The State Higher Education Executive Officers Association reports that South Dakota is one of 32 states that are investing less per student now on higher education than they did before the recession eleven years ago.
Higher education is more important than ever to young people’s job prospects, but we’re doing less to help them get those degrees. Ah, priorities.
South Dakota’s gap between pre-recession and current state support for higher ed per FTE, in 2018 dollars, is larger than the national average, which is funny, because the recession didn’t hit South Dakota as hard as it hit the rest of the country. But here we are, doing 12.8% less to support degree-seekers than we did over a decade ago. From FY2008 to FY2018, even as the national average spending per higher ed student dropped 11.2%, we let our shortfall from the national average increase, from 17.3% to 18.8%.
South Dakota’s personal income has grown more slowly than the national average since the recession. You could read that stat as an excuse for the state to spend less on higher ed, but you could also read it as families having less income to spend on higher ed and thus creating all the more imperative for the state to increase its support of universities rather than dump more financial burden on students’ shoulders.
Nationally, students bear 46.6% of the tuition cost of higher education. That was the student share in South Dakota back when Bill Janklow was governor. Throughout the Daugaard Administration, students in South Dakota paid well over 60% of tuition costs:
But hey, if little Jack-Jack from Colman sticks with trapping and maxes out on badger and skunk tails each year, then by the time he’s 18 and wants to go up the road to SDSU, the state will subsidize his varmint quest with free traps built by inmate labor and pay him $8,260 from the Noem Predator Bounty Fund! Fourteen years of trapping will pay for almost a whole semester at SDSU! Ah, priorities.
Good!!! While college/higher education may be a good thing for a lot of people, it IS NOT a necessity and should NOT be taxpayer funded. People should pay their own way through life. That’s right, 100%. End the giveaways. It’s entirely possible to be successful with a day of college. Many people have done so. I’m 60 years old. Government spending exasperates the income divide. Forty years ago there was a lot less spending (adjusted for inflation), incomes we’re closer, and many families made ends meet on one job.
Should have read “..without a day of college.”
Daryl Root: “People should pay their own way through life.”
Fine. Build your own roads, sewer system, and water well. Certainly you won’t need anyone with an engineering degree to build your roads, sewer system and water system, either. You can get any high school dropout to construct these systems for you. Good luck!
I share Daryls anger; I place the blame at different feet. Forty years ago we had an economy that focused on the ability of workers to move up in their jobs — that is less of a possibility now in too many jobs. Forty years ago, productivity gains were more enjoyed by the workers — now that is all funneled into stock owners and COE salaries, the 1%. Forty years ago we had a marginal tax rate at 70%, we asked the wealthy to share that prosperity (especially to create the infrastructure Donald mentions) while still allowing them to enjoy a lavish lifestyle.
Forty years ago we were still a manufacturing economy — now we are informational, which means different needs for education for base survival in the workplace.
Forty years ago we elected a President for his decency — we wanted a good man to lead us.
The current thinking probably is: “Why subidize them since they’ll move away anyhow.”
50 years ago I remember wingnuts demanded taxes be cut every time Dems wanted to help the least among us.
Then along came voo doo economics and wingnuts have been bat guano crazy about cutting taxes for the wealthy ever since. And they have been consistently wrong about the results and yet they keep wanting to do it over and over some more, expecting they will finally get the results they haVe been lying about for forever.
Donald Pay, you make it sound so easy! Surely you know that people can come together to get things done without government force or coercion. Unfortunately, most people don’t want to.
Hopefully, someday, the majority quits worshiping the government, the god that continues to fail…
Here’s one of my favorite quotes from Frederic Bastiat that plays right into the topic being discussed…
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
Aaron, I see your thinking limited in that you draw a distinction between “government” and “the people.” I (as a liberal) see “government” as “We the people . . .”: the same entity.
Thinking limited? Think of all of the opportunities that come about without government holding people back! In my opinion, it’s pretty limited thinking if someone believes it’s always best to let the majority rule. What if part of the minority has a great idea that gets poo pooed and not put into action?
There’s nothing wrong with government, but it should be very minimal and only there to protect our rights. Now, as far as rights go, that may be something else that you and I disagree on. ;)
Who is government? We is. 40 years ago, we were coming off a small recession and getting ready for the huge 1980 recession. 50 years ago, we were still in the middle of a war in Vietnam…that caused the recession 40 years ago. Wars are a racket.
Now, we are broke and out of ideas after 18 years of war in Afghanistan. Anyone notice that it is foreign interests that are leading the way with 5G and other communication breakthroughs, while we hitch rides to an antiquated space station on with the Russians. Here’s a hint, government pay for college so we can become leaders again…oh, and stop wars. Now days, no one wants to go to the military anyway or serve in any capacity, the community. We are too damn busy trapping skunks.
Aaron, you think a bunch of “like minded” folks would get together, plan, build, and maintain an interstate highway system? A national defense? A judicial system? Or any public institution that goes beyond the selfish interests of the limited, directly involved?
As for “the government holding you back,” I WANT the greedy to be held back from the exploitation of the environment, their workforce, and the general public safety. I want “the government holding you back” from the the base instincts and ignorance that too often motivate us.
The problem is not majority rule, but when governance twists into minority rule. It is the minority, both public and scientific, that perpetuate the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the Green. It is the minority that perpetuates the proliferation of guns in America. It is the minority that opposes expansion of public health care.
Bah zing! Nailed it o
Jerry: “Who is the gov’t? We is.” That statement is wrong. Gov’t was the people, but we’ve let it become it’s own entity that acts in its own interest. If “we are gov’t” then why do we have endless wars? “We people” are disconnected from what is the gov’t. Which is why we need less of it in nearly every facet of our lives.
O: Yes, like-minded folks will absolutely come to get and build roads, provide education that best suits the interest of their communities, Hell, they might even solve homelessness if it was important enough and people were allowed to create voluntarily systems to support themselves. As for the judicial systems and national defense, well those things specifically are tasked to our federal gov’t. But outside of that, it’s pretty limited, including education. And finally, muh roads. Do you really think that without our precious gov’t the roads would just go away and we would be transported back to 1900? Ohh wait, roads existed then too, without gov’t. So did a massive train infrastructure, which was built…again, without gov’t. So tell me again, what conceivable role does gov’t play in these intricacies outside of what is expressly delegated to them by the states?
Also, who gets to decide who is being greedy and who is not? You? The other liberal masses that think a person or corporation is taking too much for themselves, or they aren’t distributing their resources as you would? Gov’t isn’t holding back the greedy, they are holding back the competition in the interest of greed. (that’s call corporatism or crony capitalism) This is again why the gov’t is not “We the people” anymore.
Nope Joshua, I am correct. Here is what the government (people) are doing in Rome. They have become the government on their own.
“The seven clandestine pavement-fixers are part of a network of about 20 activists quietly doing the work that the city authorities have failed to do. Gap stands for Gruppi Artigiani Pronto Intervento, (“groups of artisan emergency services”) but is also a tribute to the partisans of Gruppi di Azione Patriottica, who fought the fascists during the second world war.”
