Our useless governor has just killed the expansion of the Bell Museum. This kind of dimbulb thinking annoys me beyond measure: the role of our government should be to build and sustain common shared resources, yet over and over again we see an intentional deprivation of the most basic tools of a civilized society, a denial that is easily made by these jokers because the consequences of doing harm are deferred to another generation. Museums are not just superficial entertainments (although the creationists don’t get that) — they are storehouses of collected information, like a library that holds a more complex array of data than books and recordings. You don’t build them because you’ll get a benefit next week, but because it is a long-term investment in intellectual infrastructure.
(via Greg Laden, who doesn’t seem to like Governor Pawlenty much at all)
Don’t look at the glass as half-empty; there were pawlenty of other things on that bill that he did vote for.
Infrastructure has always had a more lengthy Return on Investment, and the lack of quick riches has always been looked at with disdain by pure capitalists. Intellectual infrastructure is intangible, unlike more literal forms such as roads, buildings, and services, making it much harder to see for those with an already deliberately short gaze.
There was a book that came out a while back called “Cultural Literacy” that highlighted this very problem in a most striking and alarming manner. America’s cultural literacy has been declining for years, and a continued eye on the short-term combined with a religious movement that seeks to replace fact with “revelation” and a political class that increasingly seeks to “contain” its people spells a very dangerous direction that calls for nothing short of the enlightened revolutions that Jefferson felt were necessary to maintain a free and educated society.
This is very sad, the Bell Museum is a wonderful place with great programs crammed into an aging, too small building. Pawlenty is a dimwit.
Does the museum not have donors? Are there not foundations to support this venture? If people want to support museums, fine then donate to them. The government does not need to be defining and dictating culture to us.
Yes, but remmeber: The degradation of intellectual infrastructure is itself an investment in long-term self-preservation for republicans. And one with a most excellent return rate, since all it requires is inaction.
Arggh. That’s “remember”…
Guess I’ll have to double my entrance fee into tonight’s Cafe Scientifique (as put on by the Bell). It’s a good thing this Republican no tax mindset didn’t come about before the libraries were built.
Hey, BMV, it’s not that kind of museum. Natural history museums associated with universities aren’t the kind of museums that attract donors. It’s exactly as PZ says–they’re repositories of information–reseach bases for the future. No “patron of the arts” is going to donate money to preserve frozen tissue samples from rats and bats, but it’s something that needs to be done.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Minnesota had a governor who gave a shit about doing what’s right for his state instead of polishing his bullshit “conservative” credentials for the national stage?
It’s tragic that this shyster managed to con the voters into (barely) giving him another term.
Mr. PZ,
Could you please explain to me why God exists? My daddy told me that he does not and you could prove him wrong.
I’m not sure how many states, if any, have a provision similar to that of the Massachusetts constitution:
“…it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country…”
It is, at least, a laudable sentiment. It seems to me that the expansion of museum facilities and public art should be a prime function of government. I can imagine my city with fewer overpasses. I cannot imagine it without the art and natural history museums.
The Bell museum is (I hope STILL is) a wonderful place,I have not visited it in a few years. Museums are long term investments indeed- being the curator of an insect museum myself. I am not surprised by the myopia of my neighboring states’ governor on that issue. I am surprised (but should not have been) by Pawlenty’s veto of light rail which was a relatively short term investment that would pay enormous dividends as petroleum supplies worldwide become tighter and more costly and as vehicle carbon emissions spiral upward (pun intended). Commenter #9 Dylan pegged it with the accuracy of a spike in a vampire.
Intellectual infrastructure is intangible, unlike more literal forms such as roads, buildings, and services, making it much harder to see for those with an already deliberately short gaze.
Um, don’t forget that this particular state’s legislature hasn’t done well with the roads bit, either…
(not that the other states are any better)
We have a new governor goofy. Raising stupidity to all new levels!
Let this be a lesson: there’s no government like NO government.
Trusting the government to act in the common interests is ludicrous thinking. If you want a common interest to be acted upon properly, you need to do it within the context of a free market, through private means and private funding. This of course will not guarantee the desired outcome, but it will act as a strong incentive towards it, rather than having some governor who will be guaranteed to SCREW UP whatever interests the community had.
One size does not fit all, and thats why a monopoly service provider like the government will never satisfy the people.
Man! And my girlfriends dad was going to supply the stone for the expansion!
@ #15:
You’re distracting from the real issue. But I’ll bite. No, the real problem is having people in government that are there expressly to tear it apart. You can’t make an argument that government doesn’t work (let alone an argument that it fails at absolutely everything) when the people running it are there to make it run poorly.
