The Meaning of Country

May 30, 2011 By mario piperni

Interesting little debate going on in the comment section of a post from last week. I thought I’d highlight it here and give it greater exposure.

Tommy Pane, our hardcore libertarian friend and regular, and Diana McGinness, an unapologetic liberal, are discussing the very essence of what it means to live in a free, civilized nation and the role of government in a representative democracy. Tommy makes the case for smaller government and less involvement in coming to the aid of the less fortunate. Belief in the inherent altruistic nature of individuals, he argues, is all that is required.

Diana, on the other hand, takes a more pragmatic view of the matter. Her compassionate argument for government coming to the aid of those in need is most compelling.

Which side are you on?

Tommy:

You make it sound like it’s our “duty as citizens” to help those in need. You’re wrong. It’s your right to help others, but not your duty. It’s also not the duty of the government to help those in need. Using the power of the government to force one person to help another, does neither any good. People want to help others, until they’re forced to.

Diana:

Look Tommy, you benefit from our society, as much as the rest of us do. You have public roads to drive on, your electricity no doubt comes in part through government in some way – either directly, indirectly or with some type of government subsidy. When your home was built, you were probably tapped into a public sewer system that was paid for using someone else’s tax dollars, and now you pay for the treatment of your sewage that is done by a public or public-private partnership so your waste and that of others is not poisoning the water that comes through you tap — also provided for you by water lines that run throughout your city thanks to a government that provided for them.

Businesses, too, benefit from this — their customers get to their doors via public roads. Our education system provides them reasonably intelligent workers that don’t require their employer to educate them in adding up 2 plus 2. The Internet, also built with public money, allows them to sell their goods and services on line.

We are a society – we are not individuals taking care of what’s mine is mine and screw you. Our ancestors understood the value of having this community that gave them the strength to fight a Revolution, the War of 1812 and various Indian Wars (I won’t go into the right or wrong of some of those). The courts in their counties appointed someone in the community to build roads to the town square and to pay for that road building themselves — that was their contribution to the community. Others were required to take care of the orphans, the infirm and the poor. When they moved from one territory to another, they moved together, providing their own support group. Throughout our history we have understood the value of community and the strength it provides. Our founders understood it as well when they debated the issue of standing together as one nation, rather than 13 colonies or 3 regions forming their own governments.

Yes, indeed, divided we fail and united we stand. That was why keeping the nation united was the end game in the Civil War.

If you don’t want the benefits of a civilized society where we provide for the common good for all of our people, then go someplace else and build and maintain your own private roads, schools, libraries, parks, ponds, lakes, rivers, bridges, dams, other infrastructure, military, cops, firefighters, and whatever else it takes to provide you with whatever you want and see how much you left then.

It is the duty of our government to help our citizens when they are in need and they do it with our tax dollars, because if there were enough private money to help them, you would never see an advertisement for the Red Cross or any of the other charities asking for donations.

I’m sorry you don’t like the system as it is, but, fortunately, there are still enough people out there who understand the value of community and of helping our neighbors in time of need. And if you think I’m wrong about that, go listen to the coverage about the tornadoes in the Midwest. These salt of the earth people understand that they do have a duty and a responsibility to help one another and they’re soon going to find out government’s role in helping them to return their lives to some sense of normalcy, although some will never fully recover from their losses. Many of them also lost their jobs, as many of their employers also lost their businesses, and will be in need of assistance to get them through this because their homeowner’s insurance will not cover them for their job losses.

Should we as a society tell them to suck it up and figure it out on their own?

You assume those who want to help will make up the difference for those who don’t want to help, Tommy. If that were the case, we would have never had a history of orphanages and poor houses in this country, both of which were run by county governments, because there were no rich benefactors to help out.

Diana McGinness publishes Politics Unspun.

