DonBee

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 4:35 p.m.

Rodney Smith - Considering there are at least 3 of you in Ann Arbor (A doctor, a coach and programmer), I would have a hard time deciding which one you are. That is why I asked. I am not defending the status quo. There is lots wrong with the status quo. I am saying liberty is an important tenet of our society and a work ethic used to be key to it as well. We seem to want to throw all of that away. As Sweden has learned transfer payments don't work. In the Netherlands and Australia you have to do something to get a check. I think everyone should have to do something for a check from the government, if they can't find work elsewhere. It may not be full time, it may not be value added, but everyone should have to do something for a check from the government. Whether it is sweeping floors, or greeting people in government buildings and directing them to offices or picking up trash. I have to work for my money. The government takes a big chunk what I earn. If they are going to give to other people all I ask is they make these people do something for that money. Too much to ask? Communism as practiced by humans did not work. Socialism as practiced in Europe is looking to be too expensive to sustain. Sweden, Greece, and other European countries are coming to see that. If we want to deal with the poor and disadvantaged, hand outs don't help. I will remind you of an out saying: Feed a man a fish and you will feed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for life. Society today seems content to give the man the fish. In fact is seems we are on the path to give lots of people fish and make them dependent on the government.

Rodney

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.

DonBee Go hunting around the internet if you want to find out who I am and what I do, I live a transparent life, you'll find out I know whereof I speak. You are trying to defend a status quo where 40 percent of the people don't pay tax... why is that? Are 40 percent of the population too poor to pay tax? That means that 40 percent of your countrymen can't get on your American Dream train-ride because the basis of your dream, a good job, isn't there to be had.... aren't you worried about what they do to survive? I am. How large is the cash-economy in the USA, who regulates it? It has to supply 40 percent of the population with needed services, so it must be large, and there is nothing to say it has to be legal, because the society has failed to deliver on its contract for these people.... you've just made it a lot harder for me to sleep at night DonBee.... In a country where 40 percent have to beg for charity to get life-saving medical treatment, many will opt to remain sick or die.... how is this a good thing for the USA? Putting money in the hands of the poor generates immediate and local wealth. It creates jobs... imagine that... people buy food and services when you put money in their hands... call it enlightened self-interest if you must, but when people don't have to stress over life's essentials, and they don't have to break the law to furnish themselves with them, life is safer for everyone. For my money, its worth a few cents more in tax. Its a lot cheaper than extra police and jails. All countries have problems with poverty and homelessness, some treat their poor better than others.

DonBee

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.

Rodney Smith - When were you last in AU? When were you last in Sweden? I spend time working in both. I have for more than 15 years. I don't spend time in the tourist areas, but in the working class areas. I routinely see people begging in Sweden, Australia, Italy, the UK and other countries, but not in tourist areas, they are not tolerated. If you are up at 5 AM in Paris you can see the police rounding up and moving homeless people from the parks and tourist areas. You ride the Metro or the RER or the stop trains in the Netherlands in the middle of the night, you will find people who are riding and sleeping on the trains (OBTW - so will you in San Francisco). Australia has more than 80 percent of its residents paying taxes in the US it is less than 60 percent. In Australia you don't get money to sit home for years on end, you have to work for it. As to Sweden - the total tax rate is over 48 percent of all income - that is not the top tax rate that is the rate on every dollar earned. Sweden has not eliminated poverty and they are not safer than others - crime rates -149/1000 people vs 32/1000 people in the US in 2008. While Murders are higher in the US, overall crime is less in the US. Sweden has recently admitted they can not maintain their welfare state and need to reform. As to jobs and outsourcing - it has happened to me 3 times, 1 time to Singapore, 1 time to India and 1 time to China. I got another job each time. I was willing to go anywhere to work. I have never drawn unemployment or welfare. I have slept on the floor, when I could not afford a place to stay.

Rodney

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 10:26 a.m.

Will, My interest is not in producing a USA that registers 60 or 70 on your hypothetical continuum, but one that might get to 40, where the poor are not driven to desperation, and where begging is seen as a viable option for fewer of its citizens. Your unwillingness to address the corporate issue is both understandable on one hand, and the reason nothing happens on the other. Apparently force and fraud are prohibited, but there is open season on bribery provided you have enough money, and corruption is just part of politics, isnt it? Sadly it is, in this land of the free. Anyway, its been fun, Will, but I have given it about as much time as I can afford. Besides, Rossi and the cheap-shot-express are moving in and making it less palatable. Well do it again sometime. Take Care Rod

Rodney

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.

DonBee DB"The Aussies have the same debates and splits we do". Um, the Aussies have full medical care, comprehensive unemployment benefits, comprehensive invalid and age pensions, and the poor do not have to look over their shoulder lest someone kick them off the system for an obscure paperwork infraction, nor do the sick have to worry about paying for healthcare. They may have the same disputes, but they start from a more equitable footing and debate from those premises. DB"They [Australia] spend way less money on welfare and equality than we do" And they manage to have a comprehensive welfare system for the money.... nobody begs on the exit ramps, and no-one goes without needed medical care... why can't the USA do that? DBThe various [Australian] governments have good revenue from mining royalties and electricity (though some has been privatized). They are water short and so limiting population makes sense, but since the population is limited and there are plenty of jobs for folks without a college degree, unemployment stays lower and there is no permanent unemployed class of people living off the government. My experience tells me differently. Australia has a huge underclass living on welfare. The difference is that the unemployed and the poor in general are not desperate unless they have expensive addictions, then all bets are off. Sweden has a similar problem for what its worth. Its far from perfect, but at least its not desperate. DBIt [Australia] is the one country I would consider moving to in the whole world. It has done many things right in the last 20 years that we have not. The recent conservative government gutted social security, but even at its lean mean present, it is better than many. My conservative friends are pretty sure the Labor government will bankrupt the country, Im not so sure. DBStill I spent a good part of my life in the Military and believe in this country and people's right to say what they think. Liberty allows everyone choices and I will defend the right of people to make those choices. What it does not confer is the right to permanently live off other people's money (e.g. taxes) or to have and then abuse or ignore children, both concepts we seem to have forgotten as a country. Children have rights too and the parents don't have the right to ignore them, taxes are other people's money and living on that abuses the liberty of the people who earned it. And Ive spent a good part of my life in one free, socially progressive country, and have family in another. The welfare systems do not do away with the underclass, they just make it less dangerous to the rest of the society. And therein lies the value of a strong welfare system, it makes the whole society stronger, and safer. DBMaybe I am just a throwback, but everyone used to have a work ethic that was pounded into them in this society - work hard and you will make something of yourself. My mother's favorite saying to my brother and I was "I don't care what you do when you grow up, but be the best whatever there is and work hard at it". It was repeated 2 or 3 times a week to us. Theres that, but when you work hard and do well, and your CEO decides to ship your job to the Philipines, what do you do? Or when you work hard and do well and you develop cancer, are thrown off health insurance, and lose your job, what do you do? When youre 55 years old and the economic crisis puts you out of a job, what do you do? I know what some of them do, they eventually beg for food at shopping mall diners and stand in exit ramps looking for handouts.... and Ive only ever seen that in the USA.... there are beggars in other countries, just fewer of them and they obviously have expensive addictions. And, for the record, a strong work ethic is not unique to the USA. Poverty for some appears to be an inevitable consequence of organized society. How we handle that poverty determines the true quality of any society.

