Addicted To Government

[yllus]

It's a Canada-centric piece, but Vishnu knows our neighbours to the south likely need to hear the message more than we do.

Addicted To Government

If I could fix just one thing about this country, I would cure us of their dependence on government, emotional as well as financial.

Frankly, our financial reliance worries me less than our emotional attachment.

More troubling, though, is the way far too many of us simply put so much faith in the benevolence of government and its ability to solve problems. Too many believe only government is capable of producing "fair" outcomes, only government can be trusted with society's most essential functions -- health, education and the well being of our neighbours and communities.

We trust government funding of science will produce only objective conclusions that lead to unbiased, technocratic solutions to our economic, social and environmental problems.

We think only government multiculturalism and employment equity can ensure a tolerate society, when overwhelming evidence is beginning to mount that we were far more accepting of newcomers and other cultures before governments told us we had to be.

The undercurrent of the both the recent Quebec and Ontario elections was that Canadians are increasingly fed up with government-mandated acquiescence to new cultures in our midst. The debates in Quebec over "reasonable accommodation" and Ontario over faith-based schools were evidence of a growing popular backlash against government attempts to engineer an elite view of the ideal society rather than trusting in the good nature of Canadians to reach compromises that make sense at the local and regional level.

We invest our national identity in government monopoly health care when it is clear that since 1984, when we removed the private sector, our health outcomes have begun to decline, our access to new technology has failed and our chances of finding a family physician have shrunk.

We are short 15,000 or more doctors in Canada as a direct result of governments choosing to cap health care expenses by limiting the number of physicians who, in the eyes of government budgeters, are the largest source of expense in the medical system.

Millions go without health insurance in the U.S. and we scold that they need government medical care. Yet a million and a half Canadians have no family doctor thanks to government planning and that fails to shake our devotion to medicare.

We view governments as the guardians of our human rights, failing to appreciate that throughout history governments have been the greatest rights abusers. Indeed, it is seldom possible for individuals or corporations to abuse rights on the same scale as governments without the willingness of governments to lend their monopoly on coercive force to the effort.

We cheerily pay high taxes in the belief the state can improve our quality of life better than we can ourselves. We accept government pensions that pay one-third the return of private alternatives for fear the market will cheat us, support making farmers sell their wheat to the government's grain department --for their own good -- and let regulators choose what we may see on television and listen to on radio in the belief this will somehow make us more of a nation.

We even pay millions in taxes to subsidize Crown corporations, then insist the cost of government services is cheaper than private equivalents because governments treat consumers fairer and don't take profits.

Every once in a while, we rise up against elite opinion in this country. In 1992, we rejected the Charlottetown constitutional accord even though every major elite -- government, cultural, academic, business and media -- recommended its acceptance. But such rebellious acts are too few and far between.

Peace, order and good government may be bred in our bones, but we would be a whole lot freer and better off if we could unbreed them.

Is it simply an issue of misplaced trust? That many trust the hulking giant of government bureaucracy to make the right call as to how to lead our lives, rather than leaving those decisions up to the common man? It certainly seems that way.

We don't trust the common man to act in a multiculturally-friendly fashion. Institute a government division and laws to ensure it.

We don't trust the common man (in the private sector) to deliver health services at a competitive level. Institute an enormous government division and laws to ensure it.

We don't trust the common man to honour human rights. Institute an enormous army/police force and laws to ensure it.

Is this trust in government sometimes misplaced? Certainly you won't find all that many to be a big believer in the law against private practice of medicine up here in Canada anymore. It's simply nonsensical. Are some of the rest nonsensical as well?

 

[Mursilis]

I already posted this thought in another thread, but faith in/dependence on gov't is the new religion. As the church has faded as an institution, people have turned to gov't to fill the void.

 

[Genx87]

Sweet jesus that thing nails a lot of topics right on the head that we in the US are dealing with right now.

I also find it amazing the faith in govt people put. I also find it more than ironic people vote for bigger govt then complain when it sucks or is oppressive.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, if only we hadn't revolted against England they would have ceased to tax without our representation and Engmerica would rule the world today.

