shrinks, as a result of factors ranging from technology to just sheer population increases, we NEED more protection of those remaining private areas in our lives.

On top of all these changes comes the fact that government CAN do so much more. When the Constitution was written, communications travelled by letter, wealth was measured more by property than by incomes, and something as simple as securing a passport would have taken months and cost a sizeable amount of money (had the existed at the time.) To presume that we should apply the same rules to an entirely different game flies in the face of all logic, as far as I am concerned.

Which of course brings us to the second question. As I said before, no. Government should not be framed in the terms of ancient political treatises, which have aged with all the grace and dignity of Leonard Whiting. At the same time, the reasons underlying the way the rules have changed are no more appropriate. Most government expansion has occured for one of two reasons, to be able to wage war or to finance political ambitions. Needless to say, I think this is wrong.

Do you agree with FDR's that as civilization and human relationships become more complex, that the power of the government to solve problems for individuals must also increase?

I tend to look at this from a different angle. Our live are more complex, however, our education is also far better and our resources are immeasurably improved.

For example: We do have more ways to get ripped off, but we also have many more ways to research things in advance to prevent being ripped off.

In my opinion, our lives have become more complex, but we have become more knowledgable and capable as a result. There are more then enough tools in many areas that we can use on our own to be better informed and to protect ourselves (many of them are even free). As a result I think FDR's agreement is exactly 180 degrees off.

We have LESS need for government interference today then we had in FDR's time.

That is not to say that there is not a place for the government to improve things (though the governments track record on "Improving" things is horrible). It is just that we really need to look at all the options available outside of the government before we go running to them. The reason is simple, once you run TO them, you can never run AWAY from them, EVER.

Best example: Internet porn and the like and the accessability of it by Children.

Did the government ever resolve this issue? Nope. Who did? The private sector. Enterprising programmers saw a market and created programs and services to block access to these type of things for the parents out there who wanted a way to control what their kids could see on the net (and didn't want to watch what their kids did on the net first hand). It solved the problems for millions of parents (unless they stop updating the software packages) and it resulted in a ton of revenue for several companies, not to mention jobs for 100s of Americans if not 1000s.

Would the government solution have come close to this result? No (though it would have probably employed 100s if not 1000s while it failed). Would the government solution have addressed even a majority of the problem considering the government has no power over foreign countries/citizens/companies, and the revenues of porn sites and the like are so high, operations in the US would have surely moved off-shore to continue making that money without issue? Obviously No.

The government is the solution in some areas, but many, many issues can be better addressed by the private sector. More importantly, when a effort to solve a problem fails in the private sector it ends. when a effort to solve a problem using the government fails, It spawns lobbiest and then gets increased budgets, personnel, and resources, forever. And the people paying the bill for that failure are all of us.

Obviously my answer to the second question would be NO.

I remember former President of China, Jiang Zemin, making a similar argument in justifying communist rule over China's large population. Here is the interview:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/09/china.jia...ranscript1.html

To what end does FDR's comments lead us to? If a one party totalitarian state is necessary to govern large complex civilizations, then God help us all.

Do you agree with FDR that as civilization and human relationships become more complex, that the power of the government to solve problems for individuals must also increase?

No, absolutely not. Consider the simple fact that a good deal of the complexity comes from the government. Also, I would like for someone to explain to me exactly how an ever larger bureaucratic entity, with the inherent corruption it will surely bring, could possibly simplify anything? Further, the larger the government gets, the farther it gets from individuals--thereby reducing its power to help them with anything. So, if you agree with the premise, the only logical governmental solution would be for it to be localized as much as possible, not made larger and more centralized.

Is this an appropriate justification for the increase in the scope of government? For those who benefit from it, it surely makes works for them. But, for those it is actually supposed to help, the answer could only be a resounding NO! In short, increasing bureacracy is never the solution to anything.

This ties in with some of the questions I asked in other threads regarding the creation and rise in income taxes (which is where the funding for this evergrowing bureacracy comes from). Since first implemented on a permanent basis, the income tax has increased some 3300%. Yet, we still have the same basic problems now that we did then. Obviously, then, history is clearly showing us that increasing the size of government is not providing the solution

First question may be attributed to the rise of McCarthyism. It sure sounds like the words fell from someone admiring socialism.