John Kriesel – The Republican Sumatran Tiger

Republican Asks Women To Plan Ahead For Rape

Filed Under: Common Sense, food for thought Tagged With: democrats, government, Republicans, society

Comments

Craig says:

May 30, 2011 at 12:29 pm

Bravo Diana!
Tommy Pane says:

May 30, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Thanks Mario. Here’s the rest of my comment, the part that helps to clarify my position:

“Our duty as citizens is to not harm others. The duty of the government is to provide justice to someone who’s been harmed, by limiting the rights of those who caused them harm. Losing one’s job because the company moves, does not qualify as being harmed by that company.”

Infrastructure, police, fire and emergency services, and education are legitimate roles of government, and for the most part, locally financed through property taxes and service fees. If a citizen of this country has an issue with the way the local community is handling those services, they’re free to move to a community that better suits their personal standard.

That option becomes lost as the financing moves up the governmental command line. The more centralized the service, the less control individual citizens have over it. My comments about government’s rightful role have always focused on the Federal government, not so much the state or local government. I don’t care how people in Diana’s state of Washington choose to govern. I don’t live there. On a local level, state, county or community, I don’t have a problem with their local programs and the taxes they levy to finance them. That’s what orphanages used to be; local programs. If I disagree with a local levy, I can move. Not so on a Federal level.

With regard to the “General Welfare Clause”, I have to ask, where does it end? With what intent does someone institute a government policy that forces money from one person, and gives it to another? The overview, the simplistic view, observes that those being taken from are resentful that their choice has been removed, and those being given to are being taught that if they wait long enough, someone will give them their basic survival needs. Digging deeper, let’s look at the vested interests that are developed. It’s not the poor who have the vested interest in the continuation of welfare programs; it’s those who profit from it. There’s a whole governmental industry that’s evolved around the continuation of poverty and hardship. Do you really think they have a goal of eliminating hardship, when their very livelihood depends on its existence?

My disagreement with you Diana isn’t about helping people. It’s about using the force of the Federal government to do it.
Diana McGinness says:

May 30, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Tommy, you said, “If I disagree with a local levy, I can move. Not so on a Federal level.” I disagree – you can move out of the United States anytime you choose to do so. You can apply for a visa, or disavow your citizenship and apply for new citizenship elsewhere. It’s done all the time. I think you’ll not find another industrialized country, however, that does less for their citizens than the United States.

Beyond that, you seem to have defeated your own argument — why do we have poverty in this country, if there are so many benefactors out there willing to help the less fortunate?

As for a “whole governmental industry that’s evolved around keeping people poor” — please name them. The local food bank? Or the agency that hands out vouchers so people can pay the rent? Or is it the Medicaid program that helps people so they don’t get sick or pays for their treatment when they do? The unemployment office that tries to help people find jobs, and signs those up who need unemployment benefits so they can take care of their families? You know those parasites; “those being given to are being taught that if they wait long enough, someone will give them their basic survival needs.” But let’s not forget we’re still at double the unemployment rate that is typical for this country. Let’s also forget that many of the people collecting many of these benefits are the disabled and children who are (thus far) are prohibited from working. Should we send them out to look for jobs, too? — then we can increase the numbers of those looking for employment some more!

I would venture the merchants of poverty are the check cashing stores, the rent-to-own centers, the pay-day lenders, the unregulated mortgage lenders and the like. All backed by the banksters who make hay with their own usurious interest rates and fees. Or how about the merchants who pay their employees just barely over the minimum wage (or just that), wages that will never allow them to live above the poverty line? While their own profit margins soar.

What happens, Tommy, to these people whom you claim in one sentence not to seem to mind helping, as long as you get to choose who you help, yet in another are no more than non-deserving parasites, or Pavlovian dogs trained to succor from the haves, when the states, who you feel should have the power to choose who they help, cannot afford to help their citizens?

Or better yet, feel as you do, that they are non-deserving parasites eating up all the resources of the state? Say, Texas, for example? Or Louisiana, Or Mississippi? Is that when the federal government should then step in and help people? Or should they just stand back and watch them die? Tell, who will then go pick their sorry asses up off the pavement? I’m guessing someone collecting a government paycheck, ’cause there undoubtedly will not be a rich benefactor willing to pay for it.
Tommy Pane says:

May 30, 2011 at 8:39 pm

I feel sorry for you Diana. You have a dim view of humanity. According to your scenario, if government did nothing, the people of this country would not voluntarily pick up the slack. You seem to say that Americans would let other Americans suffer.