We, the people need to get off our arse’s and make government work for us…again. We need the roads, the communications, the environment and we need to demand it. We call that pooling our resources as these folks are doing in Rome. We Americans are getting left in the dust of our failures to understand that we is the government.
Democrats have the ideas once again to put some shoes on this lame horse and get it up and leading!
“The Vermont independent introduced a new “Medicare for All” bill that would create a government-run system to cover all Americans. While Sanders has proposed legislation to create a single-payer system before, the measure unveiled Wednesday would go further in covering long-term care for people with disabilities, bringing it in line with a bill introduced in the House earlier this year. — http://www.cnbc.com/... ”
Bring it on! That will put some cha-ching in the coffers to pay for the education we need to put us back in the race with our competitors. No more being like Apple and offering movie time, what is that??? That is when you don’t have any ideas.
I’ll agree that the government is the people, but it should still be very limited, and that’s all more the reason to limit it and decentralize it as much as possible. Man is not perfect so, why should your neighbor or someone five states away from you have say on how you run your life and where your earned money goes?
Jerry, wars are a racket! I couldn’t agree with you more, and that’s all more the reason to limit government.
o, yes, I do believe that people can achieve those things, and they’ve achieved great things without the force of government, in the past. That group of like minded folk were the founders of this country, and as you know they had a very limited government. I know you understand that there are selfish interests in all groups. Just because it’s public doesn’t make it different in that regard. You also know that an enlarged government only helps large interests and continues to push down the little guy, making it harder for the poor to succeed. Limited government levels the playing field and helps the little guy.
The problem with big government is, you’re always going to be upset when your guy/gal or team isn’t in power. Cut back on force and coercion by the state, and people start to become more responsible in their own lives and start looking out for their neighbors a lot more.
But but jerry, how will it be funded? Glad you asked, check this out! https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-financing?id=860FD1B9-3E8A-4ADD-8C1F-0DEDC8D45BC1&download=1&inline=file
Jerry, You can’t say gov’t is “we the people” and then reference Rome. We are talking about here, in the US of A. We are not the gov’t any longer. The gov’t is a monopoly organization that does not have “we the people’s” best interest in mind.
https://www.godarchy.org/2019/03/23/we-are-not-the-government-godarchy-podcast-12/
Jerry: We are talking about education, not healthcare. But the answer to how it will be funded is irrelevant. The gov’t doesn’t have money to fund the status quo. It matters not if you just adjust what we are already spending. Because we don’t have the money we are spending currently, so your plan, as elegant as it appears, does not work.
All roads lead to Rome, my good fellow. You learn from others, isn’t that what education is?
Healthcare is the key to what ails us here in America. We spend so much on healthcare that it dwarfs what we need to keep us going. Unleash the funds we are paying insurance CEO’s and the rest of the racket and then we will have more than plenty to further our education needs.
Allow the free market to take over healthcare and stop the gov’t from intervening altogether (in healthcare AND education). Then we’ll be on to something. ;-)
Aaron Aylward: “Unfortunately, most people don’t want to.” Wrong. We “come together” in our institutions, including government.
You quote Bastiat, who inherited his wealth rather than make it on his own. He’s much like Adam Smith, who had his mother cook for him, yet devalued her work in keeping him alive while he praised “economic man.” Bastiat was, by the way, involved in government. He preferred that government, of course, which didn’t reduce his unearned wealth, which he lived on while looking down on those who might think some people might require government assistance from time to time.
I got this John Adams quote from a conservative site:
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
Thoughts on Government, 1776
I like Adams’ ideas here. We can argue about what constitutes “common good,” but he is much more realistic in his idea that when conditions change government policy changes. And he’s American. The ideas he has are American, not from the “let them eat cake” French crowd.
We already have the free market and it failed. Time to bring in the government to save us just like we do with any other threat. Education is what brought us to greatness, but we stagnated. Think of where we would be if we would have had one singular telecommunications platform with individual companies competing for our business. Instead, we had Verizon, ATT&T along with a slew of other platforms that you had to have in order to change company’s to get the best deal. Foreign company’s did not do this, they had one platform with company’s that offered deals and look how far they are ahead of us. They used education and government to lead the way…like we used to. We taught them how to do it and then we forgot to educate ourselves.
Aaron, et al, just to clarify, “socialism” is defined as an economic system in which the government owns the means of production and acquires whatever profits accrue from these means of production. Notwithstanding the pre-Marxian quote from Bastiat, schools don’t seem to qualify as the means of production, so government funding of schools falls completely outside the accepted contemporary definition of “socialism.” Likewise, laws seeking equality don’t result in the public ownership of the means of production any more than laws against murder and theft do, hence these laws don’t seem to fit with in the definition of “socialism.” (The same would be true if we had a state religion, since the practice of religion is not a means of production). See e.g.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
I am hard pressed to identify any of the means of production in the USA that are owned by the government rather than private individuals or private companies, hence it is quite unclear how the USA is in any way, shape or form, a socialist country in part or in whole.
And as others have pointed out, the term “government” cannot be legitimately personalized as some foreign entity, because the “government” is nothing more than the name we give to all the people and whatever organizing principles they have accepted. We the people are, indeed, the “government.”
And to further clarify, every variation of libertarianism, including anarchism, which seems to be where so many so called “anti-government” folks seem to think would be better than our current system is just another form of a “government.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
So all you anti-government folks might want to focus your complaints. Rather than rant against “government,” rant against the type of government you object to, such as monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, theocracy, tyranny or whatever.
And in your rants against “socialism,” you might want to identify actual socialist countries to gripe about rather than countries like the USA that do not own the means of production nor are entitled to the profits from these means of production.
I note that there have been some exceptions in which parts of our government actually owned the means of production, such as the former South Dakota cement plant before it was sold to Mexican interests. There may a few other publicly owned companies, but they seem to be an insignificant part of our economy.
Ultimately the mass confusion about what constitutes “government” and “socialism” highlights the need for greater investment in education to assist the people in understanding the meaning of the terms they use. This would help advance discussions about how society ought to be organized.
DP, those who do want to come together do. Yet, a majority of the population just wants someone to do things for them so it makes their life easier. That’s a fact. People are attracted to convenience.
The big question here is, why do some feel like they need to force their ideas onto others? And if those others do not adhere, why do they get fined or tossed into a cage?
I appreciate the information on Bastiat and Smith. No man is perfect.
That is a nice quote by John Adams, but I highly doubt he would advocate for the size of the federal government that we have today. Even Hamilton, would cringe at what we have today.
Jerry: wait… where do we have the free market? The free market is sans gov’t intervention. Verizon, AT&T, health insurance, Amazon, big pharma… nearly every billion dollar conglomerate has their hands dirty with gov’t. That’s not free market. that’s corruption. The two are not the same.
I shudder to think how even more utterly disturbing it would be in South Dakota if all federal funding stopped.
So there ya go, put the money into education that is going to fund success rather than failure and we can get someplace. One of the key places for funding is healthcare, go with the plan the keeps money in the pockets of the citizens rather than the rigged game called Wall Street. A healthy nation is an educated one.
bcb, that post of your’s was brilliant and spot on. Always good to read your prospective.