For the second question, the larger government gets the more freedom you give up along with the money to finance it. If large entitlement programs are a good thing then why shouldn’t everyone just give all their money to the government and let the government give back what they don’t need?

Government should reduce its size to the point of national security and protection of basic constitutional rights inside of the beltway. The states should have the power and both state and federal should protect constitutional freedoms from criminals foreign and domestic.

State and federal government should be operated under common law as intended by the constitution. Roman Civil judges on the Supreme Court establishing law the people did not create or judge was not the intent of the US Constitution, the Roman Civil Law was a failed system. Every judgment the Supreme Court makes that affects citizens that did not originate at state or federal level should be placed to vote in congress and passed up or down form “Roe v. Wade to Separation of Church and State”, for it is not constitutional law it is judicial interpretation creating law that formerly didn’t exist, Roman Cival Law.

My personal opinion is: No, not at all. Nevertheless, this illustrates a subject I have been working on lately.

I have done extensive work in analysing the fundamental difference between the American approach to the structure of society and the European approach. For historical reasons much too long to develop here, they are fundamentally different. In a nutshell, though, because of centuries of monarchy where responsibility for society is firmly in the hands of the king (or emperor, or whatever monarch happens to be there), Europeans have a fundamentally vertical conception of society. It is up to the government to make things work right. (There are of course plenty of individual exceptions, but this is a clear general tendency.) Americans, however, have a fundamentally democratic approach to society: The people should run things themselves. (Again, there are plenty of exceptions, but that is the clear tendency, especially during the first century of our existence as a nation.) Europeans tend to be "democratic" only in the sense of being able to elect their leaders. After that, it is the government, not the people, that is in charge.

I have long maintained that FDR was one of those chiefly responsible for introducing the European concept to America. To say that government ought to solve people's problems for them is quite a confirmation of that.

Needless to say, I am a firm believer in the American approach. The longer I have lived in Europe, the more I have become convinced of that approach. Government exists only to deal with those issues that individual citizens cannot handle themselves, such as national defense. It does not and should not have the responsibility of solving people's problems for it. A society in which the general populace is concerned with taking care of itself will always be more vigorous, and more effective in the long run, than a society in which people depend on the government to deal with their problems for them.

This is a fabulous topic.

The first thought that comes to mind is communism. Let me paint this picture for you: As power increases the government as corrupt as it is would merely take total control and use the "complexity of the civilization" in their control as an excuse to seize total power. If we lived by these rules we would all be communist/ socialist governments. Everything we would do would be monitored and controlled by the government, What we eat, What we do for a living. I mean they would take everything.

I definately think the government has a role, but the world need is not really what should be used. The government is needed for some things, such as infrastructure, national defense, many agricultural support services, etc. In other cases it just makes the situation better.

Government policies should be judged on a cost-benefit analysis, not on whether they are "needed" or provide services that could theoretically be provided by another segment of society.

I think a principle to live by is that you should act based on what other people do do, not what they could or should do. In the same way, when you are voting for or against a given policy. If civil society is not doing it, and it is a good thing to be done, vote for the policy.

It is also a misconception that a larger role of government would mean more bureaucracy. Single-payer health care reduces overhead costs.

Government has helped solve problems in the past, for example poverty. There is evidence from the international level, in that Europe has less poverty than the United States, to the inter-city level, in that single mothers living in cities with higher welfare benefits such as Chicago and Boston have higher levels of material hardship than single mothers living in cities with lower benefits, such as Charleston and San Antonio.

It doesn't occur to me that there must be a link between the complexity of a society, and the power of the government (compared to the power of the individual).

There are societies simpler than ours where the government has much more power over individuals, right? If our society is more complex than, let's say, a village in Afghanistan, then a link between complexity and power would suggest that . . . what? What does it suggest?

This, I must say, is scary.

We must remember that the government is an institution of force. We must also remember that the only justufiable use of force is in retaliation to unjustified use of force. Force cannot be justified simply by saying "It's a good thing to be done."

"Good" is a subjective term. Religious zealots think it would be good if there were no atheists. Adolf Hitler thought that it would be a good thing to kill all the Jews. The Southerners thought it was a good thing to enslave the blacks. The list goes on and on.

