, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pedro el Communist: Ok, well, WOW, thats a ton of information. Like I said earlier, all I really know, is what i have learned in my HISTORY class. It is not economics. We do not have the time to cover every single detail. But what you have told me about economics is good. However, maybe its just coming across this way from no personal contact, but it sounds like you are personally attacking me and my beliefs, which I find incorrect. However, I do not find my “liberal” ideas to be of Satan. How is it Satanic that a group, government in this example, is redistributing wealth (not all of it) to have people have a choice economically. If you are all about choice, then why are you so against people have a choice economically. People who are in poverty, a majority of them at least, are stuck in poverty with no way to get out. Ignore the choices that may have led them to be in poverty, that it another matter completely, but is it fair at all that someone is poverty has little to no chance to get out of poverty? That is where I beleive groups, government in this case, have a right to step in where rich people refuse to help people in the depths of poverty.

And how do you know (from what I understand at least, you have never really been taught in a public school) that all public school historians are the worst? What proof or any say do you have to say that? That is very judgemental (at least in my mind it is at least). And I still dont understand how, if it is true that all is needed for men to have natural consequences is to have very little regulations/rules from government, why the Gilded Age of 1870-1900 wasnt the perfect time for America?

Blackstone: How do you know that public school is a good place to learn? And how do you know I don’t know? That sounds very judgmental to me. 😉 Anyway, I know because I’ve heard many government schoolers talk about history and what they’ve “learned.” I’ve also read and skimmed through many of your textbooks, so. But how do you know if it’s a good place, seeing as you have little point of reference? Alas, the more you learn history, the less you trust historians; and public schools are the place with the worst historians (if you can even call them that).

I did not say by the way that liberal policies are satanic. I asked if you believe that the results of coercion are better than those of free agency, and that if you believed that, if therefore Satan’s plan of force was better than Christ’s plan of freedom. Now that’s a pretty big difference.

As for government “helping people” in the way you describe, very little of what the government does is even intended to be along those lines. And can you see the difference between a group (government) being “charitable” with someone else’s money, or a group voluntarily serving the poor? Did Christ ask individuals to serve the poor, or did he ask an entity to plunder them under the pretense of serving the poor? I’m afraid I’ll have to refer you to the French classical economist Fredrick Bastiat’s book, “The Law” for some complete arguments on the morality of government welfare. It’s a very short read, a couple of hours at the most, but it’s the best thing I know to quickly address the topic in a way you could easily understand.

We need to go to the most basic foundations of action if we’re really going to see choice in the context of government. Remember that choice must always be considered in the light of consequence. You see Peter, when people make choices, they get consequences. Now if a particular choice should always result in a certain consequence, then it’s called a natural consequence. Natural consequences are essential to understand if we’re to make a leap from human action to government. Now if acting man has freedom over his decisions, then he has complete control over his consequences, and therefore his circumstances. It is thus governments role to help the poor (not to mention everyone else) by making sure that all men have control of the three things Jefferson said were the sole role of government: to protect the Life, Liberty, and Property of the individual. Now isn’t that fair? Now all the government needs to do to protect those things in a market, is to provide a police force with an independent judiciary to enforce both a simple statutory criminal law, and a common law to handle other externalities. It’s as simple as that. Any other scheme by government can only serve to circumvent the natural consequences of people’s actions. I make good, for government works by mandates, and if choice is already in full abundance, why would adding mandates help to increase choice?