Will Warner

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 7:26 a.m.

Rodney: I'm enjoying this debate... I dont denigrate the concept of the Common Good. You can hardly have a society without some notion of the Common Good, and hence a certain amount effort and a certain curtailment of Liberty will be needed to achieve it. Now, imagine a people whose only concern is the Common Good, and another unwilling to make any sacrifice for it. These two peoples define the end points of a continuum, upon which every society must locate itself. For the sake of illustration, picture unfettered Liberty as 0 and total-focus on the Common Good as 100. If the countries in Europe are at, say, 60 to 70, I think the founders of this country would have us at about 30. Many want us to slide up to 60/70, believing either that no important freedom would be lost or that it would be worth it. But Im good with 30, believing (or at least hoping) that many people using their freedom to pursue enlightened self-interest will effectively increase the Common Good way beyond 30. I prefer this party because the definition of the Common Good is subject to debate, and a lot of mischief is undertaken in its name. I save my bashing for the government, so I cant join you in your view of corporations. What I like about capitalism is that it acknowledges the basic nature of the human animal but channels it to productive ends. Force and fraud are prohibited, leaving one to pursue one's self-interest only through making things that other people value. Its a beautiful system. Many people dont see it this way, I know.

DonBee

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 5:57 a.m.

Mr. Rossi - You have a good memory. But I have a question for you. Do you remember the "Red Lining" hearings during the Clinton Administration? Do you remember who said what about providing credit to whom? Do you remember the hearing in the House during the Bush years and the promises made to banking executives about charters if they did not do something about lending to particular groups? There were lots of oars in the water when it came to the housing crisis. None of this gets back to the core question of Liberty, but I thought I would ask.

D. Mike Rossi

Fri, Jun 4, 2010 : 1:33 a.m.

hey mun, Barney Frank on CNBC on July 14, 2008 on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. Theyre not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward." In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." And campaign contributions for Frank, totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Pelosi: On May 7th,2010 the House passed the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, H.R. 1728. The bill responds to the subprime mortgage crisis by instituting much needed reform to prevent these bad loans from being made in the first place. It stops the kinds of predatory and irresponsible mortgage loan practices that played a major role in the current financial and economic meltdown and prevents borrowers from deliberately misstating their income to qualify for a loan. 2 yrs earlier Pelosi in SF, addressed mortgage crisis Saturday, April 26, 2008 "Pelosi Pushing Mortgage Relief" By Lori Montgomery and David Cho Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, December 16, 2008 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that the Bush administration must do more to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes before Congress will agree to release any more money to the Treasury Department's financial system bailout effort, which is running low on cash. "The Commission will focus on more than 20 areas, including: the failure to protect consumers and individual investors; the role of fraud and abuse in the financial sector; tax treatment of financial products; credit rating agencies; lending practices; and corporate governance and executive compensation. One year ago: Pelosi Statement on House Passage of Anti-Fraud Legislation and Bipartisan Financial Markets Commission May 6, 2009 07:00 PM By Nancy Pelosi Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, which will provide critical funding and tools to help law enforcement pursue and prosecute corporate and mortgage fraud that have contributed to the recent economic collapse. The legislation also establishes a bipartisan commission to investigate the causes of the collapse of our financial system and the ensuing recession. "By passing this critical bill today, the New Direction Congress is continuing its commitment to economic recovery with the highest standards of accountability and transparency in the use of taxpayer funds. "This Commission will be empowered to hold hearings and to issue subpoenas either for witness testimony or for documents and will report its findings and conclusions to Congress and the American people by December 15, 2010. mun, there's more. It just didn't happen on Bush's watch, it also happened on Pelosi's Reid's, Frank's, and the rest of the Democrats Watch... They had, and have the House and the Senate. It was their job and duty to put together legislation that would resolve, correct and prevent the problems, but they put Special Interests before the American People. Have those commissions been looking into to anything yet? Thanks for bringing up Big Oil. I was thinking about this today. When you put the cost of the oil spill clean up and recovery into context with their profits it becomes clear that there are unforeseen expenses that can arise that would put companies out of business. is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5] The Community Reinvestment Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.). To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance. The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American citiesparticularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of "National People's Action in Chicago", had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act. Community groups only slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations. The NPA's big ideas based on NPA's beliefs are those policies that NPA fights for as a network. NPA fights for policies that: Take back our power to use the government as our tool to promote the common good, correct the injustices of the past, and redistribute resources equitably and sustainably. Democratize the market to put people above profits. Enforce fundamental human rights standards that prevent exploitation of people and the environment. Take action to ensure racial, gender, economic, and immigrant justice in all social and economic systems SOUND FAMILIAR???? Regulatory changes 1995: In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden. During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act. Legislative changes 1999 In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. In the fall of 1999, Senators Christopher Dodd and Charles E. Schumer prevented another impasse by securing a compromise between Sen. Gramm and the Clinton Administration by agreeing to amend the "Federal Deposit Insurance Act" (12 U.S.C. ch.16) to allow banks to merge or expand into other types of financial institutions. Hey Mun, have you read this bill/act? I don't mean that with disrespect, i'm just wondering. This bill/act with all it's revisions set the tone for our current banking crisis. Mun, how does someone buy a $300,000 home for $400,000 and expect to make the payments?...and why? They added the down payments and closing costs into the mortgage and boosted the price up from $300.000 to $400.000 so they could buy/sell the house with little or no-money down. They cooked the books and got away with it legally and then bundle the BAD with the GOOD and sold them off for Mega profits, eventually sticking it to the tax payer for the bailouts. So instead of Redlining they Suckerlined them instead. I'll get back to you on Halliburton and I still have to get back to Murrow's Ghost too...2:30am I'm tired and glad I'm on vacation.

D. Mike Rossi

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 11:04 p.m.

Hi Mr. Warner, It's very difficult to leave out History and Current events when dealing with this topic or any political topic. What everyone should try to remember is, is to voice your opinion and not to be-little another persons point of view. If you don't agree with someone, instead, research it, find the truth and as politely as possible get back to them. Although when you get an attitude it's not so easy. Dating back to our Founding Fathers, they too had similar difficulties that we face today and the opposing parties. The one constant is the greed and pettiness that still exists in some individuals and groups of individuals with personal agendas. If we can kick their tails out of office, out of organizations and to stop disrupting those who want to do what's right for America. And what's right for America is to Stop writing checks with no money in the bank, if you can't pay for it you can't have it, or you have to save for it. We need to prioritize wants important and cut back so we can buy food, shelter and medical. Yes we will help those that are able, and those capable we "Kick Them In The Butt" and tell them the FREE ride is over and to start "Kicking In Their Fair Share". As for the illegals who hope to be here for Immigration Amnesty to please leave. Your welcome to come back through the front door next time! If they're allowed to stay through amnesty they will then be given Obama Health Care when it kicks in and avoid the normal waiting period of 5yrs for Public Taxpayer Assistance. It's page 225 in the new health care law. How many million are there? So you see Mr. Warner, you gave us the tip of the iceberg and we can't help looking below the surface, to see that what someone says is the right thing to do, but is the wrong thing to do, and vice-versa, as you pointed out. This has been one of the better forums that I've been involved in, without the trashing of peoples views. Having said this I must now go and read Murrow's Ghost's comment about the electoral college and get back to him...LOL thank you Mr. Warner

mun

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 9:33 p.m.