The sky would fall. I am sure of it.
I shudder to think of utterly disturbing it will be for our country as a whole when the system eventually collapses. Because at it’s current pace, it will collapse. And you will have advocated for that collapse by advocating we continue our spending trend. Providing no alternatives to voluntarily provide for markets as they are needed.
We just gave you an insight but you’re to busy to read it. Don’t worry about the collapse of the current system, hope for it. The sooner we get back on track, the better. Education for all and healthcare for all!!
Josh, “So did a massive train infrastructure, which was built…again, without gov’t.”
I remember learning (in my public school) about the Pacific Railway Act that funded the transcontinental railroads. Four such railroads were built with government support. The roads before Eisenhhower were a mess.
So I ask, independent of government, what is the great achievement for the betterment of mankind that has come form like minded people coming together? I can think of some great charity work by organizations like the Shriners, otherwise I think there is a serious bend to self interest – an interest that is at the expense of others.
bcb: I am not anti-government. I am all for a very very limited government. I should have clarified that earlier in the thread, my apologies.
The problem is when government of any kind has a monopoly on force.
For something to be termed socialist, it doesn’t have to be completely owned by the government, only regulated. So, there are different degrees of socialism.
o: I’m sure you also learned in public school that the civil war was fought solely because of slavery and Lincoln was one of the best presidents in the history of our nation.
The first transcontinental railroad was built by a private entity because, you know, capitalism. It was just a few years later when the gov’t realized how important railroads are and decided it needed to have a hand in it. Enter more gov’t intervention.
Great achievements of like-minded people coming together? I would say pretty much every revolutionary invention that came from capitalism. And they did it without gov’t, out of a need to serve the market.
BCB, thanks for the excellent lesson on socialism and government.
The US has the money to fund higher education and many other needs. Simply tax the wealthiest so that they pay their fair share.
Right now in SD the folks with the lowest income pay a greater %age of it in taxes than anyone else. SD needs to do the right thing. Lower property and sales tax and enact a state income tax. That’s the fairest and right thing to do.
End tax breaks that favor the rich in the US tax code and raise the marginal rate to 75%. It won’t cause any hardship and will do great things for the country. That is, if the money is spent in honest service to all the citizens.
Debbo: that’s the fairest thing to do? Holding guns to the citizens of South Dakotan’s heads to make them pay for gov’t things is the fairest thing to do? Really?
Tax the wealthiest? What have they done wrong? Tax is, by definition, a punishment. Not to mention, they will hardly make up for the wasteful spending of the gov’t.
I 100% percent agree on lowering property tax, however. I don’t see why we can’t abolish it altogether. I mean, why should anyone that owns their house still have to rent the land it’s on from the gov’t. Is it their property, or gov’ts? And honestly, where in our gov’t budget does the US have money to pay for anything? And who gets to decide what ‘honest service to all the citizens” means? Is that you? Only liberals? Because if I disagree with your assessment and refuse to pay your tax for what you think is fair, you’ll have me jailed. Or even killed. That’s not a place I want my kids to grow up in, and I surely think you can’t want that for your family either.
You are dishonest, Mr. Sopko. It’s easy to verify facts about the First Transcontinental Railroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad
As to your crazy talk about abolishing property taxes, talk to your elected representatives – 80% of whom in South Dakota are Republicans. Report back here with their responses.
I’m afraid “our government has been purchased by an acute minority of less than 1 % for the benefit of the 1%.
When government was constrained by rules there were far fewer humans succumbing to food borne illnesses as there are presently- there is a new food recall nearly every week and they still keep happening. Now the pork industry is going to be handling more of their own food and plant inspections and you know what that leads to. That’s right, moar profit and less accountability.
“Tax is, by definition, a punishment.” Absolutely wrong. Tax is the price you and I and everyone pays, according to their ability, for living in community. You must be thinking of fines, a very different thing.
Taxes are how we meet our communal needs of safety, health, mobility, etc. If you feel that’s wrong you ought to find a place to live by yourself or with other like minded folks or expect to end up in prison. I would never kill anyone for tax evasion and I don’t think that’s ever been a penalty in the USA.
In a democratic government, the type I favor, the citizens make the decisions. I am opposed to other forms of governance in which only a small group, the wealthiest, corporations, or so on dictate laws citizens are forced to live under.
Aaron, your statement that
puzzled me. I googled it and my first hit was a Merriam-Webster definition:
That definition again fails to jive with your statement. Your statement appears to be an example of the incorrect use of the term we often see these days.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Joshua Sopko
Please take a moment and look up the definition of “tax”.
It is reckless to even suggest that Americans are being punished because they are required to pay taxes.
Joshua, early in this discussion you stated
Does this mean that you agree that the “government” (here the federal government) should exist to provide for a judicial system and national defense?
Then you say “Tax is, by definition, a punishment.” I assume that you don’t believe punishment is an appropriate way to treat people who have not committed a crime. If that is the case, then raising funds for the judicial system and national defense through taxes would be wrong.
If you believe we should use the government to provide a judicial system and national defense, but that punishing people by taxation is to be avoided, how would you propose raising any funds needed to pay the cost of the judicial system and national defense?
Roger:
Maybe punishment is a bit harsh. Tax is, nonetheless, involuntary. It certainly isn’t the price I pay to live in a civilized society. Our income tax was never meant to be above 3%, and it was meant to be temporary to help fund war. Which, if you didn’t agree with, would land you in jail or worse.
I take it back, punishment is about par for the definition of Tax.
tax
/taks/
noun
1.
a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
synonyms: levy, tariff, duty, toll, excise, impost, contribution, assessment, tribute, tithe, charge, fee; More
2.
a strain or heavy demand.
“a heavy tax on the reader’s attention”
synonyms: burden, load, weight, encumbrance, demand, strain, pressure, stress, drain, imposition; More
verb
1.
impose a tax on (someone or something).
“hardware and software is taxed at 7.5 percent”
synonyms: levy a tax on, impose a toll on, charge duty on, exact a tax on, demand a tax on; More
2.
make heavy demands on (someone’s powers or resources).
“she knew that the ordeal to come would tax all her strength”
synonyms: strain, stretch, put a strain on, make demands on, weigh heavily on, weigh down;
Mr. Aylward I agree with you that government in general needs to be downsized and localized.
For instance, why should the federal government pay for a bridge in Sioux Falls. If the locals want that bridge then it should be funded by local taxes. Conversely, if the Sioux Falls locals don’t value that bridge enough that they are willing to pay for it themselves then taxpayers from California and New York shouldn’t have to pay for it either. I believe that the federal government should only pay for federal roads and bridges (US highways and interstates), while states, counties and cities should pay for their respective road needs and wants.
Over the years, higher units of government have been assuming costs and functions that should be covered by lower units of government. So when Kamala Harris puts out a proposal to usurp every school board in the country and guarantee teachers a minimum salary – as if the federal government weren’t already spread way too thin – I have to shake my head. Also, when Donald Trump cuts taxes on billionaires and big corporations while running deficits through the roof I also have to shake my head. As voters we need to demand reasonable fiscal policies.
bearcreekbat: we are talking about involuntary taxes here. Most easily referenced is income tax, which does not, at the current, help to fund a judiciary system or national defense. So I maintain that involuntary taxation is theft, and is wrong. To suggest otherwise is simply delegating the coercion and the threat of violence to pay for things that you want.