 

[Dissipate]

There has never been a 'good' government in the history of the world, but every generation thinks that they have finally created one, and the cycle continues.

 

[Craig234]

And yet more ideology from the blind and poisonous side that is highly unbalanced in its position. The problem isn't in the article's issues of imperfections, it's in its radical claims against, basically, democracy.

How about having democracy raise the cap and hire those 15,000 missing doctors before ending the health care system and replacing it with the US system it implicitly endorses despite admitting the millions of uninsured (tens of millions, actually) and the highest health care costs by far in the world, for example.

The article is filled with rhetoric, trying to claim that 'liking the system of the public electing a government which has policies to benefit the public' is somehow something people don't like, 'dependence'. Why aren't we 'dependent' on the corporations that supply us with our food and clothes then, maybe we should get rid of those and all grow and make our own. It's ridiculous.

It's the sort of empty rhetoric designed to make the simpler among us nod and say "ya, that sounds right", as it strokes their egos how they are so wonderfully self-sufficient - the article is the equivalent of the criminal seducing a teenager to run away from home because of his oppressive parents, to enjoy the 'freedom' of the open road. It takes the more foolish ones to fall for it. In both cases.

The choice isn't between democracy and a utopia of libertarianism the world has never seen, it's between democracy and the desperate situations the masses have long been in without democracy, when 'private' or otherwise authoritarian regimes had power. (The first big corporation in the world was the East India Trading Company, run by the British government for their own profit, and was the core of the revolution).

What these pieces won't say is that they're the witting or unwitting propaganda paid for either by the wealthy classes who would prefer not to have the elected government protecting the public from them, so thay can exploit it further, or by those who have fallen for the propaganda and don't realize who they are really helping. Because the government's propaganda budget is usually pretty low, this sort of nonsense can get well funded exposure without a big counter propaganda from the government to point out flaws.

And it usually pays better to write things the wealthy like than to write things for the public interest.

 

[sandorski]

In a Democracy, Government is the collective Voice of the People. Undermine it at your peril.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig? they are 15,000 doctors short because they can?t afford to hire them. It cost money to hire doctors, LOTS of money. 15,000 doctors at $200,000 a doctor (which is the average wage for a Dr. in Canada) is $3 billion, not exactly a small amount of money. The entire budget for the Canadian health service is $21 billion. So a $3 billion increase would be a 15% increase in their budget.

BTW the amount of money spent on healthcare above may be wrong. I got that figure from a budget review page, but it could be as high as $35 billion based on % of budget spend on healthcare via another page. I don?t know which figure is the correct one.
Either way a $3 billion increase is a lot of money for a country with a total budget of $222 billion.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: sandorski
In a Democracy, Government is the collective Voice of the People. Undermine it at your peril.

And the "People", frequently glamourized by silly lefties as some sort of innocent, benevolent entity which can do no wrong, is sometimes not much more than the mob. Obey it at your peril.

There was a time in this (the U.S.) country, and in others, that large percentages of the "People" supported slavery, segregation, sexism, and other evils. Nazism and Fascism were born in democracies. Is oppression by the many any better than oppression by the few? Even today, people think nothing of the coercive use of gov't to take from some and give to others, which is merely slavery legitimized. Gov't is nothing more than a club, fought over by various groups, to be used to bludgeon each other. It inevitably grows, and inevitably needs to be undermined.

 

[piasabird]

Millions of Canadians do not have a family doctor. So how does that work and what do they do for health care?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
In a Democracy, Government is the collective Voice of the People. Undermine it at your peril.

And the "People", frequently glamourized by silly lefties as some sort of innocent, benevolent entity which can do no wrong, is sometimes not much more than the mob. Obey it at your peril.

There was a time in this (the U.S.) country, and in others, that large percentages of the "People" supported slavery, segregation, sexism, and other evils. Nazism and Fascism were born in democracies. Is oppression by the many any better than oppression by the few? Even today, people think nothing of the coercive use of gov't to take from some and give to others, which is merely slavery legitimized. Gov't is nothing more than a club, fought over by various groups, to be used to bludgeon each other. It inevitably grows, and inevitably needs to be undermined.