And many of these people have had a silver spoon stuck in their face all their lives and have been raised on a very tenuous view not just of the world in general, but of government. They make money on the notion that the government is the problem, so they perpetuate the stereotype to make even more riches off of it. This is not government’s fault, it’s the fault of the public who doesn’t do its homework and puts these people in office. And we’re surpised when government fails, and the people holding office preen themselves on the huzzahs and swoons of short-sighted moral absolutists.
And please STOP with the “free market” bull crap. There is no absolutely free market. It’s a pipe dream. There are capitalist markets that are either regulated or not. Regulated ones provide smoother progress that better for most people (good), unregulated ones provide another form of hegemony and power for those that already have it (bad).
Government will not go away so long as anyone here is still alive. If it does it’s likely going to be a revolution of some sort, and then remain absent only for a few moments. Government is here to stay whether anyone likes it or not, so the best option is to get educated and use the government that was given to you back in the 18th century.
#15:
If you treat the government like it is your enemy, you will get exactly the kind of government you deserve. Self-fulfilling prophecies are nice that way.
Isn’t “Short-Sighted Republicanism” a bit redundant?
Aaron, please explain how your position can be reconciled with even a single example in the historical record of the actual effects of a society existing without an effective government.
It is stupid to see the free market as a solution to a problem which it is ill-equiped to handle.
The free market has some value at efficiently shifting resources, but it is worthless (or worse) at determining if an end is worth pursuing. Because, often, the things that are most worth pursuing (especially things for the common good) are things which you can’t make a quick buck at. So your free-traitors will tell you that the all-knowing “market” says it’s not worth pursuing.
Thus, this dickhead kills the funding for Minnesota kids wanting to learn something other than fairy-tale genesis crap.
Surely you’re not suggesting that it might be bad for the stability and prosperity of an economic system to allow a small percentage of participants to abjectly pillage it, completely unhindered?
Does the museum not have donors? Are there not foundations to support this venture?
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
(Sorry. I was channeling Alastair Sim there for a moment. But the Scrooge reference is probably appropriate.)
@ #22:
Of course I’m am.
@ Dylan #9: You said, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Minnesota had a governor who gave a shit about doing what’s right for his state instead of polishing his bullshit “conservative” credentials for the national stage?”
Doesn’t the term “Conservative” imply the act of actually CONSERVING something – instead of allowing it to fall into disrepair, and ruin?
“Conservatives” who advocate clear-cut-logging, strip-mining, no limit on corporate pollution, and who oppose ANYthing ‘green’ as if it were plague itself and who oppose preserving and expanding our knowledge base are politically oxyMORONic, IMHO.
“It is stupid to see the free market as a solution to a problem which it is ill-equiped to handle.”
Ken Ham’s Creato-matic Funhouse of Ignorance is a great example of the kind of museum the market is equipped to handle.
BlueIndependent: I was being facetious :)
This is why some of us use other terms (my favorite is “wingnut” but “right-wing radical,” “Christofascist,” and others are also popular).
I thought governments were instituted to “secure” our natural rights…
Then again, who needs Locke, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington when we have Myers?
Oh yeah, because corporations exist to support the common good, don’t they? I think it’s in Exxon’s bylaws somewhere… “The main purpose of our company is to make sure the world will be a place our great grandchildren will be glad to live”.
Government is the corporation of the common good. Like any other corporation, it can be run well, or it can be run badly. That incompetent jerks run it badly is not an argument against government, it is an argument against incompetent jerks.
Keep it coming, you libertarian frauds!
Just a few more years of this and being a Libertarian will be as worthy of respect as being a Scientologist. Its representatives at this blog already talk about it, and defend it, EXACTLY as if it’s a religion to them. And by “religion” I mean a stupid, short-sighted, selfish, greedy, useless way of thinking that fixes upon its own self-declared truth – a truth no disinterested evidence ever confirms.
The problem here is that the last thing a capitalistic society needs is a large educated populace to rise up and usurp the elite. Ultimately, these bastards with money to throw around get sworn into office pretending to represent the people, when all they do is secure their future and status within the elite. I’m no communist mind you, but I do believe we should have better representation than these greedy no-holds-barred assholes. If a large segment of the population is educated, then they’re going to see through the bullshit, and rise up against those holding the carrot stick. By stifling free thought, critical thinking, and progress, the base of the social pyramid widens, with a greater sum of ignorant individuals holding up the elite on their backs. As the general population works harder to have the rich get richer, the social rift will continue to widen. Occasionally, as the general population starts wisening up, brain wasting bullshit regarding celebrity lives, or divisive issues come forward to distract from the ineptness of elected officials. The cycle continues
Greg,
I believe, “sustaining” rights, as PZ wrote it, is in line with “securing” them. Building them from there should be a no brainer. Indeed, I should hope that my rights by law are more refined than those of the 1700’s.