I admire your sense of altruism. I’m sure if you use the free market to solicit donations, you’ll be very successful. I think you’ll be surprised by how many people would freely give.

You haven’t answered my question. With what intent does someone institute a government policy that forces money from one person, and gives it to another? Where does it end?
esd2000 says:

May 30, 2011 at 9:27 pm

Right on Diana:
If there were a State where one is not “forced” to contribute to social programs and one lost their job, would one remain in that State? I doubt it. We’d hightail it to the nearest State where we could get help till we could get back on our feet. Even the “Small Government” folks. I fail to understand the logic in “I don’t mind the State telling me what to do as long as it’s not the Federal Government”. Government is Government.
Diana McGinness says:

May 30, 2011 at 11:17 pm

Tommy, you cannot prove your own statements — that people would pick up the slack — if there were no government to intercede. If that were the case, government would have not needed to step up to begin with. Our history repeatedly disproves what you would like to believe is true. Sure, there will be people who do step up. If there weren’t, there would be no Red Cross or other charities – no food banks, etc. But not all people can or are able to do this, or are willing to do it — many feel as you do that “those being given to are being taught that if they wait long enough, someone will give them their basic survival needs” or as Joe stated on the other page, “I don’t want to shell out money to others who are lazy, incompetent, suffer from misfortune, or got delt a bad hand.”

With regard to your question, “With what intent does someone institute a government policy that forces money from one person, and gives it to another? Where does it end?”

That would depend on what the ultimate use of that money — given to a business to pay for wars, given to a senior, whose labor helped to build this country, to see them through their final years, etc.

As Thomas Paine, whose name you use, wrote, “The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government…”

We are far from living in a perfect civilization, aren’t we?

He also said, “In the present state of things a labouring man, with a wife or two or three children, does not pay less than between seven and eight pounds a year in taxes. He is not sensible of this, because it is disguised to him in the articles which he buys, and he thinks only of their dearness; but as the taxes take from him, at least, a fourth part of his yearly earnings, he is consequently disabled from providing for a family, especially, if himself, or any of them, are afflicted with sickness.

The first step, therefore, of practical relief, would be to abolish the poor-rates entirely, and in lieu thereof, to make a remission of taxes to the poor of double the amount of the present poor-rates…”

Maybe you should choose a different moniker?
Tommy Pane says:

May 30, 2011 at 11:55 pm

“That would depend on what the ultimate use of that money — given to a business to pay for wars, given to a senior, whose labor helped to build this country, to see them through their final years, etc.”

By “Where does it end?”, I meant the intent of that person. How far should government go to protect the welfare of it’s citizens?

I believe humanity is evolving. I see people as more compassionate than they were 50 years ago. I think we’re passing the era of needing government to force compassion. I think if we don’t make the transition to a voluntary system of compassion, our current course will lead to an ever larger system of forced compassion, with the result being less freedom.

After all, “The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for government…”

It’s time we allow a free people to prove themselves.
Diana McGinness says:

May 31, 2011 at 12:36 am

Example of GOP compassion:

“OLYMPIA — Republican lawmakers in the House are offering an alternative state budget proposal for the next two years that contains $4.7 billion in cuts, including the elimination of Washington’s health program for the poor and most of a program aiding disabled adults.”

Playing out in State legislatures all across the country where the GOP is in control. The “Compassionate Conservative” died when Bush left office. And they seem to have plenty of mad hatters pouring the tea for them.

While I have faith in my fellow man — the recent greed fest being practiced by so many keeps me grounded in pragmatism. I see and read few compassionate comments from those on the right. It’s a “what’s mine is mine and screw you” mentality.

If this were a utopia, there would be no need for government, nor would there be poor and those who are disabled or elderly, as well as the children, would be cared for without a second thought. There would be no need for prisons or cops. We would have no fear of our enemies. That is not the world we live in, nor will we ever achieve it.