Hey D. Mike Rossi: The Wall Street meltdown happened under BUSH'S WATCH! And it was BUSH and Hank Paulson who started the Wall Street bailout before the 2008 election. It was Bush/Paulson who said "We gotta bail out the banks or the economy will crash." As far as "and was it not CLINTON AND CARTER AND OBAMA who forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford homes???" The Community Reinvestment Act outlawed the racist practice of redlining. You wanna go back to that? As far as Dems. taking union money, the Repubs were taking Halliburton and big oil money. How about declassifying Dick Cheney's energy task force?

demistify

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 9:23 p.m.

Liberty and equality are two largely independent concepts. There have been many intelligent discussions of each in this thread, but the attempt to link them tightly (negatively or positively) is off-base, particularly when combined with faulty representations of foreign countries. China has just about no safety net (much less than the US); would anyone claim that it has liberty? Russia has more economic inequality than the US (and this was true in Soviet times); again, that does not translate into more liberty. The most complete welfare state is provided by the Arab Emirates (at least for their citizens, not for their numerous "guest workers"). The paragon of Milton Friedman economics was Chile under Pinochet. Countries have different political systems and different economic systems, in a variety of admixtures. You can argue the merits of political and economic systems, but you will have little luck trying to predict one from the other.

Will Warner

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 6:27 p.m.

Hey guys, we are starting to lose it. This has been the longest running mostly rational debate through comments that I've ever seen on line. Most comments online become ad hominem and nasty within a few posts, but this one has been mostly good. Please stay on topic. Please leave out Bush, Obama, Clinton, Demorcats, Republicians, Mao, Hitler, and the umpire from last nights Tiger's game, and stay on the topic of the tension between liberty and equality. Many thanks

D. Mike Rossi

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 6:05 p.m.

PS MUN.... look back and you will see that obama and chuck schummer received and the Democrats got most of the wall street money until they threw them under the buses.... how much are they getting from SEIU and the other unions??? and why are the unions and the acorn organizations doing the work that was done by the Brown shirts of the Nazi party, similar to the communist parties in China and the old USSR???

D. Mike Rossi

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.

Hey Mun... Glad you brought up the Wall Street Bailout... Let's go back to just after Obama got the 2008 Democratic Nomination... He went to Europe and visited who??? Germany, Britain and France. and then went to the Middle East. Then in September a Middle Eastern somebody withdrew $500 million dollars from the "FED", causing the banks and wall street melt downs... Who was it that President Bush was told, he had to bailout??? AIG, and who did AIG Intl payoff...?? Banks in Germany, Britain and France!!! Coincidence?....I don't think so!!!! the silence is DEAFENING!!!! and was it not CLINTON AND CARTER AND OBAMA who forced banks to lend to people who couldn't afford homes??? and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Pelosi, Reid and the DEMS all knew the Mortgage Banks were ticking time bombs...hidden in legal money laundering... MUN...you still there???...i only hear crickets.....LOL

bedrog

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 3:32 p.m.

even if "all men are created equal" ( a political concept, not a biological reality) that doesnt and shouldnt mean they all end up equal....that's where liberty and personal achievement...and luck..come in. but, lest i sound like libertarian/ right winger/ tea party goer, i also recognize that spreading the good fortune of the lucky and well endowed to the less fortunate ( up to to a point anyway)...and taxes and social welfare programs like, say, health care,are a reasonable way to do that... often results in more 'happiness' for all, via less liklihood of being mugged,better e.r. room conditions, oversights on pollution by the greedy etc etc). have i covered everything??? thank you.

Hot Sam

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 3:25 p.m.

"""What about the trillions to Wall Street?""" Seems to have worked...the administration bailed them out and they all have their bonuses... """And what about the deficits run up under the Bush administration with Republican control of Congress from 2001-2007""" What about them? Does tripling the nonsense make it right or wrong??? """The silence is deafening.""" Any one who did not hear complaining about spending during the Bush years was either not listening or already deaf... And while we are at it...what does any of this have to do with the authors very valid points???

mun

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 12:42 p.m.

@D. Mike Rossi. What about the trillions to Wall Street? And what about the deficits run up under the Bush administration with Republican control of Congress from 2001-2007? The silence is deafening.

Rodney

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 11:44 a.m.

Will, My experience suggests that free citizens in such countries feel far more secure in their liberty than many Americans do, German and Swedish education law notwithstanding. Had the health-care reform that the people actually want - single payer- been able to see the light of day, your catastrophic cover would probably cost less than it does now, but the health insurance lobby dont want it, so it never sees the light of day. Just for the record, Australia does national health for 1.3 percent of the gross income of every taxpayer who can afford it, and it covers everyone in the country... that is both efficient and cost-effective. Of course you are not aware of being oppressed by rapacious corporations, you are among the privileged class, and reap wonderful benefits from their largess... besides, they spend billions of dollars making sure the people dont believe they are oppressed, and billions more defending their own ability to manipulate the corridors of power. Every dollar spent by a lobbyist, Left or Right, represents a perversion of the will of the people....when the amounts spent in washington are equivalent the combined GDP of several small nations, that safely qualifies as oppression of the will of the people, and for rapacious, you only have to look at the Monsanto debacle with GMO in the food supply to realize just how corrupt the system is. Self-interest and the Common Good are the tensions that underpin all great societies. Do deny either is to deny our heritage as human beings. Blind self-interest is no better than blind humanitarianism. I call that self interest blind which refuses to acknowledge the interconnectedness of all members of a society. I call that self-interest blind which increases profits at the expense of the marginalized. I call that self-interest blind which steadfastly resists the notion that by helping the least fortunate, the whole society benefits. I call that self-interest blind that demands liberty while depriving others of the same through its actions. I call that self interest blind that increases wealth for itself while increasing stress for others. I call that self-interest blind that bleats about liberty and remains rightly petrified about the consequences of layoff or chronic illness. There is a better way, and we need to find it.

Hot Sam

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.

When someone equates the welfare clause in the preamble with welfare programs, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Our current welfare system and the idea of social services as a growth industry was far from their intent. I know of no one on either side of the political aisle that does not believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. Most even believe in an occasional "hand up". Unfortunately we have gone from helping those who can't help themselves, to those who don't help themselves, to where we are now with those who simply "won't" help themselves. We have taken a spirit of "charity and appreciation", and turned it in to one of "entitlement and demand".

stunhsif

Thu, Jun 3, 2010 : 7:45 a.m.

D.MikeRossi, Wow, very well said!

D. Mike Rossi

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 11:55 p.m.

We have learned from our humanitarian mistakes and have worked to correct them...emphasis on work, required by all. If you look outside our country you will hear about Genocides. committed by Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Castro. Serbian Genocide aka 'ethnically cleansed' Bosnia and the Tienanmen Square Massacre. Where were their Liberty, Right's and Freedom???

D. Mike Rossi

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 11:33 p.m.