I’ve always had a good laugh at the free-market people who said that Bidness can handle things better than the government.
No, it can’t.
Bidness is just as ineffective as government. Anyone who’s worked at a corporation which can make sure you have plenty of office supplies, or can get a purchase order filled or enough (working!) computers/copy machines or get an answer to a question without having to send it through 10 departments and wait weeks or months first–let me know. I’ve yet to meet it, and I’ve worked at some of the big ones. And some of the small ones. They’re all inefficient and self-serving. At least with the government doing things, the entity has to answer to We the People for their expenditures and (most importantly) their salaries. Management can’t give themselves humongous bonuses for simply doing their jobs. They have to convince the taxpayers that they deserve it.
Works for me.
Michael,
Myers didn’t say, “sustaining rights.” He said the role of government was to “build and sustain common shared resources.” Which, of course, is not nearly the same thing, and totally out of character with the philosophy of American government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution.
“At least with the government doing things, the entity has to answer to We the People for their expenditures and (most importantly) their salaries. Management can’t give themselves humongous bonuses for simply doing their jobs. They have to convince the taxpayers that they deserve it.”
LOL!!!
#15
It must be time for Spring Break, since the anarchists and libertarians seem to be coming out of the woodwork.
It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, though, that a governor who favors putting a creationist in charge of education would cut off funding for a natural history museum. There might be evidence for EVIL-lution in there!
And you’d think Minnesota couldn’t have done worse than Jesse Ventura’s severe governmental ADHD…
#15:
It’s a funny thing — if you follow libertarian thinking to its ultimate conclusion, you wind up with a shadow government of sorts anyway, but one that is not controlled by the rule of law but whoever can shovel enough gold (or other hard currency) into the pockets of people who provide services. In fact, such an all-encompassing pay-for-play model seems to smack strongly of countries that are only capitalist inasmuch as “entrepreneurship” involves getting yourself into a position to collect bribes from as many people as possible.
Yes, I have to pay for hard goods and services — labor, supplies, transport, etc. But the fact that I can go on the internet and get a freely usable, open-content weather report from the National Weather Service, or drive across the country entirely on Federally-funded roads rather than be forced to pay a toll on private highways, or call the police to investigate a crime against my property or person without bribing them to do it, or even just walk in a park without being forced to drop a couple of bucks to a park ranger to pay for the lawnmowers, are precisely the sort of things government is supposed to do. In a libertarian society, there would be no assumption of common property, and no protection against collusion and market gouging.
How exactly is the free market supposed to protect all that? Or is the libertarian society going to be one of haves and have nots just by default?
Now I don’t know (or care) too much about the subject, but personally I’m having a bit of trouble seeing the difference between libertarianism and feudalism.
Between the Christian religious nuts, the Muslim religious nuts, the Libertarian religious nuts, etc. I’m beginning to think “deontological ethics” is actually an oxymoron.
The illegality of slavery is also unreflected in the constitution (LRNs seem to be pretty comfortable ignoring amendments), as is the idea that all citizens inherently have a right to vote. Your position on those?
The American people have this power guaranteed by the Constitution. The fact that they have been inexcusably negligent in exercising it is not proof of its nonexistence.
The feudalists thought things through.
Ah. You’re quite right, of course.
One of history’s greatest libertarians, Lysander Spoonder, forcefully argued that the Constitution actually did forbid slavery (http://lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm). Frederick Douglass believed the same thing. He said, “Take the Constitution according to its plain reading … I defy the presentation of a single proslavery clause in it … Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”
Of course, if one rejects their interpretation, then the Constitution was woefully incomplete, and should have gone further in its protections of the rights of minorities and women (thankfully those terrible oversights have been corrected).
Where, exactly, in the Constitution is the power granted to the American people that the government must “answer to ‘We the People’ for their expenditures”? If you sued the federal government for misappropriating funds, the suit would be tossed due to lack of standing. That’s not much of a right…
Greg,
I’m aware of the context. I followed your lead in talking about “rights” to simply show that your objection was false on it’s own terms, even though your post was a diversion from the point PZ was actually making. As for natural resources, you have yet to make an actual case to support your claims. Also, remember that naming great thinkers of the past is not an acceptable substitute for an actual argument. On any particular point, all those men could be wrong. So, it’s up to you to provide evidence that PZ’s point somehow contradicts the philosophy in the constitution or Declaration.