Thanks. I was going to reply but when I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry I decided to walk away from that nonsense altogether.

Originally posted by: piasabird
Millions of Canadians do not have a family doctor. So how does that work and what do they do for health care?

ER or walk-in clinic. Which is pretty awful because preventative measures > reactive any day of the week. I'm actually currently without a family doctor myself, but I'm lucky in that I live in the country's most populous city so finding one won't be overly difficult. Quality of care may suffer, though.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And yet more ideology from the blind and poisonous side that is highly unbalanced in its position. The problem isn't in the article's issues of imperfections, it's in its radical claims against, basically, democracy.

You don't call it that when Bush is in office. Beware what you ask for?

 

[Genx87]

ER or walk-in clinic. Which is pretty awful because preventative measures > reactive any day of the week. I'm actually currently without a family doctor myself, but I'm lucky in that I live in the country's most populous city so finding one won't be overly difficult. Quality of care may suffer, though.

Amazing as that is the justification for a UHC system in the United States. I am sure we will have the same issues as Canada. What is the point? Except to grant politicians power?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
In a Democracy, Government is the collective Voice of the People. Undermine it at your peril.

And the "People", frequently glamourized by silly lefties as some sort of innocent, benevolent entity which can do no wrong, is sometimes not much more than the mob. Obey it at your peril.

There was a time in this (the U.S.) country, and in others, that large percentages of the "People" supported slavery, segregation, sexism, and other evils. Nazism and Fascism were born in democracies. Is oppression by the many any better than oppression by the few? Even today, people think nothing of the coercive use of gov't to take from some and give to others, which is merely slavery legitimized. Gov't is nothing more than a club, fought over by various groups, to be used to bludgeon each other. It inevitably grows, and inevitably needs to be undermined.

Yet more radical ideology mixed with some truth, and yet, if everything you say is true, it doesn't change the facts that democracy is still the better system than the alternatives - for two reasons: one, that there is an inherent justice to the people having the power, however imperfectly, rather than any small group having it alone; and two, that the people are still the best corrective for corrupt power, again however imperfect the mob who has its own majority prejudices is, it's still better in te long term than any alternative system.

You libertarian types make a false argument, a straw man, by claiming that the preference for democracy rests on thinking the public is somehow great at policy - hardly!

The public is a terrible choice for a lot of the reasons you said, if with hyperbole, and yet still the best. The constitution is how we try to protect the minority's freedoms.

And for all your 'we once did bad things' examples, note how many have fallen over time as our nation improves - slavery ending, racism illegal, women and non-property holders voting and so on - in some contrast to centures of stagnation in other systems that preserved those wrongs unchanged.

But you do, at least, help show more clearly how anti-democratic the right/authoritarianism really is, eventually. I haven't seen a lot of republicans protesting 'free speech zones'.

What's more un-American than Yllus' view:

Sandorski:
In a Democracy, Government is the collective Voice of the People. Undermine it at your peril.

Yllus responds:
...when I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry I decided to walk away from that nonsense altogether.

Yllus illustrates the basic fallacy of the libertarians, their failure to recognize the fact that power will be either concentrated and tyrannical, or dispersed and less tyrannical, but it will not simply 'leave people alone' in some fantasy. When ni history has that happened? It's never happened, for a reason. Libertarians fail to appreciate the benefits of democracy.

I'm in favor of the public having the power to select its government, to be free of a corrupt system where money runs the system, and the public being as well informed as possible.

You criticized democracy; now name the better system.

And if you don't want to be laughed at, don't imply that taxing the wealthy for *part* of their gains in and from society is the same as slavery.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

ER or walk-in clinic. Which is pretty awful because preventative measures > reactive any day of the week. I'm actually currently without a family doctor myself, but I'm lucky in that I live in the country's most populous city so finding one won't be overly difficult. Quality of care may suffer, though.

Amazing as that is the justification for a UHC system in the United States. I am sure we will have the same issues as Canada. What is the point? Except to grant politicians power?

As sheep it feels good for us to give the wolves more power. It gives us comfort to know we are being watched over, that our money is being used on our behalf and that we can kick back and relax. It is for our own ?good? you see, and such dictions can be called ?democracy? and anyone who thinks otherwise is ?the blind and poisonous side?, ?against, basically, democracy?.