Lets' get something clear here. Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Progressivism are not in favor of Liberty, Freedom or Equality!!! Those principles seek to deprive Liberty, Freedom and Equality, not give it!!! We need to go back and look at the origins of our country and why people came to America and suffered and struggled through the hardships to get this country going. There were no hand outs then. If you wanted something you had to work for and or build it. I have a friend who works 4 different jobs to get his family the life they have. Yes, I do sympathize with those who can't do it, but I have "ZERO" tolerance for those who just "WON'T" and want the free handouts! Why is it that those with money are the ones saying, "You should have an equal share of what the other guy has, but you can't have any of mine?" Does anyone think for a minute the Kennedy's, Pelosi's, Gore's, Reid's, Schummer's, Dodd's, Derbin'S Obama's and Clinton's will open their homes and share what they have???? WAKE-UP! Do you think GEORGE SOROS, the Chairman of Soros Fund Management, LLC and founder of The Open Society Institute, born in Budapest in 1930, survivor of the Nazi occupation during WWII, who then fled communist Hungary for England, and who, through his backing and mentoring of Obama, is behind the "Great Progressive Plan" to turn the United States of America into the Socialist/Communist/Nationalist State like the ones he fled, will give away his BILLIONS??!!! I Don't think so! By-the-way...you can't be a Billionaire if you believe in equality can you? You can if your corrupt and believe in "Equality for All, Just Not Equal to Me"!!! The Democrats are great spenders of other peoples money, just not theirs. Now we're bailing out the Unions! The same Unions that contribute "Union Funds" in the MILLIONS to the Democrats and Millions on T.V. ad's asking Government for Taxpayers Dollars because the Union Pension Funds need it. Bite me. Take the Unions over just like the auto companies! EQUALITY? or Special Interest? I've heard people say they can't afford health care, but they can afford cellphones, cable/satellite tv, Hi-Speed Internet and a mortgage on a house. Where are their priority's?? And don't get me started on people buying homes they can't afford. I rent and want a house, do you think someone with two will give me one????...NO Their are Rights and there are Entitlements, they are not the same! We need to remember this and tell Washington because they semm to have forgotten this.

DonBee

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:40 p.m.

@Mun - And 145 years ago more troops from Michigan per capita than any other northern state stepped forward to fix this problem. Slavery has been banned for longer than it was legal in the USA (based on the date of formation of the country). I hope we have all learned from this, Initially if you read history only landowners were going to be allowed to vote. Initially women could not vote either (with the exception of some states and territories). It was not until 1920 that women got to vote. On the other hand women and freemen were all allowed to express their opinion both in print and in public. Liberty, not equality was an important part of our early nation and made the country what it is. People who did not fit in the rest of the world, came here. A place where they could work hard and make a life for themselves. The founding fathers were not so worried about equality, they were worried about liberty and the first 10 amendments of the Constitution talk to the rights of the people, not equality. In fact find in the opening paragraph of the Constitution the word "Equality": "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Note the word Liberty appears, but not equality. The constitution not the Declaration of Independence is the governing document of this country. Our founding fathers made mistakes, there are issues with the government today, and there will be in the future. But tell me - where would you move to, if the US is so bad?

mun

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:25 p.m.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. United States Constitution, Preamble Liberty is not the only principle on which the USA is founded upon. Notice that "promote the general welfare" and "establish justice" are mentioned before liberty.

Will Warner

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.

Rodney: No doubt the socially progressive countries you speak of are free in the sense that they are part of the free world. They hold elections, honor freedom of speech and religion, etc. But I will wager they offer a good deal less liberty than does America. In Germany, for example, the government can fine you or take your children if you insist on homeschooling them. (Source: Time Magazine, a couple months ago.) No doubt the Germans believe they have a good reason to do this, but, then, Germany was not founded as a bastion of individual liberty. America was. After health care reform, it is now illegalillegalin this country to sell me the kind of health insurance I prefer: very low premium, very high deducible. Such coverage is affordable and will protect me from ruination, which is the purpose of insurance. But my choice has been thwarted. Im a bit ticked off. I am not aware of being oppressed by rapacious corporations who make my life miserable. In fact, by virtue of the stock I own, I share in their profitsthat is, our profits. You can do this, too. Take control of your life, pursue your own happiness. Those people urging you to live small are Puritans who think themselvesand youunworthy of a full and exciting life. Let them wallow in victimhood. Nobodys talking about blind self-interest. Call it enlightened self-interest. Call it self-interest channeled by laws to positive ends--trade. Just dont ratchet up the coercion trying to create the new man, a man not motivated by self-interest.

mun

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:17 p.m.

"The central feature of the American character is self-reliance." Many of the founding fathers owned slaves. Is that what you call "self-reliance?"

mun

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 8:09 p.m.

Thus we expect people to take care of themselves. As an American, you are "on your own," Uh Will, how do you expect Americans to take care of themselves when their employers ship their jobs overseas?

stunhsif

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 6:46 p.m.

"What I've done in my life and where I've been matter almost zero". Assume this statement is in regards to being able to respond to the debate ongoing right here? You need to rethink that statement Mr. Ed Murrow. As voiceofreason just stated, DonBee and Braggslaw have shown that "real world experience" makes all the difference in what they know about the U.S. versus other governments. Good Night yes, but Good Luck no, I don't need good luck.. I work hard every day, luck has nothing to do with it!!!!

voiceofreason

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 5:27 p.m.

This is the best debate I've read on AnnArbor.com since inception. Kudos to everyone for not allowing this to devolve into use of straw men and name calling. I'd offer my two cents, but braggslaw and DonBee have already done so in a more eloquent fashion than I'm capable of.

Rodney

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.

Will, The only reason there is a tradeoff of liberty for a semblance of equity in the US system is that the huge insurance and medical interests won't allow anything more sensible through congress and the senate. I say "won't allow" and I mean just that. The government of this nation has been subject to the whim of corporate giants for a very long time. The preamble to the constitution should more accurately read "we, the captains of Industry....." It doesn't HAVE to be that way, but the power of corporate interests makes it damned near impossible to get workable reform in any major sphere of government. As soon as someone comes up with a good idea, the corporate interests start bellowing about their liberties and millions of Americans join in the chorus... never mind that the corporate interests are making our own lives miserable, they just have to spend a few billion convincing people that reform is going to infringe our precious liberty, and they remain free to rape and pillage the wealth of this great nation. That the southwest food industry can lobby the white-house to defend its right to employ illegal immigrants should have the people of this nation baying for blood. Instead, it has them bleating about liberty. In Australia, they have a name for blind self-interest, its called "the Jack system" and it is named for a hypothetical line of conversation that goes "bugger you, Jack, I'm OK". (A workable American translation goes "to hell with you, Jack, me and mine are fine") Being accused of adopting "the jack system" is a gross insult in Australia. In this country, there is a strong vocal minority who seem to enshrine "the Jack system" as a fundamental tenet of liberty. So, to actually answer your counter, Will, socially responsible legislation does not have to impinge in liberty, because there are many free countries in the world that are both socially progressive, and free. In this country, social progress is stymied by the influence of the wealthy, and we can't actually do much to improve the quality of our society unless the wealthy corporations will allow it.... and we call this liberty, and proclaim ourselves the defenders of our freedom.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 7:07 a.m.

DonBee: Unlike others on this and other discussions, I don't need to trumpet my (wholly unverifiable) resume and life's experiences in order to enter into an intellectual discussion. Indeed, I think it near the last refuge of a scoundrel to do so, though the desperate efforts to establish one's credibility through such statements ("I've been to Europe!! Have you ever been there?") provide some unintended humor. Either I have my facts straight and present them in a logical manner, or I don't. What I've done in my life and where I've been matter almost zero. Good Night and Good Luck

Rork Kuick

Wed, Jun 2, 2010 : 6:29 a.m.