In short, give me a reason to disavow this phrase: “the role of our government should be to build and sustain common shared resources.” As far as I can tell, doing so would certainly lead to a more perfect union.
My post was certainly not a diversion from PZ’s post, which began with a discussion of “the role of government.” My point was, simply, that–if we use the philosophy of the founders as the benchmark–the purpose of government is to secure natural rights to life, liberty and property (“the pursuit of happiness” in Jefferson’s terminology), and not to “sustain common shared resources,” whatever that may mean.
The evidence that PZ’s assertion contradicts the Declaration is that the Declaration explicitly says what the role of government is, and it isn’t what PZ says it is.
Now, one may argue that Jefferson and Locke are wrong, and that the REAL purpose of government is X. But it isn’t self-evident (pardon the pun), and merely saying it isn’t defending that conception of the role of government. Since we have a Declaration of Independence that purports to outline the American philosophy of government, I think that’s at least prima facie evidence of what the role of government in the U.S. ought to be. If you think it should be something else, have at it, and tell us why the traditional conception is incomplete or incorrect.
Our Constitution was really about limiting the power of a national government, but did almost nothing to limit the power of state governments. The federal government has assumed greater and greater power over the years. But within a state, there was never anything about limiting setting up shared resources.
Ben Franklin set up some of the first public libraries. Yes, he could have been wrong about that, but I don’t think he was.
Good points, Cryptic. My point wasn’t to argue that the Constitution forbids a state from “setting up shared resources.” I don’t think it does (technically, it doesn’t even forbid that at the federal level; see the 5th Amendment re: eminent domain).
However, arguing that the Constitution does not limit “setting up shared resources is a world away from saying that the role of government is to “build and sustain” them.
Greg,
“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is of course a quite broad statement to be giving such a narrow view of. Why exactly should “life”, “liberty” or “the pursuit of happiness” not include sustaining common shared resources, such as the environment, infrastructure, catalogues of scientific knowledge, or cultural touchstones such as artwork?
It isn’t that the traditional view is “incomplete” as we have yet to even define exactly what the traditional version even is. The point is the such a view may be no different from those of the founders themselves, for whatever that’s worth. So, I’m still wondering what your objection is.
Me? Not like Tim? Whatever gave you that idea?
Michael,
Of course, Jefferson was working with a single paragraph. If you’d like the full context, I’d recommend Locke’s Second Treatise, and Trenchard and Gordon’s “Cato’s Letters,” which are probably the two works that most influenced the founders’ political philosophy (the relevant paragraph of the Declaration is lifted straight from Locke). In context, it becomes pretty clear what “the traditional version is.” A good summary of it all is found at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletters/cl-13.pdf
I think “the pursuit of happiness” probably DOES include all of those things you mentioned, but that phrase refers to an individual’s pursuit, not some collective pursuit (since we all have mutually exclusive “pursuits of happiness,” there is no way a government could satisfy them all simultaneously). Hence, if you and I would like to share scientific knowledge, etc. we are free to do so, and that freedom will be protected by the state (which is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of the founders).
As to the environment, infrastructure, etc., those are obviously trickier. To the degree that collective action is required because of legitimate negative externalities (coupled with high transactions costs, etc.), then state action is justified and I (and most other reasonable libertarians) would have no problem with it.
On my totem pole of objectionable government activities, “promotion of science” has to be very, very low (“Drug war” would be at the top, probably, or maybe just below “establishment of religion” or “promotion of Jihad”). Hell, the positive externalities associated with it may even justify it within the founders’ framework. But the point is, the benchmark should be the founders’ conception, and not just whatever we think it ought to be to justify our current politics.
Well, piss. I’m afraid I’ve run out of time. I have a soiree to attend, and I can’t keep it waiting as it’s in my honor. (Don’t get those everyday!) So Greg, I will either leave the last word to you, or you may continue this with others. Cheers!
Have fun, Michael!
#33-
Long experience has taught me to cast a jaundiced eye on any statement starting with, “of course.” It always amazes me that those who most often reference the DoI and Constitution appear to have never read those documents. After all, the first enumerated grievance in the DoI is that the King has not passed laws necessary for the public good. And the Consitution authorizes Congress to pass laws to provide for the general welfare of the US, to promote usefull arts, and to develop roads, all of which would be consistent with PZ’s argument. I rather suspect that none of the founding fathers would argue with the claim (in the current Virginia Constition) “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community” which sounds bloody close to PZ’s claim.