As you see Genx, anyone who wants liberty from oppression is against democracy. If we were to believe some of our fellows here.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You criticized democracy; now name the better system.

The larger a democracy becomes, the less democratic it is. Localize as much authority as possible, don't centralize it.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: sandorski
In a Democracy, Government is the collective Voice of the People. Undermine it at your peril.

And the "People", frequently glamourized by silly lefties as some sort of innocent, benevolent entity which can do no wrong, is sometimes not much more than the mob. Obey it at your peril.

There was a time in this (the U.S.) country, and in others, that large percentages of the "People" supported slavery, segregation, sexism, and other evils. Nazism and Fascism were born in democracies. Is oppression by the many any better than oppression by the few? Even today, people think nothing of the coercive use of gov't to take from some and give to others, which is merely slavery legitimized. Gov't is nothing more than a club, fought over by various groups, to be used to bludgeon each other. It inevitably grows, and inevitably needs to be undermined.

Yet more radical ideology mixed with some truth, and yet, if everything you say is true, it doesn't change the facts that democracy is still the better system than the alternatives - for two reasons: one, that there is an inherent justice to the people having the power, however imperfectly, rather than any small group having it alone; and two, that the people are still the best corrective for corrupt power, again however imperfect the mob who has its own majority prejudices is, it's still better in te long term than any alternative system.

I readily concede what Churchill said - democracy is the worst form of gov't, except for all the others.

But you do, at least, help show more clearly how anti-democratic the right/authoritarianism really is, eventually. I haven't seen a lot of republicans protesting 'free speech zones'.

Speaking of strawmen, here is yours. You assume that because I'm leery of democracry (in some ways), I'm authoritarian. Quite the opposite. The less power the gov't has or is allowed to have, the better (generally - I recognize exceptions).

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

What's more un-American than Yllus' view

LOL. And why would anyone including myself care if my views are un-American? I'm not American to begin with, and I rarely choose to censor myself in fear of being deemed un-anything.

As always, you take a sliver of a topic and then go off and rant about something completely unrelated - and even then still get it wrong. Where did I insinuate that government should 'leave people alone'?

If we're basing fantasy versus reality on who consistently makes up other people's arguments for them to refute, it's an obvious fact that the fantasy world is solely populated by you.

Democracy is not the government telling the people that private medical practice has no basis in this nation and artificially limiting the supply of providers. When did the people decide that 1.5 million Canadians would go without a family doctor? I must have missed that vote.

Not a person here has an issue with democracy. The issue is with government power run amok.

 

[cwjerome]

Good article... regardless of the reactionary spittle from Craig. We haven't evolved enough as humans to break our need of some "power" that we look to to solve our problems and make us safe, whether it's domineering religion or repressive government. This does not mean I'm an anarchist or libertarian... it means I understand human weaknesses and the nature of government. Democracy is fine as long as it's reigned in by a proper fundamental concept of individual rights, otherwise it's as authoritarian as any other form of government.

We keep telling ourselves as a species that we're weak, stupid, irresponsible and worthless and that'll be our self-fulfilling prophecy. How else are we to survive without a godlike government instructing our every move? We trust government more than ourselves.

 

[cwjerome]

Funky little small gov't website

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And yet more ideology from the blind and poisonous side that is highly unbalanced in its position. The problem isn't in the article's issues of imperfections, it's in its radical claims against, basically, democracy.

How about having democracy raise the cap and hire those 15,000 missing doctors before ending the health care system and replacing it with the US system it implicitly endorses despite admitting the millions of uninsured (tens of millions, actually) and the highest health care costs by far in the world, for example.

The article is filled with rhetoric, trying to claim that 'liking the system of the public electing a government which has policies to benefit the public' is somehow something people don't like, 'dependence'. Why aren't we 'dependent' on the corporations that supply us with our food and clothes then, maybe we should get rid of those and all grow and make our own. It's ridiculous.