If a free society doesn't do something, and the government forces them to do it, then the government is acting on the basis of what people should do. It is impractical for the government to dictate how people should dress or talk or spend their money - this diverts the police from doing their real job, protecting us from murderers and thieves.

I am new here and this is my first reply in a thread.

I have never understood why there is so much debate over the role of government in the United States. The Constitution of 1787 clearly outlines the role of the US Federal government. The powers are enumerated in the document. Any powers not granted to the Federal Government are powers of the several states.

Most of what the Federal government does is not constitutional.

The role of government, especially the national government, should be minimal and limited. That was the intention of the founders.

The Bill of Rights limit the national government. They do not empower it.

For example, the national government has no role in separating Church and State. In fact, it is the opposite. Congress shall make no law respecting as established religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

Separation is not even mentioned. In fact, Massachusetts had an established church at the time the Bill of Rights were passed. That was protected by the 1st Amendment. Religion was (and is) a state issue. Massachusetts finally ended its established church in the 19th Century.

I remind you of the following: The US Supreme Court thought it was okay to enslave blacks, not southerners. To be sure, most slaves were held in the south, however not all. Your statement was completely wrong. In 1825, 65% of all anti-slave society membership was in southern states.

Religion is a state issue? Now I'm really scared.

Religious freedom means that religion is an individual issue. When the government dictates religion, it corrupts religion. Religion is based on faith, not force.

As for the separation of Church & State, the Constitution does not include that exact wording, but it does state three things:

> Government can't make a law respecting a religious establisment.
> Government can't outlaw or discourage certain religions (unless they're violent.)
> Religion cannot be made a requirement for public office.

The first two are in the First amendment, and they are reenforced by the Ninth amendment. The third is in the original constitution, in the section where it talks about oaths/affirmations.

There are some aspects of the separation that are misconceptions forwarded by extremists, however. The biggest one is:

> It is unconstitutional for politicians to be religious.

I'm an agnostic and even I know that's a fat lie.

I remember libertarians claiming that, but I don't remember agreeing with them.



They think it is good, but they are wrong. Do you not agree that they are wrong? They are not "subjectively right" or any such nonsense - the holocaust was just plain wrong.

I am going to vote for, advocate, and push for a government which enforces what I think is right. It only makes sense for other people to do so as well. If you don't do this, then why do you even have a morality? There is nothing inherently wrong with imposing things on people based on your morals. It is only wrong to impose bad things on them.

Furthermore, if all morality is subjective, does this not also apply to the moral claim that it is wrong to use force unless it is "in retaliation to unjustified use of force"? Doesn't it also apply to the moral code which is used to determine what "unjustified use of force" even is?

You also want to force your morality on society. You want to prevent people from initiating use of force. This is one of your highest morals, so it is what you advocate and push for in government. I have different values (I value human life and human well-being more than I value lack of initiation of force) so I work for different policies.



OK, I should probably clarify what I meant originally. You should not act in a way that assumes people are doing what they should be doing. You should act in a way that assumes people are doing what they actually are doing. Therefore you should not say that the government shouldn't do X because civil society should do it, because civil society isn't doing it.



OK, this is slightly different. I would say that the government should enforce what is right as long as it is practical to do so. The government should try to achieve the maximum net good. If it is forcing people to wear certain kinds of clothes and this causes more murders, then net good is decreased, so the government should focus on murdering. I don't think that it is worth it to dictate how people should dress or talk, but I think it can be quite worth it to change how people spend their money.

It is not up to us to decide what is constitional. That is the job of the supreme court. I think the supreme court has given the government a wide area under which to operate. We have the choice of a very limited government, or we could have a moral interventionalist government. It seems like the supreme court will allow both. The debate, therefore, is whether we should have the most minimal state the constitutional allows, or have some interventions, and if so which ones. Obviously ones which are likely to be struck down by the SC would be harder to pass, but there is still much room for debate.



Why should I care what they thought?

I have an even shorter answer: No.

I must agree with Asyncritus here, who said that government should do only the things that private people or groups cannot do themselves. He mentioned defense. I would add several things: dispassionate criminal pursuit and prosecution; foreign relations; coinage of money; enforcement of contracts. Plus a few others. But not many.

And I agree with the original Framers, one of whom wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the purpose of government is to defend our rights. Guess what: that's its ONLY purpose.