Joshua, I am operating under the assumption that all taxation is, by definition, involuntary. That assumption seems consistent with the definition you posted.
Thus, the question remains, what alternative funding sources would you advocate we use to fund only the government functions you believe to be necessary and proper, if not involuntary taxation?
So enlighten me. Is this socialism, or not? https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/10/18296793/foxconn-wisconsin-location-factory-innovation-centers-technology-hub-no-news
mfi, I would say not. Sounds like it could be bribery, public corruption or graft, but not socialism.
bearcreebat: your assumption that all taxation in involuntary is incorrect, albeit the definition I shared would be consistent with that idea. Maybe voluntarily taxation should simply have a different name.
Taxation that wouldn’t be involuntary, would be a sales tax on all non-essential goods (food, clothing, etc.). If you want to buy a car, you pay X% sales tax, same as the wealthy would pay the same X% on a private jet. If I wanted gov’t to management my retirement, I could opt-in, voluntarily, to Social Security. I love and support the idea of healthcare for all. If I thought the gov’t was the best organization to run such a program, I should be able to opt-in, voluntarily, to enlist the services of the program. So on and so on… there are other ways to fund a federal gov’t to cover the items expressly delegated to them in the constitution. It wouldn’t cost much to fund an appropriately sized military and a fair and balanced court system.
Rorschach: I have no responded to the railroad comment until now because I have been admittedly trying to find the source of my statement. And I concede, I was wrong. I think I’m referencing a railroad system that was not transcontinental. Either way, I cannot, for the life of me, remember who it was or what the story was. But a man who made his wealth in the shipyards sold all of his assets to invest in the railroad. And he did so, without gov’t and propelled the country into a new era of rail. But… I can’t find the story.
I did not mean to be dishonest. Sometimes people are just wrong.
Joshua, under your definition then, taxes on only essentials are a punishment and non-voluntary. But taxes on non-essentials, such as sales tax, would be a voluntary tax payment.
Logically, then that would seem to make taxes on income, earned or unearned, above the essential level (in whatever way you would measure essential) a voluntary tax. Just as no one is forced to buy non-essentials and pay sales tax, no one is forced to earn wages or accept income beyond what is needed for essentials.
Then it seems to follow that confiscatory taxation on wealthy individuals, or upon folks without wealth to prevent the acquisition of wealth, would be not be a punishment or involuntary taxation, and would be an appropriate source of funds for government expeditures, just as is paying taxes on the purchase of non-essential food or clothing.
Am I understanding your position correctly?
The internet, of course, was developed from a government effort to link various government functions and involved a number of universities. These weren’t Aylward’s high school drop outs engineering this stuff. It was then opened up to commercial links. Thus, Joshua Sopko’s education and career was and is completely dependent on the “involuntary taxes” I paid to government. I’m wondering why I shouldn’t get reparations from Mr. Sopko for his use of my tax-funded efforts in supporting his living.
Sopko and Aylward think they can come on here and b.s., but every electron they push through Dakota Free Press was subsidized by all the rest of us. They are not self-made men and women in a Bastiatian hell. We organize into governments and we are taxed to support what our representatives decide to fund.
We who write here on Dakota Free Press owe everything we do here to tax dollars, college graduates, government and universities. Nothing these libertarians say on this thread would never have been written without taxes and government. Whether they would be literate without tax dollars and government is unlikely.
bearcreekbat:
Some crafty mental gymnastics you are going through to justify the use of force to continue to pay for things you think the gov’t should pay for. I suppose you are correct, but by the way are you describing my position, you are cutting off every individual that has a natural right to the pursuit of happiness and freedom. If an individual wants to make more money than whatever arbitrary amount you deem is ‘essential’ (which opens up more flaws to your interpretation of my position), you will inherent punish them by forcing them to pay for your stuff.
So I would say no, you are not understanding position correctly. But I am understanding yours. You think that anyone that disagrees with your use of gov’t and subsequently refuses to pay, should be caged or shot. Again, that’s not a place I would call free, nor a place I want my children to thrive in.
Donald Pay: So without gov’t, the internet would have never been invented? Remember, when gov’t did create the internet, they kept it to themselves for decades and left it highly regulated. Eventually, it was open to certain universities, and then all universities until eventually, it was open to the public. The gov’t didn’t gift us the amazing creation of the internet. They kept it from it us, and I’ll go on a limb to say that the internet would have come about regardless, but I suppose that’s just a matter of opinion. Just like roads would exists without gov’t.
And I suppose it makes sense that you would ask for reparations, as it appears you think you are somehow owed the earnings of others, regardless of the morality that goes with its collection.
And in your last statement, are you honestly suggesting that education and “literal” people (thanks for the compliment, btw), wouldn’t exist without taxes and govt? I mean, really? Colleges and schools and other forms of education didn’t exist without gov’t and taxes? Are you suggesting that my kids, who are unschooled, will never learn to read without an institution of gov’t education? Really?!
Joshua, you said that in my conception of government you might be killed for not paying your taxes. Now you’re claiming that BCB feels you should be caged and shot for the same. I cannot find either statement in our comments. Where do you see such a threat?
Debbo: If anyone refuses to pay the involuntary taxes that are suggested and viewed as ‘necessary’ and ‘justified’ in this thread, they will be caged. And potentially killed if any individual resists being caged.
That’s how We People, of the gov’t, operate. <—– this comment is directed at the statements made that gov't is "we people". It's not. Not anymore.
https://www.godarchy.org/2019/03/23/we-are-not-the-government-godarchy-podcast-12/
Internet is about 35 years old and the recognizable form with the WWW since 1990. The government or you must configure decades in smaller numbers than the rest of us.
You are already sounding like the latest iteration of troll Jason and his Arguenuts.
Josh, “Tax is, by definition, a punishment.”
How so? That is the thinking that undermines social responsibility. Why is it “punishment” to support a civil society? How does a notion of everyone trying to do their least (with the ultimate goal to do nothing) for others move any society forward? I find it detestable when the wealthy portray their status as only the results of their own merit and moxie.
Cory’s original post deals with education investment being less in SD than the national rate. What elements of infrastructure would that not be true of in SD – where do we not lag behind the nation?
Josh, “I love and support the idea of healthcare for all. If I thought the gov’t was the best organization to run such a program, I should be able to opt-in, voluntarily, to enlist the services of the program. ”
Has there ever been a successful health care for ALL program run by a non-government entity?
Yes, Gordon Kaul, a real dippsy doodle who wandered around the Dakotas spouting Aylward-Sopko tripe. As long as he was blowing hard, I suppose it was fine. But, he did something that Soppy probably lacks the cajones to do: he refused to pay taxes, for the same reasons that Soppy is stating here. Well, yeah, he was convicted. Praise the Lord! He only spent a year or so in the pokey, a big mistake.