And, based on what I’ve seen, I’m not willing to risk the “people proving themselves.” There are too many now sitting on the street corners begging for food or work. I don’t see many helping them. I can’t park my car in Mt Vernon without someone coming up and asking for help. So where are all those people? At home holding onto what’s theirs?
Penny Small says:

May 31, 2011 at 10:06 am

I would also add, to Tommy, that if you think the local and state government does these things on just the taxes they collect you are sadly mistaken. Have you not noted the many, many, many articles and news commentaries on state governments being upset over the money, or need of more, to help in the case of disasters, medical care for their citizens, help in maintaining or upgrading the infrastructure. Yes many of them are freeways, interstates… But we all have the advantage of using them to travel from state to state or coast to coast. God Bless America for the compassion we all have as a Nation United.

Thank you Diana for a well stated and inspiring rebuttal to ignorance of the multiple roles of a National Government.
Morton Weiss says:

May 31, 2011 at 3:14 pm

What is Tommy drinking? Can he name one society that without Gov. help the unfortunate were helped.Where is this “Wonderland” I truly believe that Tommy is making this up just to be obnoxious,otherwise i would have to believe that he is delusional.
Tommy Pane says:

May 31, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Nothing stays the same for long Mort. Either we’re moving in the direction of more citizens being “helped” by the government, or we’re moving in the direction of fewer citizens needing government support. One leads to a more responsible citizenry. The other to a less responsible citizenry.

Call me delusional if you want, but like it not, we’re moving in one of those two directions. Liberals have made their choice clear. So have Big Government Republicans, otherwise known as Compassionate Conservatives.
Morton Weiss says:

May 31, 2011 at 9:12 pm

If you think that the help the Gov. gives is worth waiting for ,then you are truly DELUSIONAL!
Diana McGinness says:

May 31, 2011 at 10:49 pm

You’re mistaken, Tommy. What liberals want is a fair shake for working families — where they make the wages they need to take care of themselves, where they can pay for their own needs and those they are responsible for. We want them to climb the ladder and move up to middle class or above and not need government assistance. There will always be those who do – particularly seniors who can no longer work, or the disabled. But you can’t even begin to end poverty without increasing the minimum wage. Getting health care off the backs of business would be helpful, too.

Instead, the GOP seems hell bent on destroying what’s left of the middle class, which will do nothing more than add more people to the poverty roles…so more and more will need help. But, hey, just so long as the profit margins are high, who gives a shit about real Americans.
Diana McGinness says:

May 31, 2011 at 11:10 pm

BTW — I’d forgotten the other group requiring government assistance – many in our military:

“Could you please do your part to inform GAO that most enlisted military personnel E-5 and below qualify for some kind of government assistance, i.e. food stamps, subsidized daycare. If my husband, a Corporal (E-4) in the Marine Corps, and others like him, is so well paid, then why do we qualify for government assistance? My family and thousands of families like ours have to live from paycheck to paycheck not because we are trying to live beyond our means, but because our means are above what the military member is being paid.”

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,82088,00.html

Should they also be denied?
Lisa says:

June 2, 2011 at 12:26 pm

So here is the part that I have never gotten about libertarian thinking, going along the lines of I can make my own choices, etc.

Businesses often do want to make their own choices, and these choices often involve exploiting resources for their own personal gain. Lets look at history: labor? Oh, businesses exploited that, women, children, men (lets think about the coal mining’s factory store for a minute). Natural resources? Businesses (big and small) have polluted our water and our land to points beyond recognition. To points where the residents that live there (mostly because they do not have the means to up and leave the community that they live in) die prematurely of exotic cancers.

In a free market, everyone seems to choose what will bring the most money in during the short term. Then when the money is no longer coming in, the business folds, and leaves behind destitution in its wake.

I think to Diana’s point, a civilized society has a responsibility to its community, and in the present day that community is more and more global. The choices of one community affect many around the world and the effects of their choices are becoming less and less isolated.
Diana McGinness says:

June 3, 2011 at 12:23 am

Thank you everyone and thank you, Mario, for providing us all with a place to vent — smile!