Giving government the power to solve our ordinary problems, is a HUGE mistake, because it discards all limits to that governmental power.

Paradoxically, government knew that too... or at least the Supreme Court did, until the mid-1930s. At that time, FDR started smearing and badgering the Supremes until they finally started reversing their own previous rulings and allowing FDR's agenda to stand as though it were constitutional... an agenda based on the quote you made at the beginning of the thread.

The turning point was the case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. In it, in a 5-4 decision in which Chief Justice Hughes reversed his previous stance and sided with the solve-all-problems side, the Court invented a new definition of "liberty". Until then it had meant "freedom from government interference and coercion", basically. But in this landmark case, the Court announced that "liberty" now included the right to be free from the ordinary problems of life. And since government was supposed to defend our "liberty", this new ruling gave the government the authority to solve literally any problem we might have. Government began exploding at an exponential rate after that ruling, and has seldom looked back.

Granted, right then there were a LOT of problems - we were in the middle of the Great Depression. But as some of the (scathingly) dissenting justices pointed out, "Events don't change constitutions", and nothing in the Constitution gave the Fed anything like such a broad authority. But those justices were now in the minority in the decision, and the rest is history.

You should read some of the dissenting opinions in this case. I didn't know SC Justices could talk like that, though they couched it in fairly civilized terms. But they made it clear that the majority was violating the most basic tenet of American liberty with this decision.

FDR's statement about government "helping" us with our problems, was flat wrong. Then and now. But he rammed it through the Supreme Court, and American government hasn't been the same since.

First of all, what are these "rights" that the government defends? Second of all, why should one agree that it is government's only purpose?



Constitutional restrictions, checks and balances, and all that are good things, but you can't say that just because government interferes beyond the bubble you think it belongs in that the whole constitution is thrown out the window.

How is force justified, then?

Do you just bludgeon somebody because you fell like it? Do you launch crusades because God told you to? Do you confine yourself to the "either capitalism or socialism" mentality and focus on how capitalism is bad?



If you think these things, then you make the same error as the religious rightist. The error is "Law is morality." Anyone with half a brain can separate what is legal from what is moral.



My claim is an ethical claim, not a moral claim. Ethics has to do with means and ends. Morality has to do with right and wrong.

The Christian Fascist and the Christian Libertarian have different ethics, but same moralities. The Atheist Libertarian and Christian Libertarian have different moralities, but same ethics.



The maximum net good can only be achieved by allowing the maximum net liberty - that is, equal liberty for all individuals. Preferences vary between individuals, and good is based on preference. Individuals make choices based on their preferences. The more liberty there is, the more choices there are, so the more individuals can pursue happiness.

Force is the enemy of liberty. Therefore, society must organize in such a manner that the agencies of force are perpetually locked in a stalemate, and thus liberty can thrive. That is what the State is for.

It is not up to us to decide what is constitional. That is the job of the supreme court. I think the supreme court has given the government a wide area under which to operate. .


----------------------

I just read Article III of the Constitution and I just don't see where it states that the Supreme Court decides what is and is not constitutional. Obviously it does do that, but it isn't in the Article that creates the Judicial Branch.

It is up to us to decide what is and is not constitutional. First we can read the instrument itself. Secondly, in this country, ultimately the people are the government.

Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison asserted that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter on constitutional issues. However in doing so, the Court assumed powers not delegated to it.

Article III of the 1787 Constitution creates a final court of appeal roughly analogous to the Law Lords in the House of Lords in Britain.

Congress has the power to alter the Supreme Court's structure at any time. For example, it has sometimes allowed for more than 9 Justices.

Force is justified when it is likely to achieve net good consequences



Not, that is not likely to achieve net good consequences.



If you think God is telling you to slaugher people and start a war to get a piece of land, you should reconsider whether that is really God who is talking to you.



No... The market has its place, as does government.



Obviously. But your morality should determine what law is. The best law is one that produces net good consequences.

That doesn't necessarily mean you should always follow the best law though. For example, it is good to have a law against stealing, but you should steal in order to feed a starving person if it is your only option. If we allowed stealing, however, people would steal for many more reasons than this.



Explain it a bit more. I thought ethics had to do with right and wrong too.

The Christian Fascist and the Christian Libertarian have different ethics, but same moralities. The Atheist Libertarian and Christian Libertarian have different moralities, but same ethics.