Kaul wasn’t a big blowhard like Sopko. Blowhards are funny. We can all get a chuckle from their cluelessness. After a while, as with Jason, it becomes tiresome and annoying, but we can put up with their anti-American yammering and their twisty turny cluelessness.
But just a little warning. After prison, Kaul came back to North Dakota and started a domestic terrorist movement, violated his parole and ended up dead when he tried to off law enforcement officers. Good riddance to Mr. Kaul, who terrorized North and South Dakota.
Putting dreck like Kaul in prison is why we have government. As long as Aylward and Sopko stick to just being blow hards, I suppose we have to put up with them. If they become more than that, I hope they spend a good long stretch in the pokey. The cuckoo talk from Sopko is edging closer to the anti-American talk of Kaul.
Debbo
Why hasn’t Donald Trump been shot or caged, he hasn’t paid income taxes for years?
o: what civil society is our tax dollars being used for, currently? endless foreign wars? the endless war on drugs? a failed war on poverty? a failing education system (as noted). Would none of the things we value necessary for a ‘civil society’ exist without the threat of coercion and violence from our govt? To suggest that this wouldn’t happen is suggesting that tyranny is the only answer to a civil society, as opposed to a society of voluntary interactions. Which seems to work well on a daily basis without the gov’t, currently. I want to buy a good or service from you, I exchange money or labor, or other mutually agreed upon value base. There is zero reason for gov’t to be involved in that transaction. Where gov’t is pertinent, and that I have mentioned above, is when that mutual agreement goes sideways, and we need a formal judicial system to work out the disagreement.
I’m not sure there has been successful healthcare for all program that has been tried privately. Likely because of the endless regulation that revolves around the healthcare and insurance industry.
Donald Pay: a couple of things before I sign off: the founders abhorred the idea of a central gov’t as big as ours. That hardly makes my ideas of a limited gov’t ‘un-american’. But that said, I am an individual first. I do not support nationalism as you appear to. That’s the destructive nature of a free country, and one I fear my kids will ultimately be living in if people like Alyward and me are silent.
Next, you exactly expressed the reasons why gov’t intervening in our lives is bad. It creates enemies of the state. Just as the wars you support creates enemies of the nation. (You have to adjust your morals to support the war, since “we” are the gov’t, and you think the gov’t should be expanded, and the gov’t has been involved in a war for pretty much every single generation of this the last 100+ years)… But you needn’t worry about folks like me and Alyward ‘offing anyone. We live by the NAP. It’s a core principle that we hold true in our lives. So while we might not obey whatever you decide is a moral authority, we will submit to it. (at least I will. I can’t speak expressly for Aaron.)
g’night.
Joshua, I will concede that our civil society – for many of the failings you note – is not working the way we ought to accept. That does not mean the structure of government is at the root of our fall. It is the perversion of the government form the democratic embodiment of “We the people” to the tool of the wealthy capitalist at the heart of that demise. I would argue that the wealthy have used government to insulate themselves from civil responsibility — to focus purely on individual greed.
If we truly were a christian nation, we would be a lot further along the path of peace, love, and understanding.
o: “I would argue that the wealthy have used government to insulate themselves from civil responsibility — to focus purely on individual greed.”
YES YES and more YES. This is among one of the top reasons I advocate for a less powerful gov’t, and one that has little control over markets. When a small business does something wrong, they fail. When a Big business does something wrong, they get help from the gov’t. When gov’t does something wrong, they expand.
And I suppose I’ll also agree that gov’t isn’t likely the root of why our society is failing on many facets. But I do contend it hurts more than helps.
“If anyone refuses to pay the involuntary taxes that are suggested and viewed as ‘necessary’ and ‘justified’ in this thread, they will be caged. And potentially killed if any individual resists being caged.”
I see. You’re talking about disobeying the law, and then compounding the first crime by adding fighting against law enforcement. Okay. That would be the case regardless of which law you had initially broken. I thought you were referring to something particular to tax law, but you’re not.
For instance, Philando Castile here in Minnesota was killed by LE for a broken taillight. Then there was the gentleman in NY, whose name escapes me right now, whom police killed for selling individual cigarettes on the streets.
Again I’ll suggest that you might feel better served if you go to a place with little to no government so you can live the life you feel would be far superior.
For myself, I want government to hand out grants for medical research and to study the heavens. To dream enormous dreams like the young scientist, Dr. Katie Bouman, who made possible the first physical image of a black hole, or 100+ years ago when vaccines began saving lives. These things take the concerted efforts of all of us, not merely the few who feel moved and financially able.
Where you Joshua, see individual supremacy, I see the power of people in community, both financial and spiritual. (“Spiritual” not meaning religious.) I see human greatness in groups of like-minded people.
There are so many humans on the planet now that if we all split off into like-minded groups, the planet would be a hodgepodge of puny little independent villages. Even there dissent would arise because no 2 people agree on everything.
Government creates organization and, when well done, makes life better. Citizens are always forced by law into some behaviors they don’t agree with. That can’t be helped. When that happens the dissenters can adjust and accept, work for change or leave. Or they can take illegal actions and the attendant risks.
I don’t believe a government on any level has ever existed on an entirely voluntary level. I also don’t believe a community has ever existed with a form of government.
Debbo: Yes, I am absolutely taking about disobeying the law. If a law is unjust or immoral, it is our duty to disobey said law. Would say that Rosa Parks was a dissenter, and disserved the punishment she was handed for disobeying a law? Her actions ultimately led to the civil rights movement.
Just because gov’t made a law doesn’t mean we are bound to live by it. Consequences will come with those actions, of course. But you are telling me you support those means to your end, however unjustly or cruel they may be.
Individual rights are our God-given right, not to be impeded on by any gov’t. Yes, gov’t has its necessary role. But that role is extremely limited. And our gov’t was designed to be decentralized to the states, not the federal gov’t. The entity which you are supporting in their unjust and immoral actions to claim wages on earned income.
Do agree that gov’t has to exist. I’m not anti-government. I am pro-individual rights. And anytime gov’t impedes on those rights, I’m against that action. Of course, there will always be nuances that come with that, it will never be perfect. But I do not agree that gov’t makes life better because gov’t is not done well. Unless you think the last 2 years of our executive administration has been nothing but outstanding.
See, whenever ‘your team’ is in power, things can be great. But as soon as your team loses power, then suddenly gov’t is not well done. Well, if gov’t was only doing things it was originally tasked with doing, it would make our job as citizens much easier to have the conversation about what’s not being done well, and regulating the problem. It’s impossible for any of us to sit back and try to express our supposed “represented voice” on all the things the gov’t is doing today. It’s way just way too big.
“But you are telling me you support those means to your end, however unjustly or cruel they may be.”
I never said that at all. The 2 examples I gave were of LE run amok, not the laws themselves.
In addition, I feel the current deministration is horrific. I had some issues with Obama, many with GWB, some with Clinton and GHWB, many with Reagan, etc. I think Jimmy Carter was the most decent human being as president of my lifetime, but I disagreed with some of his policy decisions. It’s been less about party and more about the person in office for me.