I’d say “short-sighted Republicans, again” rather than “short-sighted Republicanism,” but I guess that’s what you meant.
Subsequent to the Constitution’s adoption, we as a society have come to the conclusion that this is an important and worthy end for government. The constitution is the founding and defining document of our nation, but there’s a reason it wasn’t written on a pair of stone tablets.
The evidence that PZ’s assertion contradicts the Declaration is that the Declaration explicitly says what the role of government is, and it isn’t what PZ says it is.
oops.
see, here’s the problem, Greg:
it depends on what your definition of “is” is.
:p
If you look at what PZ actually said:
the role of our government should be to build and sustain common shared resources
it seems to me that there is no use of the word “is” there. That it was stated as opnion, not historic fact based on a strict reading of the DoI or the Constitution of the US.
you’re arguing vapor, Greg.
Long term investment? We won’t need anything because by the time it’ll matter Jesus will have come back and taken us into heaven. Oh, and by that we won’t need your vote.
The thing about libertarianism is I once heard it summed up as ‘the government should be minimized, and only do what cannot be done right any other way’. That’s about as nebulous as ‘this restaurant serves all kinds of tasty food’ — most people are going to disagree on what is ‘tasty food’, but they are generally in favor of it. Similarly, I’d say most people agree with the idea that the government should stick to things that wouldn’t be handled well otherwise, but disagree on what those things are, or how many things are on this list.
Ichthyic:
Why shouldn’t the Constitution be held to by pretty strict standards? It’s based on reason and logic, and while it certainly isn’t science, it has begat the most prolific, most free country in the world (at one time, I see this being on the decline with the Republicrats staying in power).
What I don’t understand is how people don’t agree with some of the basic precepts of libertarianism (you don’t have to go all minarchist or anarcho-capitalist) like: the government shouldn’t be funding wars with taxpayer money especially since wars are bad for the economy and in the social sphere, the government and law enforcement should respect private property and always hold those alleged of crimes to be innocent until proven guilty, one should achieve based on merit and nothing else (you know, like scientists).
Interestingly enough, when government interferes in business is when corporations gain power. Nitpicking regulations (and no, I’m not calling for the liquidation of the FDA, OSHA, etc. but there are problems with the current system) hinder small business and privately-owned companies, giving big business the advantage over them. Want to know why oil companies are so EVIL? They’re getting funded by the government, have been nigh on forever!!! They get tax breaks which (technically, I know they’re not the same) count as a subsidy if other industries aren’t getting those breaks.
Sometimes I wish people would rethink their idea of libertarianism and realize it’s not founded on Ayn Rand, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, even the Libertarian Party (many of whom are a bunch of kooks) or any popular, misguided talking head. A free market doesn’t necessarily mean no government, just limited, minimal government. There are so many different kinds of libertarians that I would conjecture it’s much like atheism and that libertarians disbelieve something: the inherent good of government action.
Dave,
I teach the DOI and Const. for a living, and I’d like to think I know them pretty well (however, just to make sure I don’t miss something, I also carry a handy pocket version of each). You’re right that the “public good” was often referenced by the founders, but you’re wrong that they meant what you mean by that term.
To the founders, “public good,” “general welfare,” and similar language referred to all the things that could be enjoyed simultaneously among citizens. Taking something from one citizen in order to give it to another citizen does not fit that standard of “public good,” because the enjoyment of the latter is dependent on the punishment of the former.
In other words, the Constitution and the DOI do not stand for the propositions that “general welfare” means “robbing Peter to pay Paul, as long as the feds think that enhances ‘general welfare.'” It is only the welfare common to all citizens that the state can ensure. Hence, by “public good,” the founders meant negative rights, which could be enjoyed simultaneously, and without infringing on the equal liberties of fellow citizens.
The Constitution grants Congress the power “to promote useful arts,” but you forgot the limiting phrase of that clause, which is “by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.” In other words, they may not “promote the useful arts” by any means, but only by the means prescribed in Art 1., Sec. 8.
AZK,
No, the Constitution is not written in stone, but Article 5 does outline specific procedures for amending it. If you’d like to give the feds more power than is granted to them in the Constitution, there’s an easy way to do it: Amend the Constitution.
Icth,
“Is” and “should” are synonymous in this discussion. If not, what is the relevant distinction? If we asked PZ, could he reasonably claim that he meant “should” but not “is”? And if he doesn’t think that what he wrote IS the role of government, then why would he use the role of government argument as a reason to oppose what the governor actually did?