But what if the choices of certain individuals hurt other individuals (or in other words, go against their preferences)? Isn't it good to make a law against murder, for example?

I know you are going to say that freedom is good except the freedom to initiate use of force, so that brings me to economics. Isn't the freedom of the rich person to spend his money on luxury hurting the starving African who could be eating food bought with that money? Wouldn't it produce net good to feed the starving African?

I don't know. If I thought a given policy was good but it seemed unconstitutional to me, I would vote for it and leave it to the supreme court to decide. My not voting for the law because it is unconstitutional is not going to prevent someone else from voting for a bad law that seems unconstitutional.

Imagine yourself as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. A mayor of a city has shut down a newspaper who doesn't support him. He's thrown the publisher in jail.

The publisher has appealed to you for release. The mayor claims authority. After all, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." He's not Congress, and the Constitution doesn't apply to him.

The publisher cites the Fourteenth Amendment. He brings to your view the writings of the founders and what they intended. On and on it goes.

What do you do? In whose favor do you decide? On what basis?

It's not an easy task, figuring out what our Constitution allows and prohibits. How else to explain why so many decisions at the court are decided 5 - 4? Nine of the finest jurists in the country can't agree on what the Constitution means.

And you can?

Great! Let's then dispense with the Supreme Court. Let's get rid of the silly notion of separation of powers. After all 'separation of powers' is mentioned in the Constitution, now is it?

Heck, let's throw away Article III while we're at it.

Do you agree with FDR that as civilization and human relationships become more complex, that the power of the government to solve problems for individuals must also increase?

Is this an appropriate justification for the increase in the scope of government?

Yep, this makes sense if one reads the entire speech and keeps in mind the changes that went on in this country between the '29 Wall Street crash and the beginning of WW II.

FDR wasn't talking about justifications. He was talking about what needed to be done in the first term, and that much of what he wanted to happen came about. He was elected to a third term, so it looks like what he talked about in this speech was agreed upon among the population of that time.

To us this might smack of communism or Great Society. Just remember that Russia was our ally in WW II, and Lyndon Johnson had not become President. The communist party in 1930s era America was not an evil thing yet. McArthy had not begun his witch hunt.

Meanwhile, people in general were pulling out of The Great Depression. I think it's important to keep all this in mind when doing analysis of FDR's speech. Are the ideas in the speech relevant to today's political debates?

Yeah, I can see that. One political party is trying to grab all the power. One political party is trying to undo what FDR did. One political party is trying to get Hardy-like policies back in place, trying to turn back the clock. Meanwhile, government still gets bigger; debt gets deeper; budgets get cut -- on social spending. Power and influence keep going up.

Justification? There's only one that I see in this speech:

While focusing on the "power" of government and how it allegedly has expanded into our daily lives we seldom take notice of how much this is true in practice.

I think, that for most people, the government, especially the federal government, is a pretty abstract entity. Our only frequent contact is with the tax system or perhaps a government agency that provides social services if you are eligible.

On the other hand, almost everything in our daily lives is affected by our employer.
What our lifestyle is like, where we live, when we work, what kind of benefits we get and our prospects for a secure old age. Does the average worker have any control over any of these factors? At least with the government you can vote for a change, and sometimes it happens. When was the last time you got to vote on your employers policies?

How come we don't see discussions about the loss of liberty due to the concentration of corporate power?

Perhaps all the anti-government rhetoric is just a distraction

Let's not de-rail the thread by throwing in a red herring... In a nutshell, however, you "vote" on your employers policies by choosing to work there. When I was employed by a tyrant (truly, the worst sort of owner of a company) I "voted" by leaving that job for another. Those that limit their choices by choosing to work for an undesirable employer are simply hurting themselves. I won't accept some "company store" type scenario where the employer has its employees in a position where they do not have the option of leaving...that option is always available. It may not be easy, but those who lie down and take it are making a choice: namely, that the hassle of finding a better job outweighs the desire to escape an onerous employer.

The government in NOT an abstract entity. It affects many aspects of our lives and is simply overlooked because it is so omnipresent.