Less philosophy and more careful calculation for me please. The people can decide that certain investments, in education, infrastructure or health, more than pay for themselves, but it may require a computation of the return on the investment that takes into account very far downstream effects. The calculation involved is not simple, and presenting choices about these matters in oversimplified ways can convince some people to act against their own self interest. (Typically one just myopically fails to consider that lifting fellow citizens has any benefit for you at all.)

Will Warner

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 6:35 p.m.

Rodney: Twice you say that it is not necessary to curtail library to achieve greater equality. Yours is a common view, so let me provide an example of how this does happen, an example of the sacrifice of liberty for equally that is happening right before our eyes. Health insurance companies are happy to sell very low-premium coverage to pools of young and healthy people. They can offer this because the young and healthy dont consume much health care. The young and healthy jumped at the offer because it is quite affordable, and the young dont have much money. A free society permits this because everybody involved is a willing participant in a mutually-beneficial business arrangement that harms no one. (Please dont hit me with a raft of fanciful definitions of the word harm.) But a society concerned with equality outlaws this arrangement (as I believe health care reform has) because it leaves the old and sick in a pool by themselves with very high premiums. The young and healthy are forced (actually forced, if you believe that the threat of a fine and jail time is force) into pools with the old and sick and end up paying a premium that does not reflect the degree risk they represent to the insurance company. Thus is freedom sacrificed to equality.

braggslaw

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 5:11 p.m.

DonBEE My mom gave me the same speech "I don't care what you do when you grow up, but be the best whatever there is and work hard at it". My dad told me that if you are not so smart and a good worker you will do fine. If you are smart and lazy you will do fine. If you are smart and a good worker you will do great. If you are not so smart and lazy... you will have a tough time in life.

DonBee

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 5:05 p.m.

Rodney - I spend about 50% of my time each year in Europe and Asia, working. The Aussies have the same debates and splits we do. They spend way less money on welfare and equality than we do and have some of the same native people's issues and mistakes we do, some of theirs (like forced adoption) are more recent. If I want welfare in AU - I have to do something for it, sweep floors, watch children, wash windows, etc. At least a few hours a week. They have turned the tap for immigration WAY down and you can only get in if you have education and skills they want at the time, there are quotas by job and degree. The various governments have good revenue from mining royalties and electricity (though some has been privatized). They are water short and so limiting population makes sense, but since the population is limited and there are plenty of jobs for folks without a college degree, unemployment stays lower and there is no permanent unemployed class of people living off the government. It is the one country I would consider moving to in the whole world. It has done many things right in the last 20 years that we have not. Still I spent a good part of my life in the Military and believe in this country and people's right to say what they think. Liberty allows everyone choices and I will defend the right of people to make those choices. What it does not confer is the right to permanently live off other people's money (e.g. taxes) or to have and then abuse or ignore children, both concepts we seem to have forgotten as a country. Children have rights too and the parents don't have the right to ignore them, taxes are other people's money and living on that abuses the liberty of the people who earned it. I can and do defend the right of people to get help when they need it, but I think they should have to do something for that money - even if it is sweeping the floors in the city hall for 2 or 3 hours a week or being the greeter at the police station (like the person at the door a Wal-Mart). I believe in equality for individuals, everyone should have the same opportunity to learn and excel put in front of them as well as the same opportunity to screw it up. I screwed up a couple of times and had to sleep in the back room a couple of times while getting back on my feet (I did not ask for any help from the government). Maybe I am just a throwback, but everyone used to have a work ethic that was pounded into them in this society - work hard and you will make something of yourself. My mother's favorite saying to my brother and I was "I don't care what you do when you grow up, but be the best whatever there is and work hard at it". It was repeated 2 or 3 times a week to us.

braggslaw

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 4:22 p.m.

Australia spends considerably less on welfare than most other OECD countries. In Europe they spend more because they give more money to the middle classes. In Australia, they spend less but nearly all the cash goes to the poorest third of the population. A different system. It also helps that Australia is basically a huge mine supplying raw materials such as reserves of coal, iron ore, copper, gold, natural gas, uranium, etc. All easy money for a country with only 21 million people.

robyn

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.

@ Ghost: True - children can't choose the family they are born into. All the more reason for better choices. Makes you wonder about the selfishness and utter disregard of those who choose to have children that they know they can't care for - doesn't it? Even the Humane Society sets criteria for those wanting to adopt a pet.

Rodney

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 3:06 p.m.

DonBee It is not necessary to forego any liberty in order to treat our society with greater justice as a whole. All of the definitions liberty you have cited are all valid. I am not arguing that America was not founded on Liberty, I am arguing that Liberty does not have to mean blind self-interest, nor does it have to mean the maintenance of privilege at the expense of the non-privileged. (these represent the end result of inequitable social policy) Of course, you are at liberty so interpret liberty as you will :). Australia is among the more socially progressive countries in the western world. I am equally free in Australia and the USA. Neither country comes close to perfection. You'll have a hard time convincing Australians that they are somehow less free than Americans. Progressive social policy does not need to deprive anyone of his/her liberty. Inequitable social policy, by its very nature, deprives some people of their liberty. The USA was indeed founded on the principle of Liberty, and it is high time it found a way to extend its founding principle to more of its citizens.

DonBee

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 2:18 p.m.

Rodney Smith - Which of these definitions of Liberty are you referring to? Which are you willing to give up? Liberty (from the Oxford American Dictionary) - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views : compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty. (usu. liberties) an instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one : the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties. the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved : people who have lost property or liberty without due process. ( Liberty) the personification of liberty as a female figure. 2 the power or scope to act as one pleases : individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences. Philosophy a person's freedom from control by fate or necessity. informal a presumptuous remark or action : how did he know what she was thinking?it was a liberty! Nautical shore leave granted to a sailor. THE RIGHT WORD (from the Oxford American Dictionary Online): The Fourth of July is the day on which Americans commemorate their nation's independence, a word that implies the ability to stand alone, without being sustained by anything else. While independence is usually associated with countries or nations, freedom and liberty more often apply to people. But unlike freedom, which implies an absence of restraint or compulsion (: the freedom to speak openly), liberty implies the power to choose among alternatives rather than merely being unrestrained (: the liberty to select their own form of government). Freedom can also apply to many different types of oppressive influences (: freedom from interruption; freedom to leave the room at any time), while liberty often connotes deliverance or release (: he gave the slaves their liberty). License may imply the liberty to disobey rules or regulations imposed on others, especially when there is an advantage to be gained in doing so (: poetic license). But more often it refers to an abuse of liberty or the power to do whatever one pleases (: a license to sell drugs). Permission is an even broader term than license, suggesting the capacity to act without interference or censure, usually with some degree of approval or authority (: permission to be absent from his post). I would be interested to hear your answer and anyone else who disagrees that Liberty is a basic ingredient of what made this country.

Rodney

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 1:26 p.m.