Back to government. I do think that there are places where our government has become overgrown and could use some pruning, but not the wholesale slaughter that’s happening now. I think we need it to protect us from the corporate sociopaths who find the welfare of us peons irrelevant to their bottom lines.
My fervent and necessary belief is that the Lunatic in the WH won’t be there forever or even much longer. We’re going to need to repair the damage he and the GOP have done to government agencies to rein in and defang the corporate monsters who’ve preyed especially on children, the old and the ill.
No group of voluntary, like-minded individuals can do that for us, or they’d be doing it right now.
Joshua perfectly describes his desire for an authoritarian government. Rosa Parks broke the law, an unjust law, but she broke it. Gay people broke the law, an unjust law, but they broke it. The list goes on, until Democracy fixes those laws.
We do not have a God given right to anything, that is why we have government to make the laws that actually give us the rights. God didn’t have a thing to do with it, laws of government did. I will grant that many of the laws we have on the books today come from ancient times that were the laws of the governments at the time of being written.
What “right” has been encumbered upon yourself that you’ve seen has hurt education?
Mitch McConnell just gave the republican healthcare plan, NO HEALTHCARE.
“Not as long as I’m majority leader. It ought to be Medicare for none.
Even better the Fox News Cryon went up and said “MEDICARE FOR NONE”
Democrats better plaster the airways with McConnells quote and this screenshot
McConnell and Republicans want to take away Medicare from Elderly .. they want MEDICARE FOR NONE”
Libertarian: 511,000 registered voters in the nation.
Joshua, I don’t recall writing anything about wanting people to be “caged or shot” for any reason. Likewise, I don’t recall stating the government should use force to require someone to pay for any product or service, nor my “stuff.” Perhaps you can point to the comment you interpreted in such a manner so I can clarify.
Meanwhile, the idea of involuntary tax versus voluntary tax was completely yours, not mine. In describing your idea you distinguished between acquiring “essential” versus non-essential goods as a basis for deciding whether a tax was voluntary. You did not define “essential” nor did I suggest an “arbitrary amount.” Your comment at 2019-04-10 at 20:31 incorrectly suggests otherwise.
Your arguments (not mine, as I have made no argument about whether there is such a thing as a voluntary tax nor what constitutes an “essential”) about the existence of a “voluntary tax” based upon the choice of whether to acquire “essentials” does not support much taxation relief. Instead, it seems to justify imposing a confiscatory tax on the acquisition of any item that you, not I, deem non-essential, such as your examples of “food, clothing, etc. . . .a car, . . . . [and] a private jet.” And there is no logical argument that I can think of that would ever classify excess wealth as an “essential,” can you?
Although I have not yet offered any opinion, one way or the other, I will now. Your rants about the evils of taxation are illogical, self-contradictory and pretty much the typical arguments I have often read from people who claim to be libertarians. I have yet to read a rational, rather than fact deprived emotional outburst (often in the form of a personal attack or name calling) justification for the selfishness that underlies the argument of self-proclaimed libertarians against taxation and governments. While I too often object to particular government policies that seem to me to be irrational restraints on the freedom of individuals, which in my younger and more naïve days I actually thought were libertarian, the idea that taxation and government are fundamentally flawed now seems evidence of weak and careless thinking. Feel free to explain where I have erred.
Wow! I had no idea I’d start such a huge debate between the free thinkers of this country, capable of achieving on their own, and the masses of enslaved, pre-programmed, mind-numbed robotic, off-the-shelf, sheeple following the operating command lines of their government programmers.
Daryl provides a great example of a “fact deprived emotional outburst. . . in the form of . . . name calling” rather than a rational justification for his position, by labeling people he disagrees with as “enslaved, pre-programmed, mind-numbed robotic, off-the-shelf, sheeple following the operating command lines of their government programmers.” Well done Daryl! I couldn’t have come up with a better example of this technique so many commenters use to avoid defending or even discussing the libertarian philosophy.
Does Joshua want to segregate America into those who believe in a fictitious being and those of us who derive our rights from the constitution? Not everyone believes in god, a god or any god and more and more people are flocking away from organized religion.
Pretending America is a kristian nation and trying to shove your idea of god down people’s throats will not succeed.
Joshua sounds as dangerous as criminal Ollie North when he claimed there is a higher law than the constitution to explain away his criminal activities in Iran Contra affair.
Whether or not you believe in God is your prerogative. I believe that my rights came from God. Before I became a believer (I spent 10 years an atheist), I still recognized that our rights exist outside of any gov’t, and we are born with an innate right to live free.
In no way have I tried to ‘shove god down people’s throats’ in this thread (or any other for that matter). But you are trying to shove your gov’t down other people’s throat with the threat of violence and coercion. Do you honestly believe that laws make men moral? I don’t. I believe that men are flawed, and just because a group of people made a law, doesn’t make it right. You are suggesting that Rosa Parks was wrong to stay sitting in her seat after a long 12 hour day. That her punishment and fines were justified, that she should have lost her job, and that no one else should have ever challenged the authority of segregated law. But I’m the dangerous one. Who wants to live a life left alone to do as I please by the most basic rule of society: don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff. Cleary, you weren’t taught that in school. Because you think the gov’t is justified in taking my stuff and hurting me, just because of “the law”.
What stuff of yours has been taken and how have you been hurt?
Taxes are the price everyone pays to live in our Democracy known as the United States. Even immigrants pay taxes, why can’t you?
I have just as much right not to have some gun nut shoot me as you have to strut around with a cannon in your pants. It is well within the best interests of a majority of us to keep guns at home- we pay police to protect us with taxes. OMG…socialism.
Civil Asset Forfeiture. You good with those laws, Mike from Iowa?
Police do not need justifiable or reasonable cause to seize assets from an individual, like a house… or car, or money (that may or may not be theirs, but if the money was found within the vicinity of where the individual resides, it’s fair game to police). This could type of thing has happened for selling hot dogs without a permit. Are you suggesting that an individual needs to obtain permission from gov’t to sell hot dogs so they can provide for their family?
I suppose you do. But I do not subscribe to someone else telling me the best way to live my life. If I want to sell hot dogs, I’m going to sell hot dogs.
Rosa Parks was not going to get up from her seat, because no one authority exists over her to tell her to do so. And the police, the ones we ‘pay for protection’ that have now been exonerated from actually having to protect citizens (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html) are the same police that threw Rosa Parks in jail, gave her a fine, and cost her her job. But I suppose, socialism. So it’s all good. Seize assets all day, Mike. Until they come for yours. But ohh, I’m sure you would always just obey the law. Even if the law told you to give up your house and food for a standing army because they are there to enforce the ‘common good’. Matters not if you have alternative places to stay, or another form of food to eat. You’ll obey the law without question and you’ll be a proud American to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if you would be volunteering on the team of people to round up Japanese family and kids to put them into American internment camps. After all, it was what the gov’t said we should do. For protection. But since that’s not really a thing anymore, you’ll volunteer instead to round up individuals like me, who just want to sell hot dogs and be left alone and provide a life for my family.