You mention taxes as if it is some footnote entry. The fact that the government takes (off the top) around 15% of everyone's salary (in payroll taxes) definitely affects the economic status of everyone in America. The government makes rules about so many facets of life, that they are literally uncountable: do the taillights on your car work? do you have car insurance? did you get the proper permit to build an addition on your house? did you save your money in the proper way (IRA, 401(k) )? did you send your kids to school this morning? did you smoke in the appropriate area? did you litter afterwards? did you buy gas today--and pay the proper tax?

The government has so many powers today, over so many aspects of our lives, that the Founding Fathers would not recognize the level of bureaucracy we have created as the nation they founded. They envisioned a limited Representative Republic and what they ended up with is a bureaucracy that controls 20-25% of the country's GDP (thank good we aren't Europe, where the government controls a much greater share of the GDP). The government is the country's largest employer (by far).

The founders of this country never envisioned a government that would solve the day-to-day problems of the people. Now, we see a shift to the FDR model:



Instinctively we recognize the need for a third party to solve our problems? I certainly don't see that "instinctively". Allowing another to solve your problems robs you of personal freedom, especially once the government-sanctioned "solution" becomes mandatory (Social Security is an example).

That being said, the intentions of government are not always bad. It is the Law of Unintended Consequences that tends to trip up government programs. The fact that the government is willing to help out certain groups of people makes those groups larger, not smaller. The willingness of government to solve problems (by force, if need be) makes the individual less likely to come up with his or her own solution.

I disagree. That is far too broad and nebulous a principle, since your version of "good" might not match mine.

For instance, I think it would be good for one certain political party to lose every election it's in for the next fifty years. The only way I can positively ensure it will happen, is to steal the ballot boxes from every precinct likely to vote for that party, in the election. That's using force, and may discomfit some people, but in my opinion it would result in more good than harm. Does that make it OK to do it?

Obviously, it doesn't.

May I suggest an alternate philosophy? Force is justified when used against those who violate people's fundamental rights. Some of these are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, of course, and others in the Constitution and its amendments. And both documents say, or at least imply, that the rights they name aren't the only rights people have - there are others. And the force is justified only when other reasonable means have been tried and exhausted - negotiation, etc.

If someone accidentally hurts you, he can be negotiated with to pay your doctor bills, time off work etc. If he refuses to cooperate with such measures, then force can and should be used, as prescribed by a legal court. Perhaps a simple garnishment of his wages is sufficient - that's a mild use of force. If not sufficient, then stronger means can be used.

If someone hurts you and it wasn't accidental, then the above can be done for restitution, plus an additional measure since he deliberately violated your rights. Jail time, extensive fines, or if it's a really extreme case (he killed you and your wife with premeditation), possibly even the death penalty if a court sees fit.

In all cases the degree of force needed, must be decided as dispassionately as possible, since force can be easily abused if not strictly controlled. In this country we have found the the court system is the least hazardous way of deciding what force to use, though it is not a perfect way. As long as imperfect humans are in charge, there will be no perfect ways.

Force should be used to redress the violation of someone's rights... rights which have been clearly defined beforehand, with penalty ranges spelled out in advance. This is a method of agreeing in advance, what "good" is. Hopefully it will allow "good" to be served, though as I said it's still not perfect.

Why does that matter? I'm talking about when I think force is justified, not when you think force is justified. I am not suggesting making this a law here. I'm just explaing when I think it is good to use force. That is when it achieves net good consequences. I would say that human welfare is this "good".

Now, what exactly is human welfare? Well, it is hard to clearly define in general. That is why I wouldn't proscribe one general principle and let it stand at that. Morality needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis, at least to some degree.



If it did, I think it would be good. I would steal ballot boxes if it would produce more good than harm. I don't think it would though. You wouldn't get away with it first of all. Secondly, when people find out they will lose some faith in our democracy, and in the citizens of our country in general.



I don't believe in rights. Rights are legal only. There are no "fundamental" rights. The D of I is not a legal document, so the rights stated in it are meaningless. They might be good suggestions for legal rights, but there is no reason to care about them otherwise.



Oh, I agree. If force is used to achieve some end and negotiation could have been used, then it usually means that it achieves more harm than good, because the oppertunity to solve the situation through negotiation is gone. Since force usually has bad side-effects and negotiation does not, this produces more harm than good.