It's the sort of empty rhetoric designed to make the simpler among us nod and say "ya, that sounds right", as it strokes their egos how they are so wonderfully self-sufficient - the article is the equivalent of the criminal seducing a teenager to run away from home because of his oppressive parents, to enjoy the 'freedom' of the open road. It takes the more foolish ones to fall for it. In both cases.

The choice isn't between democracy and a utopia of libertarianism the world has never seen, it's between democracy and the desperate situations the masses have long been in without democracy, when 'private' or otherwise authoritarian regimes had power. (The first big corporation in the world was the East India Trading Company, run by the British government for their own profit, and was the core of the revolution).

What these pieces won't say is that they're the witting or unwitting propaganda paid for either by the wealthy classes who would prefer not to have the elected government protecting the public from them, so thay can exploit it further, or by those who have fallen for the propaganda and don't realize who they are really helping. Because the government's propaganda budget is usually pretty low, this sort of nonsense can get well funded exposure without a big counter propaganda from the government to point out flaws.

And it usually pays better to write things the wealthy like than to write things for the public interest.

I agree completely with Craig234's post. The OP's article is, IMO, is largely a bunch of empty rhetoric, much like claims every now and then from those radically opposed welfare of single mothers having children solely for the welfare credit. Saying "people are addicted to government" is the same sort of hollow argument as casting the poor as being so because "they're lazy", or telling them they simply need to "work harder".


Certainly, libertarianism (much like communism) sounds good if you look at it in an utopian sense, but ultimately neither are feasible in the real world. A libertarian government would result in private institutions dominating our lives; just as a communist government would result in public institutions dominating our lives. Churchill was completely right when he said that "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others." It's easy to pick out defeats in our democracy, but the complete failures of communism in the Soivet Union or of Libertarianism in Chile and elsewhere shows quite clearly which system works the best.


At any rate, while some here has dismissed Craig's post as "reactionary spittle", I see unsurprisingly that no one has addressed the part I bolded above.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: Craig234
And yet more ideology from the blind and poisonous side that is highly unbalanced in its position. The problem isn't in the article's issues of imperfections, it's in its radical claims against, basically, democracy.

How about having democracy raise the cap and hire those 15,000 missing doctors before ending the health care system and replacing it with the US system it implicitly endorses despite admitting the millions of uninsured (tens of millions, actually) and the highest health care costs by far in the world, for example.

The article is filled with rhetoric, trying to claim that 'liking the system of the public electing a government which has policies to benefit the public' is somehow something people don't like, 'dependence'. Why aren't we 'dependent' on the corporations that supply us with our food and clothes then, maybe we should get rid of those and all grow and make our own. It's ridiculous.

It's the sort of empty rhetoric designed to make the simpler among us nod and say "ya, that sounds right", as it strokes their egos how they are so wonderfully self-sufficient - the article is the equivalent of the criminal seducing a teenager to run away from home because of his oppressive parents, to enjoy the 'freedom' of the open road. It takes the more foolish ones to fall for it. In both cases.

The choice isn't between democracy and a utopia of libertarianism the world has never seen, it's between democracy and the desperate situations the masses have long been in without democracy, when 'private' or otherwise authoritarian regimes had power. (The first big corporation in the world was the East India Trading Company, run by the British government for their own profit, and was the core of the revolution).

What these pieces won't say is that they're the witting or unwitting propaganda paid for either by the wealthy classes who would prefer not to have the elected government protecting the public from them, so thay can exploit it further, or by those who have fallen for the propaganda and don't realize who they are really helping. Because the government's propaganda budget is usually pretty low, this sort of nonsense can get well funded exposure without a big counter propaganda from the government to point out flaws.

And it usually pays better to write things the wealthy like than to write things for the public interest.

I agree completely with Craig234's post. The OP's article is, IMO, seems largely a bunch of empty rhetoric, somewhat like claims every now and then from those radically opposed welfare of single mothers having children solely for the welfare credit. Yeah, libertarianism (much like communism) sounds good if you look at it in an utopian sense, but ultimately neither are feasible in the real world. A libertarian government would result in private institutions dominating our lives; just as a communist government would result in public institutions dominating our lives.