This is your civilized society? I refuse to pay for what you consider civilized. I consider civilized the voluntary interaction between two individuals. You have money or other goods that I find appealing, and I have hot dogs. Let’s trade. But ohh wait! We can’t just be selling hot dogs out here!? Hell no! What sort of crazy world would this be if we were selling hot dogs anywhere and everywhere? Well, I know where I wouldn’t be selling hot dogs. In locations people weren’t buying them.
ahhh, socialism. The world I will do everything in my constitutional, God-given power to prevent.
bcb, I google socialism and I search on Bing for socialism. This is what pops up….
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
If you don’t think that the U.S. is socialist, in some form or another, as most countries are, what would you say that we have here in the states? Keep in mind, I am fine with socialism, just give people a choice to be in or out. Don’t force it onto people or coerce them into living under it’s laws.
mike from iowa, I think that if you got to know Joshua, Daryl, and myself, you’d find that we don’t want to force anything onto anyone. Well, maybe Daryl would… jk, Daryl ;). We may make suggestions, but we don’t advocate for legislation that will force you to live your life a certain way. Unless you’re causing physical harm to someone’s property.
It’s funny how Donald Pay points out individuals like Gordan Kaul, but yet, many on this forum don’t mention those like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hugo Chavez, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Fidel Casto, and how those individuals advocated for the growth of the state and were obviously lovers of force and coercion. Yeah, Gordan sounds like he was off his rocker, but how can one ignore the death tolls and the genocide that came about under forced socialism/communism and any other “ism” that coerces its citizens? How can you advocate for that and be OK with it?
Also, a document gives you rights? Not so. Your rights come from your creator, you are born into this world with them. Our documents are only supposed to protect those rights, and that’s the sole purpose of a very limited government.
I also get a kick out of this… Anyone ever notice how the limited government folks on here, for the most part, use their actual names? Joshua, Daryl, Gideon Oakes, Kurt Evans, Stace Nelson… But many of the others hide behind some other name. Not that it’s a big deal, just something that I’ve noticed. I am sure there’s good reason for it.
LOL, rights came from God. Typical dumb down.
Jerry: you should read the Whole Comment:
“Whether or not you believe in God is your prerogative. I believe that my rights came from God. Before I became a believer (I spent 10 years an atheist), I still recognized that our rights exist outside of any gov’t, and we are born with an innate right to live free.”
If rights come from a document, then isn’t it fair to say that document can just as easily take them away? Who is in charge of that? “We the People”? What happens when 51% of the people want to 49% of the other people’s stuff?
How can you not understand individual rights supersede the rights of the masses. That’s the most basic form of personal protection and freedom.
You don’t believe that someone who lives under the rule of Kim Jong-un, has any rights?
My creators were my Mother and my Father. There is no trace of imaginary DNA in me.
Mike from Iowa: Okay, so who gave your parent’s rights?, and who gave their parents right? so and so forth? Did rights never exist until the creation of gov’t? What rights did the earliest humans have? Did they have to obtain permission to hunt from a higher authority in their civilization?
Were the rights to protect ourselves non-existent until the constitution? And why are suggesting that they get taken away? (yes, you are suggesting they be taken away if I don’t obey every law that comes from our infallible gov’t)
Please, would someone just respond with an actual answer to any of the challenges that Aaron and I have brought forward? Because it’s gotten pigeonholed to you simply responding, “God’s not real. God didn’t give out rights because he’s not real. socialism is supreme.”
Kim Jung Un and republican Donald Trump have a “loving” relationship.
Please, would someone just respond with an actual answer to any of the questions BCB brought forward in his last comment?
Aaron, the definition of socialism you have quoted apparently comes from the online Oxford Dictionary site.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/socialism
The Oxford definition has one slight, but significant, difference from all other definitions I have seen from such sources as Merriam-Webster, Wordreference.com, and from my recollections of studying socialism in economic textbooks and philosophical treatises. (Disclosure – I haven’t seen every single published definition of the term).
The Oxford definition that supports your statement defines socialism as:
The definitions given by Merriam-Webster (quoted in my earlier post at 2019-04-10 at 18:09), Wordreference.com (quoted below), and the textbooks I have read use the term “and” rather than “or.”
https://www.wordreference.com/definition/socialism
Oxford’s definition seems overbroad since every single government that exists exerts some control or regulation over some aspect of economic activity in the community. If we omit the element of government ownership of the means of production, as Oxford apparently does by using “or” instead of “and,” then I agree that the USA is a socialist country, just like every other country in the world.
Even funnier!!!
Josuha asks:
The answer to this question is twofold. The direct answer to your question is that immediately prior to the U.S. Constitution, human “rights” came from English law. I suspect, however, you are more interested in asking where our “rights” came from before the formation of any government.
There were no “rights” prior to humans organizing some sort of government. Humans could do whatever they wanted until another human (or animal for that matter) succeeded in forcibly stopping them. They had no “right” to prevent this interference from doing what they wanted to do. God didn’t come down and strike the human interventionist, nor did any other entity.
Once humans organized into governmental units (i.e. the earliest groups or tribes), however, they banded together to protect each others’ ability to do the things the group thought appropriate. This was the beginning of human rights – when other humans were willing to use force to prevent intereference in the desired human activity of one of their members
Hope that helps!
bearcreekbat: thanks for the explanation. We have a difference of philosophy. Even without God, I do inherently believe that we, as humans, have an innate right that we are born with to self-governance. Which, you do not hold as truth.
As long as we are talking about God and college funding: it turns out praying college debt to go away doesn’t work.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/student-loan-debt_n_5ca63bfee4b05acba4de2597
Neither does forcing society to pay for it, O. It’s called personal responsibility. but hey… let’s lock up anyone who doesn’t want to gov’t managing education.
I use my nom-de-plume to satirize, generally, the SoDak Legislature and, specifically, to ridicule one of its primary sycophants, Al Novstrup.
Most know who I really am. There are a few who, as Aaron points out, hide, not because they are state-lovers, but because they know their opinions are odious to human beings.
Government has to be large enough to affect both responsibilities affirmative – provision of the social safety net of health care, public education, access to basic needs and infrastructure . . . and defensive – protection from threats foreign and domestic. As the wealthy and their corporations grow, an effective government has to be of a scale to meet those threats. If Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, Wells Fargo . . . were not colossuses, the size of government could also shrink. Elizabeth Warren has the right idea in her proposal to break up the new, undeclared monopolies of our age.
But o, don’t you realize that the US gov’t is much larger than Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, Wells Fargo, keep going…and going… COMBINED? The US gov’t is the largest monopoly in the world. Why do you think organizations like Amazon spend so much appealing to the federal gov’t? If gov’t was smaller, they wouldn’t yield nearly the power they do. Not the other way around.
The more powerful you make gov’t, the more powerful you make the corporations that lobby the gov’t, and the weaker you make the free market and competition.
Joshua, the idea of a “right” seems to imply some sort of protection or enforcement of that right. As an individual, we can always try to defend ourselves from anyone else interfering with our behavior, so if that is what you mean by “innate right” you would be correct.
But if by “right” you mean protection beyond one’s own individual capabilities, then it would seem that some organization of human backup (i.e., government) would be a necessity before we could call our desires a “right,” innate or otherwise.