Are you tallking about use of force by the government or by the individual? If you are including the individual in this, how do you define rights beforehand, or define penalty ranges beforehand? If you give all of this over to the state, than the individual cannot act at all. For the individual, you can't "agree in advance" what "good" is. What if you don't agree with others?

As for the government, I agree that the courts should operate with pentalties decided in advance, but I don't see why "rights" has to enter into it. You should be punished for breaking the law.

Regardless, the courts are not the only part of government. We were talking about government use of force in general. When should the government pass a law that needs to be enforced by the police and the courts? I would say when it is likely to produce more good than harm to human welfare.

Wow! Interesting opinion! So, I would be "justified if I were to use "force" to "stop" ( a new euphemism for "mercy killing"?) catquas from eating, drinking, and breathing..., thereby ending his drain on the world's resources (food, water, air, energy, and all of the rest of the things he used in life) and thus achieving a "net good consequence" by increasing the resources available for the remainder of humanity? Aw heck, just stealing his car and parking it means cleaner air and less traffic for the rest of us. Sounds ("net") good to me.

No more so than catquas' "freedom" to spend "his" money on anything other than basic food, water, and shelter. How many starving Africans could be fed for a month with the money spent purchasing the computer and internet connection he uses to express opinions on political debate websites? Surely that money would be better spent feeding starving people anywhere (why restrict it to Africa?). Hurtful indeed.



Imagining can be fun, but we are discussing reality here. In order to be jailed, one must first be accused of committing a violation of law. Please cite the law(s) in any jurisdiction in the U.S. where a Mayor of a city has the legal authority to "shut down" a newspaper and/or "jail" it's publisher for lack of "support".

Use of analogies can be a useful debate tool, but it really helps if they are grounded in at least the remotely possible.

I believe that the Constitution is clear on this. Congress hasn't made a law which caused the publisher his trouble. Thus, it isn't a constitutional question. In a local matter like the one you devised, the federal governemnt should have no authority. If a tyranical mayor acts in this manner, it is for the local people and their representatives and the local law courts to handle. I think the documents of the founders would bear this out.

I believe that there are so many 5-4 decisions on the Court today is the partisanship of the individual judges. I am also not certain they are our finest jurists. Some Liberals on the court actually want to cite UN regulations, International Law and even Her Majesty's Privy Council in decisions. What they should stick to is the 1787 Constitutiuon.

If one reads Article III, one notices how vague the matter of the Court's structure and form is. Congress has the power to establish the Court and to modify it, so long as it sticks to its one intended role, ie final court of appeal. It was not created to determine if laws passed by the elected representatives of the people were constitutional. That role was assumed in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall.
That role is in and of itself not constitutional.

As for the 14th Amendment: good or bad, it was not passed in the normal manner for amendments. I rather dislike it for that reason and for its over-use and abuse.

One more thing. Today the Supreme Court handed down a moral decision by ending the death penalty for those under 18. It was the law of the land in 19 states. It had been established by the elected representatives of the people. It cited 8th Amendment in its decision and International Treaties and World opion in its decision. It was a case, not of law, but of morals. This is not what the court should be doing. It is a law court not a morals court.

No, because human death is generally a bad consequence.



If you believe that, you should stop driving your own car. Does the marginal harm done by one more car outweigh the benefit of that person being able to get places? I would say not.



I have my computer to learn at college as well, and my internet connection for the same thing (and it comes with the college tuition anyway). That way I can better improve the world in the future. Sure, I definately use money in wasteful ways, but that doesn't mean I should revise my moral code. If one revises his moral code whenever it became inconvenient to follow it, he might as well not even have one.

Do you agree with FDR that as civilization and human relationships become more complex, that the power of the government to solve problems for individuals must also increase?

No, I don't. The two are not correlated for me. It implies that government is inherently more efficient at solving such problems....an assumption I find little basis for. In fact, it is usually the source of the complication, not the solution.

Is this an appropriate justification for the increase in the scope of government?

Well, considering I disagree with item 1, then the answer, I guess, would have to be not just no, but heck, no!