At any rate, while some here has dismissed Craig's post as "reactionary spittle", I see unsurprisingly that no one has addressed the part I bolded above.

Address the bolded part? Wow, does one really have to? The difference between private business and government revolves around 2 simple concepts: Choice and Coercion. We don't have a choice of governments and government has a monopoly on the use of force. I'd have to say those are fundamental, monumentally drastic, differences.

Besides, addressing the idea that government is getting ever more intrusive and many people seem addicted (or dependent) on it doesn't mean we (or me at least) are advocating a strict libertarian form of government. Try again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234
And yet more ideology from the blind and poisonous side that is highly unbalanced in its position. The problem isn't in the article's issues of imperfections, it's in its radical claims against, basically, democracy.

How about having democracy raise the cap and hire those 15,000 missing doctors before ending the health care system and replacing it with the US system it implicitly endorses despite admitting the millions of uninsured (tens of millions, actually) and the highest health care costs by far in the world, for example.

The article is filled with rhetoric, trying to claim that 'liking the system of the public electing a government which has policies to benefit the public' is somehow something people don't like, 'dependence'. Why aren't we 'dependent' on the corporations that supply us with our food and clothes then, maybe we should get rid of those and all grow and make our own. It's ridiculous.

It's the sort of empty rhetoric designed to make the simpler among us nod and say "ya, that sounds right", as it strokes their egos how they are so wonderfully self-sufficient - the article is the equivalent of the criminal seducing a teenager to run away from home because of his oppressive parents, to enjoy the 'freedom' of the open road. It takes the more foolish ones to fall for it. In both cases.

The choice isn't between democracy and a utopia of libertarianism the world has never seen, it's between democracy and the desperate situations the masses have long been in without democracy, when 'private' or otherwise authoritarian regimes had power. (The first big corporation in the world was the East India Trading Company, run by the British government for their own profit, and was the core of the revolution).

What these pieces won't say is that they're the witting or unwitting propaganda paid for either by the wealthy classes who would prefer not to have the elected government protecting the public from them, so thay can exploit it further, or by those who have fallen for the propaganda and don't realize who they are really helping. Because the government's propaganda budget is usually pretty low, this sort of nonsense can get well funded exposure without a big counter propaganda from the government to point out flaws.

And it usually pays better to write things the wealthy like than to write things for the public interest.

It is not lost on the majority of posters here that you always attack the arguer and never the argument, usually with meaningless and empty rhetoric, and claims of attacking some nebulous propaganda while you're usually spouting it.

In other words, the article did not say what you're arguing against. It didn't say that we should get rid of government, it cautioned against a dependence on government. It didn't speak against democracy and, contrary to your typical bullsh!t, it didn't speak in favor of the elites or the wealthy but specifically against them.
And your comment that "the government's propaganda budget is usually pretty low" is one of the most comically untrue things I've ever read here.

Here's some tips: Your personal opinions are not the public interest. Your worldview is not universal. Your personal belief in what is right and what is wrong is not shared by all. Your personal ideology of the way things should be is not democracy. Your belief that your ideology should be forced on everyone because it's for their own good is not democracy. And your notion that everyone who disagrees with you does so because they're a paid shill of the rich (or whatever evil reason you want to dream up next) is a sign of dangerous paranoia. Get a clue. Seek help.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: piasabird
Millions of Canadians do not have a family doctor. So how does that work and what do they do for health care?

ER or walk-in clinic. Which is pretty awful because preventative measures > reactive any day of the week. I'm actually currently without a family doctor myself, but I'm lucky in that I live in the country's most populous city so finding one won't be overly difficult. Quality of care may suffer, though.

Interesting. Not being Canadian, I don't follow Canadian politics that closely, and so I was unaware of this issue. What you're saying is that Canada basically has the exact same healthcare problems as the US even though they've adopted "universal" health care.

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV

Originally posted by: Craig234
And yet more ideology from the blind and poisonous side that is highly unbalanced in its position. The problem isn't in the article's issues of imperfections, it's in its radical claims against, basically, democracy.

How about having democracy raise the cap and hire those 15,000 missing doctors before ending the health care system and replacing it with the US system it implicitly endorses despite admitting the millions of uninsured (tens of millions, actually) and the highest health care costs by far in the world, for example.