I can't believe the support this article has achieved.... the great gaping hole in the argument, is that an underclass undermines the stability of a society, and the so-called lovers of liberty bleat their platitudes while more people go hungry, more people become helpless, and more people become angry.... then these lovers of liberty increase police and jail funding so that they can deprive OTHER people of their liberty. It is a double standard that will grow like a canker in this country until we address it. Where is the liberty when you have to do three jobs to make rent and eat simultaneously? Where is the liberty when you can't get a job BECAUSE you are unemployed? Where is the liberty when you get thrown off health insurance and your house foreclosed because you had the audacity to develop Cancer?.... The liberty remains with the well connected, the wealthy, and the privileged. Its the same place the liberty was at the founding of this country. I think its high time the lovers of liberty put their money where their mouth is, and shared the love around a bit. If you love liberty, you will support national health, because it provides liberty to more folks, won't you? If you love liberty, you will support a minimum wage because it allows more people a stake in the American dream, won't you? If you love liberty, you will see that desperation deprives people of liberty, and therefore support social change that minimizes the underclass, won't you? And, of course, if you love liberty, you will express outrage at those companies who exploit the labor of illegal immigrants, whose lot is worse than those of slaves for they are ultimately expendable... even if it costs a few cents more to buy your broccoli..... won't you? Apparently not. I guess we see the meaning of liberty a little differently.

DonBee

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 1:26 p.m.

Ghost - You want to denigrate others' experience. So I will ask you, from what position you are speaking? Do you have real life experience in Europe? Have you spent the last decade working on issues in Europe? Do you read the Economist? Help me understand what value to place on your expertise. Thank you and good night

braggslaw

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 12:11 p.m.

Ed, Of course all countries have different issues. But the single overarching economic issue in Europe is the Welfare State. The ingrained entitlement mentality is making it difficult to push forward reforms.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.

Robyn, Children don't choose their parents--they're stuck with the luck of the draw. The most important factor in deciding the course of anyone's life is the parents to whom they are born. bragg, Each of the countries you cite have wildly different issues. Either you know that from your "extensive" travels, in which case you are being disingenuous, or you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave it to you to decide which it is. Good Night and Good Luck

robyn

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 10:58 a.m.

What about choices? I see statements about children being born into poverty and being denied 'equality' due to the circumstances they have been born into. At one time, most people made the decision NOT to bring children into the world until and unless they could provide for them. The parents made the choice to wait to have a child until that child could be born into the 'equality' of home that provided for the needs of that child. Instead of blaming every other person - who had made the choice to provide for their children or the government for not providing - maybe people should take a closer, more honest look at the choices they have made in bringing a child into this world that they cannot provide for. Equality can also mean equal responsibility and accountability to ourselves.

braggslaw

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 8:40 a.m.

Some interesting links on Norway and Sweden. Norway and Oil http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20060324.html http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article691220.ece Collapsing Welfare State in Sweden http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/stumblinginsweden http://mises.org/daily/2190

braggslaw

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.

Ed, I did two huge deals in Sweden last year. The involved the govt. and private industry. The deals took 6 months. I only spent a week there to finalize some terms. The deals I cut gave me great insight on the problems Sweden has.... including being one of the most expensive places in the world to do business. Not using the Euro and having to buy food from the the rest of the world. 35% of their people below the U.S. poverty line (but they do get free health care). The U.S. is still the best place in the world to live for those who want to work hard and succeed.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 7:30 a.m.

Indeed we should defer to someone who "spent a few week in the Scandinavian countries last year." That, indeed, is the definition of a "subject matter expert". Good Night and Good Luck

braggslaw

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 5:39 a.m.

tru2, (and other Europhiles) I spent a few week in the Scandinavian countries last year. Sweden is desperate to try to preserve their heavy industry but it is not working due to the huge costs in the country. SAAB sold technology to a Chinese company to stay afloat and is now owned by a consortium of what I call Aryan investors to try to keep it viable. Volvo is now chinese owned and will soon be moving everything to China. Norway is for all practical purposes Kuwait. They use North Sea crude to finance their social programs. The low countries of Benelux have such a small population that I would not consider them a good statistical representation. Lux and and Belgium are basically Bankers and Diamond cutters. Every country in the Eurozone (including Germany and France) have been guilty of violating numerous agreements involving debt, budgets etc. I am not really that fond of the terms liberal or conservative... I like the terms earners and non-earners better.

braggslaw

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.

Greece is not the exception. Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy and potential Great Britain are all on the verge of collapse due to spending like a drunken sailor. Greece is not an isolated event.

Will Warner

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 9:05 p.m.

yaah: The right to bear arms is a negative right. For it to be a positive right, the Constitution would commit the government to giving you a gun.

yaah

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.

I enjoyed your article, but disagree with your use of the following statement: "Famously, the Constitution recognizes only what are called "negative rights." It defines the form and scope of government, limiting what can be done to citizens. The upshot is that everybody has one and the same right: the right to be left alone. Many wish the founding document guaranteed so-called "positive rights," such as a right to healthcare, but it doesnt, for such a right would destroy the right to be left alone." So what about the "right to bear arms." Is that not a positive right? You might say that the constitution allows it for it gets to the crux of individual liberty, etc. But some might say this right destroys my right to live in a society where people can't have guns. I disagree with using the constitution as such - putting it forth as the key to your argument when it relates to things like health care, abortion, things like that, but using it in an opposite fashion for things like the right to own a gun or other such "positive" rights in the document.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 7:17 p.m.

One other point that makes Greece VERY unique and, therefore, of not much value in looking at our economic future: Greece no longer controls the value of currency. Were this not the case, Greece's fiscal problems would be easily, if painfully solved by revaluing its currency. Greece also fails to collect more than 1/3 of the tax owed the government. In the end, very little in common between the US and Greece if one really understands the source of Greece's fiscal problems. Good Night and Good Luck

ilikeliberty

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.

To RonH, aka not my real name: Real libertarians would hold BP and its subcontractors responsible. You might know this if you read the books you want to burn--I mean throw in a hole.

Otho

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 11:06 a.m.

This entire conversation appears to be centered around the health care issue, which is only one aspect of this argument. I'll try to focus outwards to encompass more of this situation. We are all taxed. A lot. Where does this money go? From what I gather the money goes to military spending and social programs. That seems to be about it. You argue that this country is founded on personal freedom and self-sufficiency. Why, then, do we already spend SO much money on aid programs, Social Security, Medicare (government health-care), and civilian aid of virtually countless types? No, I'm not buying it. The money is already there. If we want people to be truly free in this country, and in this world, to be able to contribute to society, we should provide them access to what I consider to be basic human rights. Someone mentioned a fear of us becoming the next "Soviet Union". We are not and could never be. The Soviet Union collapsed. Why it collapsed is arguable. That being said, there are some important differences between what I am talking about, what a lot of Americans are talking about, and how the Soviet Union ran. Citizens of the Soviet Union were all on the same pay scale. What is the drive, then, to become a doctor, or lawyer, or even a trash pick-up wo/man when one can make the same amount of money fishing or being an artist? The problems with that system seem clear. This is not the system we are arguing for. My argument is this: Give all people the basic things they need: food, health care, and a place to live and we will become a more productive nation. This statement relies on an axiom that all people want to do things and make things. That probably isn't true for every single person. I think it is true for the majority of people, however, and imagine what we could discover in some of our citizens if we didn't have huge populations of people down-trodden with despair, depression, and disease. It is a waste of human resources! People cannot provide service to their community in their most unique of ways if they are worried about breaking a leg or how to put food on the table. We have enough resources. We need to share. It is the only way to save ourselves. To end I offer a thought. Did you know that on average in an ant colony, 45% of the ants never leave the colony? If they can survive so well with only 55% of their population actually working, well, you get the idea.