I don't think that the rich should be forced to feed the poor like that. However, I think that the route to economic equality is to reform property rights. Sometimes, property rights can go so far as to violate liberty - the most obvious example is slave ownership. There are aspects of the modern capitalist system of property that violate liberty. Thomas Jefferson hit the nail on the head two centuries ago: "Whenever there is any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

Land ownership is the problem. Under the system of land ownership, even in a liberal capitalist ("libertarian") society, the only place where you can be free is on the plot of land which you own. Everywhere else you go, you are on someone else's property, and they can force you to do things such as pay taxes (rent.) A truly free society, in contrast, allows all citizens to be free throughout the entire territory of the republic.

This system is not only a violation of liberty - it is also responsible for the heavy inequality of capitalism. Under a pure capitalist system, the landless are free nowhere. Everywhere they go, they have to pay rent to a landlord. The landlords thus collect money because they own land, and they own land because they have money. This is the cyclical acquisition of property (the hallmark of capitalism) and it is caused by a property system based not on reason, but tradition. Property rights derive their justification from the principle that every individual ought to own what he makes, and I don't see anyone making the land.

The solution to this problem is not taxation of the rich to feed the starving poor. The solution is to destroy the rich class' control over uncultivated land, and allow free and equal access to the uncultivated lands of the republic. This would allow the starving poor to find food there, and, in general, to "labor and live." In this way, it increases the net good without resorting to the net evil of the bludgeon.

Do you think this would solve all poverty? What about urban poverty? What about countries where land ownership is no reformed? Is it easier to force people to help the poor out there, or force that other country to reform land (might require an invasion)? What about once land is reformed but there is still a monopoly on credit, and there is no disaster insurance for farms?



I agree that land reform would go a long way to solving poverty, but only by redistributing land ownership, not eliminating land ownership. If no-one owns the land, who is going to want to invest in it? Say you dig an irrigation ditch for your land, go to town for some supplies, and come back and someone else has started farming your land. That investment in the irrigation ditch is worthless to you. Without land ownership, farmers are only going to look to the very short-term.

The urban poor would be able to get out of the cities much easier if land rights were reformed. Plus, it would turn "wage slavery vs. starvation" into "wage slavery vs. living off the land." This will reduce the supply of wage labor, thus increasing the price, i.e. driving up wages and eventually leading to a mutualistic economy.

As for other countries, they can have a revolution of some sort in order to win their freedom. We're talking about internal reforms here, not libertarian empire-building.



I said that we should abolish the ownership of uncultivated land. When people cultivate land, labor is involved with the land and thus ownership of it is justifiable. Even in that case, they ought to only own the surface - the area which they have cultivated. They would not be able to just till a spot and claim ownership to all the minerals beneath the tilled surface.

Capitalism and private "property aquisition" is not the problem! Methinks you have the wrong culprit in your crosshairs Frozney. It's not all that difficult to bump into the real culprit, considering that "it" owns and controls over one third of the land in the U.S. And "it" is not some evil conglomeration of greedy real estate developers.

That's right, "it" is Government, both State and Federal that "owns" and controls over 785,000,000 acres of land in this country (~34.7%).

Click here for source

And for a more visual perspective

You might want to start there before we confiscate some evil "rich class" guys golf course and hand it over for homesteading by a couple of "pioneering" potato farmers. Having said that, I am all for opening up "Government land" for "homesteading". Seems alot more "libertarian" than advocating the semantic rape of private property rights.

Remember, I advocate for free and equal access to uncultivated land - that is, to make uncultivated land unownable, just as the sky is unownable. I don't advocate the redistribution of land from the rich to the poor.

A rich guy's golf course can be considered cultivated land. By "cultivated" I mean that human labor is involved with it. This is true for golf courses. Someone had to design the course, plant the grass, dig the sand traps, etc.

Government, apparently, controls a huge chunk of this uncultivated land in question. I agree with you that this land should be opened for free and equal access. The same should apply to all owners of uncultivated land, regardless of their wealth or government/private status.

Remember, "libertarianism" encompasses a spectrum of views with regards to property rights. The libertarian right, as represented by the Libertarian Party, believes in traditional property rights. More extreme rightists advocate the reestablisment of slave ownership - I once knew a "libertarian" who believed that slave ownership was fine. The libertarian left (the anarchists) believe in allotting the means of production as commons, i.e. things that are freely accessible to all. The extreme libertarian left advocates the abolition of property rights altogether - in essence, they want to legalize theft. I think the labor theory of property, when applied consistently, results in the libertarian center, which is where I try to stand.