Thanks, PZ, for your support for museums against the usual right-wing “economic rationalism”. Here in Denmark we had a conservative-liberal (“liberal” in the European sense, which is right-wing) government for over a decade now, and clearly it has been a hard time upholding the level of our natural-scientific museums. I have with my own eyes watched century-old collections, containing valuable type-specimens, smolder away, because of insufficient resources to maintain them. A situation that will be hard to turn around even if we get a more left-wing government after next election. People seem more occupied with the eimmigrant question and tax cuts than more valuable issues. I guess that is the nature of the world…
when government interferes in business is when corporations gain power.
This might be unclear; I mean, corporations gain power when government interferes in business.
Good points, Zoltan. I know, probably, hundreds of “talking head” libertarians, and among them there might be 10 religious folks. There’s a big overlap between libertarianism and atheism (but not, it seems, atheism and libertarianism).
And by the way, you’re dead on re: Rand, Rockwell, Paul, and the LP (I’d add Rothbard). What a disservice that collective has done for the cause over the years.
Petrander:
I’m curious about Danish politics because it seems like the country is going in a different direction than the rest of Scandinavia although I don’t understand the impetus. Would you rather see a party like the New Alliance party or the Danish People’s Party in power (that’s a lot of alliteration)? From what I understand New Alliance is pro-immigration, anti-tax and DPP is anti-immigration, pro-tax.
Eh, probably not “hundreds,” actually. But a damn high number of them.
Eh, probably not “hundreds,” actually. But a damn high number of them.
Eh, probably not “hundreds,” actually. But a damn high number of them.
Damn Internet server…Sorry!
The constitution was designed as a living document. Wondering what the intent of the framers was is a little idiotic. They were writing to solve their problems. We have our own problems, which are different, and we should solve them in our own way rather than saying “the constitution doesn’t cover that so let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist”
“Is” and “should” are synonymous in this discussion.
no, they are not, for the very reasons i clearly spelled out.
continue with the vapor debate at the risk of playing the fool, if you wish.
at this point, you’re just digging yourself an ever deeper hole.
There’s a big overlap between libertarianism and atheism (but not, it seems, atheism and libertarianism).
can I assume you base that idiotic conclusion on essentially two websites:
a libertarian site, where you found atheists, and this site, where you don’t find libertarians?
you’re flailing.
stop it.
It appears Minnesota’s suffers from being over budget. Many things were cut including light rail which generally nobody uses much, the buses are more useful than light rail. 200 million dollar cut across the board and the Bell Museum was one of them. This is not surprising, where I come from the taxpayer funded museum has been loosing money for a number of years.
With food prices going up and energy costs, Minnesota doesn’t need more taxes to fund all those projects. It will hurt the little guy more than others. Bell Museum will have to wait unless some private donors want to contribute.
They probably needed to save some money to give to the oil industry, poor dears. Oh yes, pure capitalism, no socialism here…except when it comes to propping up banks and corporations with taxpayer money oh yes more please.
Zoltan:
You are right: Denmark is moving away from more politically correct Sweden. Being “politically correct” is a dirty word in Danish, whereas I see (the less extreme forms) as a form of respect for minorities. BTW Only islamophobic bigots would want the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) in the gouvernment. The New Alliance party gave me hope for a social-liberal alternative, but it flunked in my eyes by now supporting the current prime minister. Mind you: Danish politics are a bit more intricate than your quick sketch.
So, I’ve been pretty busy lately and haven’t been reading this blog as much as usual, so somebody needs to clue me in. Is it just me or are there larger and larger numbers of idiots (like Greg and Aaron) on this site now than there were just a few weeks ago? I mean, there’s always been a few, but there do seem to be more of them now.
“short-sighted Republicanism”
I am astonished. Do you mean that there is another kind?
There’s been about a 10-15% increase in traffic lately, much of it, I think, from recent attention in the popular media…so it’s more traffic, from a broader spectrum.
You should see my mailbox, too.
Icth wrote, “can I assume you base that idiotic conclusion on essentially two websites:
a libertarian site, where you found atheists, and this site, where you don’t find libertarians?
you’re flailing.”
Well, you can assume that, but it would be wrong. I base that conclusion on the fact that I’ve been very active in the libertarian movement since about 1995, and I know, or have met, pretty close to all of the top libertarians around the country, and found that the huge majority of them are atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc. (as were many of the major libertarian thinkers (e.g., Hayek).