Diagenes

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 10:09 a.m.

TruBlue, I do not think Mr. Warner is advocating absolutism. I agree with your comment that there needs to be a balance between the needs of the civil society and individual liberty. Eminent domain is an example of the balance. Unfortunately the Supreme Court (Justice Souter cast the deciding vote) decided it was OK to take personal property and sell it to a private company. I believe that is an overreach of government. But I still believe in Eminent Domain. The founding documents of our country outline a set of principles that we should strive to adhere to. With out principles there can be no civil society. The Ten Commandments were the first (that I know of)set of principles articulating a way of life to give structure to society. We would all be better off if we followed at least some of them.

bigbluebus

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 8:39 a.m.

Thank you Mr. Warner, for your article. And thank you posters, for your thoughtful comments that (for the most part) did not degenerate into sarcasm, personal attacks, and inane rhetoric. I wish more posters would adhere to a higher standard of dialogue, more of the tiem.

braggslaw

Mon, May 31, 2010 : 6:39 a.m.

Tru2, This issue is getting more complicated than it really is. I don't mind paying taxes, I use roads, judges, get ticketed by police etc. What I mind is being punished for my success. I invested (at last count) over $100,000 in my education. I had to give up many day-day things I liked hoping to get a return on investment later. I consider myself something of an artist, but I knew I could never raise a family with that profession so I picked different careers, that were more likely than not, to produce a good salary(there is no guarantee). It seems to have all worked out for me. A few of my friends from high school drank, got bad grades and are now crying poverty. They believe they should get everything from the govt. and that it isn't fair that I make significantly more money than them. I also know a few people that decided to do what they liked for a profession, and what they like to do was to be involved in the arts. I applaud them for following the their dreams(or indulgences however you would like to characterize) They are poor do odd jobs and protest alot (due to the enormous mount of free time they have). They also believe that the govt. should pay to take care of them. If the govt. decides to further redistribute my income, I might decide to become an artist and let the govt. take care of me and we can all pick on the next poor sucker who decided to invest in himself, his business etc.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 8:19 p.m.

My principle belief is that only a simpleton has a principle belief through which they view and evaluate the world. Good Night and Good Luck

Carol Burgener

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 7:40 p.m.

Thank you for this excellent column!

1998pa

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 6:46 p.m.

unfortunately, braggslaw, no one believes in the world you and i believe in -- the one where people are free to sell or exchange goods/services. Those who profit are thieves. The businessmen are supremely evil, and the government must protect us from them. someone like Edward R Murrow's Ghost actually thinks that "Despite all evidence to the contrary, we continue to believe in the myth of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps." Uhh, actually, go study successful people -- generally it's not a simple matter of them getting some unfair advantage. furthermore, Murrow, what is your principle belief? do you have one? or do you, like most others who are happy with the direction our country is going, just make things up as you go along. the fact of the matter is that health care does NOT become a right because it contradicts the PRINCIPLE of individual liberty.

braggslaw

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 6:30 p.m.

This is all simple human nature. The people who did not earn the money/benefits they believe they deserve would like to take it money from the people who earned it. People who earned their wealth through sweat of the brow, vision, natural talent etc. would like to keep the money they earned. No, I am not referring to the thousands of crooked wall street bankers or pro athletes. I am talking about the 10s of millions of people who invested in their education, small businesses etc. If we remove the incentive to succeed and earn we destroy the systems that made this country great and we all become equal... that is equally poor.

InsideTheHall

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 5:50 p.m.

Moose: It's called self determination and finding a way to a better life. If a set of parents did "the right things" and another did "the wrong things" why must we (the taxpayers) foot the bill for the offspring or parents who did not apply themselves, educate themselves, and have a dose of work ethic and self discipline???????????????? How can you explain those who come to this country with little, sacrifice, start a business, and achieve the American dream????????? Dumb luck or self determination?

John Galt

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.

Will, An excellent article. We need to get back to the founding values of individual liberty and away from the increasing sense of enslavement to society. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of the eventual "dictatorship of the majority" that could develop when interest groups discover that they can vote to confiscate others' property and labor. Sadly, that process has come to pass.

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 1:51 p.m.

I generally have no problem with it if the people of this country want to provide charity to worthy individuals via the government, though I think it can be done more effectively by private organizations. But we need to get rid of this idea that charity is a right rather than a result of generosity by and goodwill of others. Call it what it is. It's charity. It's a good thing but people don't have a right to it.

Moose

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

How does "Liberty" help a child born into poverty, raised in a broken home, sent to an inner city substandard public school as an "equally" endowed as a child born into wealth and privilege, sent to private school and awarded a high paying job based on social connections? I think not. Liberty is a concept. Equality is not. An equal amount of Liberty for each child will never provide any level of equality. Until we are all on an equal footing in this world, liberty is meaningless. E Pluribus Unum

Not My Realname

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.

What a mess. "The animating principle of America..." As if there is or can be only one. "The central feature of the American character..." As if there is or can be only one. "It is a tautology to say that independence and dependency are incompatible. " As if there were no such thing as interdependence. "...equality this way, liberty that -- no society can take both simultaneously." As if the SAME passage had not just said "One would like to think there is some middle way between liberty and equality, and sometimes there is,..." What would a libertarian do about the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico? To paraphrase the answer I once got from an actual libertarian about a similar question: That would depend on who owned the Gulf of Mexico. My own (stolen) suggestion would be to plug up the leak with all the libertarian books that would fit. RonH

Stephen Landes

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.

Better postings than I expected -- thoughtful, intelligent. Yes, we are all created equal and under our constitution we have equal opportunity, but not a guarantee of equal outcomes. Sometimes over the years we have faltered on the equal opportunity and compromised in order to create and maintain this country. However, the failings do not deny the great promise of our constitution and and our Republic (not, you will note, our democracy). Our challenge is to live according to the constitution and forego the easy way out; sacrificing a little liberty here and a little more liberty there in an attempt at "feel good" politics.

Thick Candy Shell

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 12:41 p.m.

@Edward R Murrow's Ghost, I think you are in a different country than I am. Everything you are suggesting says that I am entitled to a house, healthcare, maybe a car all paid for by the government. Next we will all be entitled to a vacation paid for by the gov if we cant afford one on our own as some folks in Europe want. This is how a gov goes bankrupt, not how a society succeeds.

Diagenes

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 12:20 p.m.

Mr. Warner, Well thought out, and written analysis. We are witnessing the result of the European experiment with equality vs. liberty. The failure of the welfare states over the last 20years, starting with the Soviet Union, eastern bloc countries and most recently Greece, prove that liberty is the most efficient and effective political philosophy. The Soviet Union was the ultimate equality society. It proved to be a complete failure. I believe a constitutionally limited republic is the best form of government. The Constitution outlines, as you have correctly sited, the limits of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights defines individual liberty. The intent was for the states to assume the role of providing government services for the benefit of the people. You will not find health care or education or housing defined as rights in the Bill of Rights. Health care is not a right but a service to be acquired by mutual consent. Education is the foundation of a society, but the public education system has deficiencies. There is not enough space to address the problems with public housing. The goal for America should be equality of opportunity and the liberty to pursue it.