The article is filled with rhetoric, trying to claim that 'liking the system of the public electing a government which has policies to benefit the public' is somehow something people don't like, 'dependence'. Why aren't we 'dependent' on the corporations that supply us with our food and clothes then, maybe we should get rid of those and all grow and make our own. It's ridiculous.

It's the sort of empty rhetoric designed to make the simpler among us nod and say "ya, that sounds right", as it strokes their egos how they are so wonderfully self-sufficient - the article is the equivalent of the criminal seducing a teenager to run away from home because of his oppressive parents, to enjoy the 'freedom' of the open road. It takes the more foolish ones to fall for it. In both cases.

The choice isn't between democracy and a utopia of libertarianism the world has never seen, it's between democracy and the desperate situations the masses have long been in without democracy, when 'private' or otherwise authoritarian regimes had power. (The first big corporation in the world was the East India Trading Company, run by the British government for their own profit, and was the core of the revolution).

What these pieces won't say is that they're the witting or unwitting propaganda paid for either by the wealthy classes who would prefer not to have the elected government protecting the public from them, so thay can exploit it further, or by those who have fallen for the propaganda and don't realize who they are really helping. Because the government's propaganda budget is usually pretty low, this sort of nonsense can get well funded exposure without a big counter propaganda from the government to point out flaws.

And it usually pays better to write things the wealthy like than to write things for the public interest.

I agree completely with Craig234's post. The OP's article is, IMO, seems largely a bunch of empty rhetoric, somewhat like claims every now and then from those radically opposed welfare of single mothers having children solely for the welfare credit. Yeah, libertarianism (much like communism) sounds good if you look at it in an utopian sense, but ultimately neither are feasible in the real world. A libertarian government would result in private institutions dominating our lives; just as a communist government would result in public institutions dominating our lives.

At any rate, while some here has dismissed Craig's post as "reactionary spittle", I see unsurprisingly that no one has addressed the part I bolded above.

Address the bolded part? Wow, does one really have to? The difference between private business and government revolves around 2 simple concepts: Choice and Coercion. We don't have a choice of governments and government has a monopoly on the use of force. I'd have to say those are fundamental, monumentally drastic, differences.

Besides, addressing the idea that government is getting ever more intrusive and many people seem addicted (or dependent) on it doesn't mean we (or me at least) are advocating a strict libertarian form of government. Try again.

It's a democratic government: you have a choice what policies are made. As long as minority rights are protected to a reasonable degree, I fail to see government represents "coercion".

Ideally, people do have a choice in the free market: but inevitably without the government providing some regulation over the economy, you'll wind up with robber barons and monopolies. Did people have a choice back during the late 1800s/early 1900s or during the Great Depression who they worked for?

Or look at the situation with gasoline today: sure there are several companies you can choose from, but calling that a "choice" is purely superficial when there is no product differentiation, and no or virtually-no price differences. Explain to me how in regards to gas there is anything but coercion: sure to a degree one can use mass transportation, but otherwise gas is necessity for travel.

I'm not arguing against capitalism, or suggesting government should control the economy; what I support is what has served America throughout most of its existence: a free market regulated regulated to a degree by the government.

In my view, the government should be to the economy as a referee is a professional sports game: not a player himself, but instead someone who makes sure everyone is playing fairly. Sure, you can argue that referees can sometimes be unfair, but ultimately I think it's clear that the game would be far less fair without a referee than with one.


At any rate, I'll argue your idea that "government is getting ever more intrusive". I'll qualify that so far as I agree that the Bush Administration has gone significantly over the edge with the patriot act and other measures, but as far as the economy for the large part, I'd argue instead that there is too little government regulation. Look at all the recent scandals, for example, of products coming from China lacking quality control. It's clear, in my opinion, that the government under the Bush administration has failed to address these issues.

There's a fundamental distinction as well: government is not a monolithic institution. Thus it's ludicrous to argue, for instance, that the federal government under the Bush Administration's poor response to Katrina somehow proves the incompetence or ineffectiveness of government as a whole.