Note that I said the correlation isn’t both ways. While I’m supremely confident that most libertarians reject religion, that doesn’t mean (and I don’t believe) that most atheists are libertarians.
Dahan,
That was unnecessary. Have I done something to hurt your feelings? If so, I’m sorry.
Greg,
My “feelings” are not hurt. However, I agree with wazza @68. You seem to be a well-studied, lucid person. Of course, studying history (all of it) is important. It helps us deal with our current situations and prepare us, to some extent, for eventualities. However, I do find it idiotic to believe that the words and ideas of the aforementioned Locke, Jefferson, Adams, and Washington, can not be improved upon. Anyone who believes that these gentleman were the crowning achievements of intellectualism, and as such must never be challenged, has left the path of reason.
Hats off to Newton too, but our respect for him doesn’t stop us from improving upon his ideas and pointing out where he was wrong.
Ya, damned Republican luddites. Grrrr!. Not mention those Republicans like President Clinton and Sen. Kennedy that helped kill the superconducting supercollider in the late 90s. Wait…
Someguy,
Anyone can pull an example out of their ass, to try to make a point. There is no denying, however, that our current administration is anti-science. They don’t like it and they don’t want it part of our decision making processes. That is very different than during the Clinton years. I know of no president or senator who I agree with all the time, but not to acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between politicians like Gov. Pawlenty, Pres. Bush, etc. and Hillary Clinton or John Kerry on the subject of science and its support is to show willful ignorance.
“Out of their ass?”
With the Higgs boson back in the news over the last couple days the example seemed apropos. Killing the SSC was a big freakin deal and it still pisses me off.
I think it totally sucked too, but it wasn’t indicative of how their common thought processes seemed to run. They weren’t out to gut science, they just got gutless.
Dahan,
Glad I didn’t offend you; we skeptics are a small enough minority already that we shouldn’t be alienating one another.
And you make great points re: Locke, et. al. I’d be the last person to say their ideas couldn’t be improved upon (indeed, they have been: Nozick, Rawls …).
The problem, I guess, is that something like “the role of government” is so nebulous that there is no standard by which we can judge, once and for all, whether someone is “right”. We know Newton was wrong, because we have reality against which to test his theories against Einstein’s. The same can’t be said for political problems, which, in the final analysis, are probably not soluble.
Anyway, if I had my druthers, this blog and others like it would stay far away from politics, which can only divide our forces, and focus on those areas in which we share agreement. Like bashing Christians, say.
Wow. Wow. Wow!
Wow. Wow. Wow!
It’s a democracy. You are the boss, moron. If the government doesn’t do what you want, you don’t sue it, you FIRE it. You hire, and you fire, You The People of the USA.
Really — the first thing that comes to your mind is suing? What have you smoked, and can I get it legally in the Netherlands?
Easy. That museum is not my property. Yet, it contributes to my happiness. And it is a common shared resource of knowledge.
If Jefferson really meant “property” and only (!) “property” when he wrote “the pursuit of happiness”, why didn’t he write property? Couldn’t have been all that difficult — a few years later some French revolutionaries did write “Liberté, Égalité, Propriété”.
BTW, the preamble of the Constitution says one of the main purposes of the Constitution is “to promote the general Welfare”.
In fact, no. Whenever the required majorities want it, the Constitution should be amended. That’s why it can be amended at all.
The term for people who don’t believe in the inherent good of government action isn’t “libertarian”. It’s “democrat”. All democrats believe that governments can screw up so badly that it can become necessary to fire them, and that this process should be easy and painless ( = by election, as opposed to requiring a bloody revolution). See comments 68 and 78.
What about: it means “robbing Peter to pay Paul, as long as a majority of Peters thinks that enhances their (at least long-term) ‘general welfare'”?
It’s a democracy. You are the boss, moron. If the government doesn’t do what you want, you don’t sue it, you FIRE it. You hire, and you fire, You The People of the USA.
Really — the first thing that comes to your mind is suing? What have you smoked, and can I get it legally in the Netherlands?
Easy. That museum is not my property. Yet, it contributes to my happiness. And it is a common shared resource of knowledge.
If Jefferson really meant “property” and only (!) “property” when he wrote “the pursuit of happiness”, why didn’t he write property? Couldn’t have been all that difficult — a few years later some French revolutionaries did write “Liberté, Égalité, Propriété”.
BTW, the preamble of the Constitution says one of the main purposes of the Constitution is “to promote the general Welfare”.
In fact, no. Whenever the required majorities want it, the Constitution should be amended. That’s why it can be amended at all.