Me Next

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 9:55 a.m.

Agreed. It is really a violation of Our Constitution for Gov. to merchandise "natural born citizens" (of at least 3 races & many cultures). Personal interest can lawfully be supported by the giver's personal donations. Anything spent, not listed/enumerated, is stolen; we have seen for decades how love & loyalty to GOD, family, & country has suffered by stolen money for "charitable causes". We've seen the Industrial, Financial, & Civil strength collapsing. Good news in America- Final word, we govern ourselves as individuals & as a collective. As long as Americans assert & keep asserting their Lawful Rights & force the answer to the question "By what authority" is my right usurped, America will remain. Our Constitution is so well written in order to bypass it you invalidate yourself & are liable to prosecution by Rule of Law. That's anyone.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.

As other posters have correctly noted that the basis for our nation is the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal", I'll not belabor that point (much). But Mr. Warner appears to lack knowledge of other factors of early American history. Please allow me to point out a few of them. 1) He writes: "You could not conceive a government like the one our Constitution does unless you viewed the average citizen as competent and capable of caring for himself." This is simply wrong. One only need read the Federalist Papers, and/or the collection of papers that came to be known as the anti-Federalist Papers, and/or any good book on the Constitutional Convention to understand that most of the founders feared what might happen if the average citizen had too much voice in government. The Electoral College was (and remains, albeit ineffectively) a way to remove the electoral process from direct democracy. The indirect election of senators, which all states practiced until Oregon moved to direct election in 1904, and which most others practiced until the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, was another method of removing political power from the people. Indeed, the Constitutional Convention seriously considered that the House of Representatives be indirectly elected, as well. So much for the myth that the founders trusted the average Joe. 2) He writes: The upshot is that everybody has one and the same right: the right to be left alone. Many wish the founding document guaranteed so-called positive rights, such as a right to healthcare, but it doesnt, for such a right would destroy the right to be left alone. This is pure hokum. First, the D of I establishes nothing except a new nation and provides the justification for its creation. Second, Jeffersons preamble begins with the premise that there are absolute truths that govern the relations between citizens and their government, truths he was not willing to debate. Among those truths is that all men have inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The term among suggests there are others not enumerated by Jefferson. One could conclude that privacy (Mr. Warners right to be left alone) is one of them. But life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stretch a long distance. How, in a modern industrial society, can a guarantee of health care not be a basic right under this rubric? How, in a modern industrial society, can a guarantee of descent housing not be a basic right under this rubric? How, in a modern industrial society, can a guarantee of a descent education not be a basic right under this rubric? 3) He writes: This is why, for example, we are apparently the only industrialized country that tolerates homelessness. No, this is not the reason for this phenomenon. We are the only industrialized country that tolerates homelessness (and, for that matter, a substantial portion of its population not having healthcare) because, we as a nation, continue to abide by the Puritan Ethic of Work. As a consequence, most Americans believe that failure to have a job, healthcare, etc represent a personal failing. Despite all evidence to the contrary, we continue to believe in the myth of people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Yet, as compelling as those stories often are, all too frequently those great individualists had help from someone else or had advantages of which they were not aware. Mr. Warner is correct the de Tocqueville noted the tension that existed between freedom and equality. It was a phenomenon that greatly interested him and about which he spilled much ink in Democracy in America. But, unlike Mr. Warner, he did not throw up his hands in surrender to the latter in deference to the former. Indeed, he noted that those who deferred to freedom over equality did so from a place of privilege, fearing that equality meant a loss of that privilege. De Tocqueville published his seminal work 175 years ago. In this as in other things he discussed, his crystal ball appears to have been disturbingly clear. Good Night and Good Luck

DonBee

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.

Will - Thank you for this well thought out and written article. One point i will make, as I walked through most European cities early in the morning on the way to work, homeless people are easy to find in Europe as they are here. The difference is they are moved out of the tourist areas very early in the morning. Homelessness is not just an American issue. On the early morning trains it is easy to find a homeless person who spent the whole night sleeping on the train.

debling

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

This is a good article by Will and it raises some important points. Classic Liberalism is all about freedom (Liberty) whereas conservatism is about controls and restrictions on freedom. All of the best things about America have always been it's liberal beliefs outlined by Will. The right to bear arms, free market capitalism, separation of church and state, the right to associate and/or marry the person who you wish, freedom to move and locate to any place you desire, free speech, etc. The problem is, we don't live in a liberal Utopia. Things are not black and white and America has never been completely true to it's original constitutional messages. Think slavery, women voting, segregation, native American rights, interment of Japanese Americans, etc. We are often forced by others and nature to do things we don't wish to and our freedoms are often sacrificed. For example: 1. Pay taxes, fines and fees (and a lot of them) 2. Obey laws we may or may not agree with and have not had an opportunity to vote on. 3. Be forced into military service (at times) to serve the country 4. Accept the decisions of the majority (through elections) we don't always agree with For all of the obligations forced on the "people", it is not unreasonable to demand something in return. The right to live is one of them. Having affordable health care is not an option but a requirement. I believe the United States will ultimately reform the health system ensure all have access to affordable care not because we are "entitled" to health care, but because of national interest. There is no national interest in having large numbers of Americans suffering in poverty or struggling with medical ailments that go untreated.

clara

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 8:04 a.m.

I. All men are created EQUAL. II. Endowed by their creator....a. life b. LIBERTY c. pursuit of happiness Equality appears to be above liberty on the hierarchy of guiding principles. In the Declaration of Independence the above statement is not a hierarchy. Yes, we are CREATED equal and are all given the opportunity to pursue these worthwhile goals but government was not created to guarantee equality. We have the freedom in this country to make of our lives that which we choose rather than have it given to us.... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them [people], Equality in treatment (opportunity) by the government not equal results.

Technojunkie

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 7:40 a.m.

We are all equal under the law. We are not equal in ability, ambition or results. To attempt to guarantee equal results requires a great deal of suppression of liberty, which as practiced in the Western world means being a tax slave to overbearing government. I'd prefer liberty. Voluntary charities can help the less fortunate and still maintain liberty. Government coercion cannot. There would be a lot less need without expensive government meddling. It would be nice if government schools taught the Constitution's original intent but they have a conflict of interest.

mitoga

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 7:02 a.m.

I. All men are created EQUAL. II. Endowed by their creator.... a. life b. LIBERTY c. pursuit of happiness Equality appears to be above liberty on the hierarchy of guiding principles.

braggslaw

Sun, May 30, 2010 : 6:55 a.m.

Will, I believe you captured the growing tension in the United States. While I believe in a "minimum" amount of social services, I am deeply troubled by the trillions of dollar the US is borrowing from the China and the redistribution of personal income to finance what I believe is a dangerous socialistic movement. I do not want the goose (which is the U.S. economy/culture) to be killed by those who seek to take money from those who earned it and give it to those who did not earn it. I have lived in Europe, I believe the U.S. has the superior system. The entire Euro-zone is about to collapse upon itself because of the enormous govt. spending on benefits and the slow growth of economic output. (25% of Greece's federal budget spent on benefits and pension) God help us if we become Greece.