On the other hand, it would be an advantage if we could just use “God” as a source for a “innate right.” Reference to “God” implies an entity outside ourselves that will defend that right on our behalf. Trouble is, “God,” whether you have faith or not, doesn’t seem to show up these days to defend anyone’s right. Instead we have to depend upon the law (i.e. government) to defend whatever “rights” we claim to have.
Hi Bob. Don’t let the cabin fever and refer madness drive you back to inflating dolls. Summer is coming.
Josh, I think the banking crisis showed us that we have let corporations overshadow the government.
Your argument that a less powerful government would mean a less powerful corporation is silly. Power abhors a vacuums; given that our “free market” economy measures power with dollars, the radical wealth inequality shows that “We the people. . . ” are SERIOUSLY out gunned.
Wait until we finally get the numbers to cover this new blizzard disaster. You can bet that Josh and his posse will be writing checks to cover the expenses, not. Aaron Aylward, post your cell number so ranchers and farmers can call you for help. Looks like the counties will be needing help too, so you boys better have some cash to take the place of government.
Here, Jerry, you cowardly f**k, call me. 6052094354
Why on earth would I do that, I don’t need any cash.
I was thinking about how Joshua’s conception of “rights’ outside the government applies to his repeated example using Rosa Parks. He praised her for violating an unjust law.
While I personally fully agree that laws permitting discrimination on the basis of race are indeed unjust, it seems curious that any libertarian would agree. After all, if the owner of a privately owned business wants to limit service to a particular group of potential customers for whatever reason, then under the libertarian view doesn’t the private owner have the God given innate right to do so?
What gives Rosa a superior right to take away the business owner’s innate right of control over his private property and for Rosa to use his property in a manner he objects to?
What is the anti-government libertarian rationale for supporting a new government law that forces any private libertarian business owner to do business with someone he doesn’t want to do business with, or force him to business in a manner he finds objectionable?
Joshua? Daryl? Aaron?
(Note: I fully understand and agree with the arguments and rational supporting laws prohibiting race discrimination from a non-libertarian perspective, so I am only seeking the liberatarian point of view with this particular inquiry. Thanks!)
bearcreekbat: amazing observation! And you are spot on with your assessment about private businesses having the right to limit service to a particular group or service. Libertarians support the #dontbakethecake movement, and for good reason. The business took a massive hit to their bottom line from the social media backlash. The free market spoke to this business, and they paid, dearly. And then, they paid a fine to the gov’t, plus outlandish court costs and lawyers. all in an effort to protect their innate, natural rights. We’ll use natural rights so we don’t get confused that just because a person doesn’t believe in god, doesn’t mean their rights don’t exist outside of gov’t.
Back to Rosa. She is a prime use case for my argument simply because she is well recognized and *most* individuals agree that her civil disobedience to an immoral and unjust law was correct. You are suggesting that we libertarians have a conundrum on our hands by using her for a reference. But what you are forgetting is that Rosa Parks was not on a privately operated bus line. She was riding on the public city bus. The existence and operation of a city bus line are for a different discussion. But you can see where this is going. There is no person or private entity in Rosa Parks scenario that has any natural rights. The rights of the bus line are delegated to it by the people of that community, and as such, Rosa was challenging that authority. And she was well right to do so. Had she been on a private bus, the private bus company probably would have gone out of business on its own accord. The city bus line nearly did just from the boycott itself.
Hopefully, that offers a bit of clarity. There are many other examples of rightful and justified civil disobedience against our gov’t and immoral laws. Rosa Parks is simply one of the most easily recognized.
Thanks Joshua, if the bus was a publicly owned rather than privately owned bus line then that would resolve the libertarian question. And from the cake example, I take it the libertarian view supports permiting racial discrimination by private businesses.
Permit, yes. I suppose that is a fair word to use. Do we support it? Not hardly. I would, personally, never patronize businesses who refused service to a group because of skin color or gender or sexual orientation. But it goes back to the idea that ones individual rights do not suddenly become more important than another’s individual rights simply because you don’t like their choices.
While my answer is not across the board to all libertarians, the Libertarian platform does allow private businesses to operate that business without gov’t oversight. Of course, as long as they aren’t hurting someone or taking their stuff. :-)
Joshua, if I understand correctly, the libertarian position on government regulations would be that regulation or laws are only acceptable to prevent one person from inflicting harm on another person. Thus, laws against murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud, and similar conduct would be fully appropriate and desired under the libertarian point of view.
This understanding seems consistent with your statement:
Likewise, as you explained,
If I am correct in understanding the libertarian point of view on these two concepts – harm to others and free choice, and please correct me if I am mistaken or have overlooked any important nuance, then this raises several questions on the private business discrimination issue:
Is it the libertarian position that people discriminated against because of their race are not harmed by such discrimination?
If they are harmed, then is it the libertarian position that the harm suffered by being discriminated against is less damaging to an individual than any possible harm caused to a business owner by prohibiting such discrimination?
And, if this is the case, can you describe the factors libertarians might contend make it more desirable to permit a business owner to inflict the pain from exclusion upon an innocent individual through racial discrimination than to permit the individual to inflict pain on an innocent business owner by seeking to do business in the same manner as people of any race?
On the choice matter, assuming for the sake of argument that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle through marriage or other behavior is a choice (which may be doubtful given our modern scientific understanding of sexual motivation), then can you address the same questions regarding private businesses that seek to discriminate against homosexuals?
I realize that you don’t speak for all libertarians. But you have been kind enough to address several of my other questions in a reasonable manner, so I am taking the liberty of asking these questions about the libertarian justification for permitting discrimination against others. These questions seem to be not only complex and difficult, but are fundamental questions one must answer before deciding to adopt or support a libertarian philosophy.
Since the post was originally about education, I’d like to post this. It’s an article from the Strib about Minnesota’s secondary education efforts.
The state has set goals to get all students up to a standard of 90% graduating from high school on time. That includes English language learners, special needs students, immigrants, students of all colors, etc. In short, the state wants anyone who is capable of earning a high school diploma to do so and the state is willing to put its metaphoric shoulder to the wheel to help make that happen.
To that end, the state Department of Education tracks students in several categories to determine what is working and what needs to be changed or adjusted. That office disseminates models that work to the rest of the state.
2018 was the best year yet for Minnesota. 83% of students graduated. The gap between white students and those of color narrowed but is still too large.
88% white students graduated
67% Latinx and Black
51% Native American
87% Asian
(Need a category for North African/Arab)
The Department of Education has learned the Native American students do best in schools that offer more classes focused on Native American history, culture and life. In the Deer River school district on the Iron Range, 70% of American Indian students graduated on time last year.
https://short1.link/xK2VmD
I don’t know when Minnesota will hit the 90% graduation goal, but I know this is a critical part of the way a state must go about it. A goal is the starting place, followed by materiel and emotional support.
When a school’s students, teachers, staff, administrators and district residents know the state government doesn’t care about them or their success, that puts them back a step or several before they even begin.
SD’s state government needs to step up and really go to work for the state’s schools and everyone who is a part of them.