(Steven not pictured. That is South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.)
In comment to my blog about "horsing around," my Facebook friend and high school classmate (never mind what year) attached this clip from The Daily Show. Appropriate to my blog, it references a South Carolina man who was arrested for sexually assaulting a horse twice. That's the same horse, twice. Guess it was true love.
But the real story in the video (you have to watch it) is Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer of South Carolina equating free lunches for school children to feeding stray animals. He goes on to say that we should NOT do this because, as we all know, feeding stray animals only encourages them to "breed."
So, if you are from South Carolina, do your best to get above your raisin', because that's just scary.
IMO the school lunch programs is one of the best and most successful programs in the country. It ensures that every kid in America gets at least one hot meal per day.
If this bothers you simply because the government is behind it, try to think of it like this: When you are deciding whether or not to support a charity, you ask about the cause the charity is working for. Instead of focusing on WHO is helping the children or sick people or poor people or disabled people, why not focus on (1) whether the goal is laudable and(2) whether the goal is being met.
To me, this is the real debate since the government already is so involved. Did you know that prior to health care reform even passing, more Americans received health care through a government program (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SSI, SSDI, Tribal health care, etc.) than through the private health care system? I bet you didn't know that.
So, if we actually have a debate about REALITY instead of the delusional fantasy that somehow our government is going to extract itself from our economy, I think we can actually get more done.
In the mean time, can we agree to stop voting for people who compare children to unwanted animals?
Thanks, Steven.
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! I'M GOING ON A TANGENT:
This cockroach is anti-choice. Does anyone else find it ironic and infuriating that this redneck calls abortion "murder" yet has no qualms calling poor children in his state "stray animals?" Well, Lt. Gov. Bauer, what do you do in South Carolina with stray animals? Go ahead. You know the answer. Say it.
I'm not saying he needs to change his position on abortion. I'm suggesting he needs to care as much about an actual child after it is born as he purports to care about a tiny lump of cells in some woman's uterus. Until then, he needs a giant metaphorical bandage to cover his hypocriture.
Jason again with another 2-parter...
ReplyDeleteOkay, putting aside the particulars of Bauer poorly chosen analogy for the moment, let me make a note about one of your comments concerning the role of government. You said "Instead of focusing on WHO is helping the children or sick people or poor people or disabled people, why not focus on (1) whether the goal is laudable and (2) whether the goal is being met."
The problem is that the liberal mentality takes this notion of "if it's a good idea, let government do it" and make it the BASIS of their political stances. The basis of a political stance in America should be the question "Does this provide an effective method for government to perform its true role in America: equally protecting the basic freedoms of all citizens?" If you don't focus on that principle of basic freedom, YOU WILL VIOLATE IT!
Let me explain: Government MUST take your money to do its job. It MUST force you to follow laws whether you want to or not. You ARE supporting the government whether you like it or not. In general, most of the acts of government are meant to LIMIT the use of certain freedoms. How then can it be all about protecting freedoms? It can only do so by making sure that all of its acts of limiting freedoms on one hand are necessary to fairly protect more justifiable freedoms on the other. For example, as an American, the one obligation our government is supposed to force on me is the idea that I must support the protection of freedoms for all citizens; so a fair, balanced tax system is not "anti-freedom" IF the funds are used to ensure equal protection of basic freedoms for all.
So, what happens if government takes on a role via a program that has no clear basis in the protection of our freedoms? It takes on that role using your money and my money. Say I have beliefs that (1) do not go against the ideas of personal freedom but (2) are greatly offended by those particular government programs? Do I just loose my freedom to the will of the majority (because I am being forced to support the Government and its role)?
The one obvious example is this: Why is it such a bad idea for government to support a purely religious cause if a majority agree with that support? The answer isn't simply "because it's unconstitutional" but rather "because it goes against the very ideals on which America was based and which thus led to the protections listed in the Constitution."