The term for people who don’t believe in the inherent good of government action isn’t “libertarian”. It’s “democrat”. All democrats believe that governments can screw up so badly that it can become necessary to fire them, and that this process should be easy and painless ( = by election, as opposed to requiring a bloody revolution). See comments 68 and 78.
What about: it means “robbing Peter to pay Paul, as long as a majority of Peters thinks that enhances their (at least long-term) ‘general welfare'”?
David,
I’ll try to avoid name-calling.
When one’s rights are violated, one sues the violating agent so the independent judiciary can make note of the violation, and prescribe a remedy. My point was, since one could not sue to enforce the “right” of keeping tabs on spending, it isn’t really a “right” after all.
I have no idea why Jefferson didn’t write “property.” Perhaps he didn’t want people to think it was the government’s job to guarantee them access to property. Or perhaps he thought “pursuit of happiness” included property, in much the same way as Locke used “property” to mean a range of things, much broader than real property.
I already discussed the meaning of “general welfare,” in comment number 59. You appear to have read it already, so I won’t rehash those points here.
I don’t know what you mean by “whenever the required majorities want it, the constitution should be amended.” I’d imagine that, in those cases, the Constitution would be amended. Again, I don’t see the implication of that rather obvious point. If any majority can do whatever it wants, then what’s the point of a constitution? Could the Minnesota state government set up a Muslim madrassa, on the theory that, hey, it’s what the majority wants? I would hope not, but to say no to something like that requires limits on what the government can and can’t do; limits that presuppose individual rights, and areas of life into which no majority may enter.
Re: Peter and Paul. If the majority of Peters want to pay Paul to enhance their “general welfare,” they should feel free to do so. Of course, that isn’t “robbery.” It’s “exchange.” What they cannot justly do is force the remaining Peters to pay Paul (or hire “the government” to do it for them). That is robbery, and it is foreclosed by basic principles of justice and fairness.
See how that’s done? All of that, and I didn’t even need to call you a moron, a jerk, an idiot, or anything of the sort. And isn’t that nice?
BTW, why did you feel the need to quote the Massachusetts state constitution?
David M.
You like my state constitution, do you? Well! That’s great! Thank you.
I… errr.. *cough*… I wrote it myself!
David: The term for people who don’t believe in the inherent good of government action isn’t “libertarian”. It’s “democrat”. All democrats believe that governments can screw up so badly that it can become necessary to fire them, and that this process should be easy and painless ( = by election, as opposed to requiring a bloody revolution).
I don’t think the process is by any means easy and painless, but I don’t think “democrat” is fine-tuned enough to encompass the meaning of “people who don’t believe in the inherent good of government action”. Meaning, many people who are democrats–little “d”–don’t necessarily vote because they think government is not inherently good; often, people vote because they believe in the good of what a certain agent of government could do for them and the rest of the country. So while the process is relatively easy and painless to as opposed to bloody revolution, it is by no means an indicator that voting for an elected official inherently means one does not believe in the good of government.
wazza: Wondering what the intent of the framers was is a little idiotic. They were writing to solve their problems. We have our own problems
I hope you don’t pull this argument out when someone tries to say the Bill of Rights does not guarantee freedom from religion, nor does it disallow other incestuous religion/government relationships just because it doesn’t say it there specifically (though I would argue the establishment clause is strong enough). We point to the intent of the founders along with the document itself along with what we have determined is most right by those principles along with current factors. It’s certainly not idiotic to analyze the intent of the founders because it makes it a little easier to interpret such a document as the Constitution.
Petrander: Thanks for the insight. I too am appalled and disgusted by the Danish People’s Party, especially their leader (whose name escapes me at the moment). Unfortunately, living in a country of free speech forces me to support his right to speak such idiotic nonsense (cue Voltaire reference).
Sorry, I have to take exception to this: “the role of our government should be to build and sustain common shared resources,”
The role of our government is to secure 1) our liberty, 2) justice, and 3) public safety.
-jcr
Where, exactly, in the Constitution is the power granted to the American people
The Constitution can’t grant any powers to the people,since the rights of the people are the source of the powers we delegate to our government.
-jcr
No “patron of the arts” is going to donate money to preserve frozen tissue samples from rats and bats, but it’s something that needs to be done.
Not patrons of the arts, but patrons of the sciences and of educational institutions can and do. It does not follow that because something is done with tax funding currently, that it was always so, or that it would not be done if the public funding were withdrawn.
-jcr
Dahan #78, You were almost quoting Gandalf talking to Saruman in The Two Towers?: “”He who breaks a thing to find out what it is
But his words were empty, and he knew it.”