The more the government takes on roles just because the majority thinks they are "good ideas," the more the government directly violates the basic rights of the minority. I think that this is one of the major sentiments in the Tea Party movement. A particular minority is sick of having their basic freedoms ignored and trampled on by the acts of government. Government in America is going so far in taking on roles that are just "good ideas" to the majority that they are beginning to make a segment of the minority feel that the government is un-American and deliberately and happily trampling on the ideals of personal freedom. It gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.
...from Jason (continued)
ReplyDeleteNow, I for one believe that a certain level of "safety net" and "welfare" programs can indeed be an effective way to protect personal freedoms. People who find themselves in dire situations are both more vulnerable to exploitation of their rights and, in cases, more likely to commit acts against the freedoms of others to get by.
Notice, though, that IF the focus of these government programs is ultimately ensuring the protection of basic freedoms, then one quickly sees the need to keep close checks on the programs--to not let them get out of hand, to make reasonable requirements on the recipients, etc, HOWEVER, if the focus on these programs is simply that they are good ideas that are supposed to help people, then the programs can easily go beyond the proper role of government and start forcing a moralistic ideology on all American tax payers who are forced to support the program.
Government regulations can be essential to ensuring that people aren't exploited and taken advantage of in a way that violates their basic freedoms, but if the focus of the government regulations is enforcing someone's moralized ideals of "fairness," then again, they can easily be pushed the wrong way and become more of a hindrance to the ideology of personal freedom than a protection of that ideology.
It ALL comes down to a matter of perspective--if you work HARD to keep the focus on protection of basic freedoms, government programs can work to "do good" as long as the outcome is better protection of freedoms. The question of whether a program really protects freedoms or not should not be an after-thought--they should be the focus of all such programs. This view I have is very ideological in is general nature, but it becomes practical when you put it to use. You need to keep that ideology in mind and do the hard work of thinking through how to apply it in the real world or you WILL violate the ideals that are so fundamental to our country.
Finally, as for Bauer, I am hoping his was telling the truth when he said he never meant to actually compare the children of poor people to stray animals (which doesn't say much for his art of communication, I'm afraid). Apparently his point was that government hand-outs can and do influence behavior. One of his statements that actually proposed an action was "Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don’t attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits." Now, I don't see how you can actually punish the child for the parent's behavior, but if there WERE a way to influence better parent participation, especially in areas where you know it's often an issue, that would be good. I believe that a well educated population is much better able to protect its own freedoms, so I support government paid education (but believe it doesn't have to also be government RUN education). That's another topic...
-Jason
See why I find it hard to read your type of blog? There are very fundamental ideas behind my political stances. I have gone through a lot of thought and wrestled my way through those ideals myself, and while in the end the ideology can be stated in relatively few words, it takes time to really analyze and clarify its true basis and meaning. It also takes a lot of thought to apply them properly and rationally to specific issues.
ReplyDeleteThen I see a comedian or a blogger who effectively says "hey look at this conservative... he said something stupid... conservatism is stupid." UGH!
I'd prefer having a real discourse. I think that the most useful way to understand different positions on these subjects is to start with this topic: Describe your own political ideology--what do you think is the proper role of government in America and why? Do your political stances bear out that ideology? How do you apply that ideology to specific, real-world issues.
ANYWAY... just wanted to throw that in.
-Jason
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYour ideas about individual freedom are old and time tested. But they are belied by your own desire to regulate personal behavior concerning abortion, gay marriage, and other private behaviors. So, as I have stated before, I find your argument as unconvincing as that made by the others who hold this view. A true libertarian would not want to impose moral constructs around private behavior according to one group's interpretation of religious dogma. So what you really are is someone who wants to remove all the social protections that come with the regulation and tempering of the free market while using the government to dictate personal behavior. This is not libertarianism. I guess we could call it Hinsonism. Now you're famous!
Heather,
ReplyDeleteFirst, you're being intellectually dishonest about my stance on abortion, and I think you know that! If a human being has rights because he/she is a human being, then considering the rights of the unborn IS protection of personal freedom (the freedom to life of the unborn). How is an unborn child NOT a human being? Genetically there is no denying that the unborn are simply in the early stages in the life cycle of a human being. Logically, intellectually, the debate on abortion is NOT about whether government should interfere with someone's rights but WHICH right is more justly protected by government in a given situation. I am perfectly willing to admit that a pro-choice argument is about protection of rights that the pro-choice person believes are more justified (rather than arguing that pro-choice is about the hatred of human life or government-supported population control or some other intellectually dishonest nonsense). You should be willing to admit that my stance is concerned with protecting basic human rights (not violating freedom because I find it morally wrong)! In fact, in some cases I find it logical that the most justified protection of freedom is to allow a woman to have an abortion even though I would morally disagree with the act. It's NOT about MY morality--its about protecting rights which is America's morality. PLEASE tell me that you can put aside the biases and admit that I have an intellectually sound argument--EITHER stance on abortion can be framed on the idea that government must protect individual rights!
That one REALLY bugs me because its betrays such bias thinking to ignore even the possibility that the unborn have rights when talking about a "libertarian" stance on the issue. Bias is getting in the way of intellectually honest discussion. Ugh.
Second, my stance on gay marriage is actually rather complex. I understand the arguments, but what it really comes down to is a question of whether government should even be promoting the concept of marriage in the first place. However, society has proven that promotion of the family unit is very important. I believe that proper promotion of family can be vital to strengthening social bonds that foster respect for other people and the freedoms they have. Without it, I believe society would literally fail. In addition, without some way of recognizing a family unit, how do you handle practical matters such as taxation considerations?
continued...
continued...
ReplyDeleteIn the end, I conclude that basic promotion of marriage is an acceptable role for government--but as with any such "it can sort of help protect freedoms and it is also needed for practical reasons" role of government, you have to be very careful. Marriage has a well established definition that is steeped in social and religions meaning. How should government define marriage as a concept it will support? Is it okay to take taxes and promote a meaning for the concept of Marriage that is offensive to a large segment of people, especially most religious people who hold the concept in such high regard? THAT'S my biggest issue with "gay marriage."
I do not want to stop any gay individual from seeing their partner in a hospital. I do not generally agree with laws against consensual sexual behaviors in the confines of one's home. I am open to the idea of domestic partnerships (though it does open up questions about multiple-person partnerships, so where do you draw the line?). However, for government (which I am forced to support) to call such unions "marriage" offends my moral believes about marriage as a concept with a long-standing established meaning. If a gay couple wants to call themselves "married," that is their prerogative. Just don't force me to support changing the traditional meaning of the term that is so important to me. At the same time, allow the couple to be contactually bound, to have joint ownership of property, to define one another as "nearest of kin," etc. I have moral sensibilities against such things, but that the the way they choose to use their liberty--just don't force me to support it a "marriage."
Finally, of course I know that free markets can cause harm to individual freedoms if abused and that government regulations are needed at a certain level. But again, you should err on the side of caution in such matters--take slow steps whenever possible. Evaluate the effects of the regulations to ensure they are not simply promoting your idea of moral behavior in a market and are instead truly needed to justly protect freedoms. As I have indicated before, its often a matter of proper degrees and balances, but if you don't keep your focus on the idea that the role of government in America should be protection of individual freedoms, it is easy to let regulations run away and ignore the fact that they are violating that ideology more than they are upholding it.
Oh, and by the way, I usually find that libertarianism doesn't truly see the balance needed. For example, I know that at one point the official libertarian stance was that there should be no involuntary taxes--ignoring the fact that such taxes are necessary to ensure equal protection of freedoms for all. I consider myself largely a conservative by way of libertarianism. That is, my stated ideology sounds a lot like libertarianism, but when I consider how to practically apply that ideology, I often find myself leaning more towards conservative solutions (though not always).
-Jason