http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/as_for_me_i_love_socialism.php (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/as_for_me_i_love_socialism.php)
This pretty much sums up my feelings on the debate.
Problem is- None of what they are claiming in that list is "socialism" except for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid and all three of those programs are not only ILLEGAL PONZI SCHEMES but they are also bankrupt (or very close to it). I love how socialists love to claim every good or necessary thing is socialism.
I know this isn't the main part of the debate, but I feel like its pretty important. Actually, almost all those things are
socialised benefits provided by the government by using taxpayer funds. Say someone breaks into your home, shoots you and sets your house on fire. You think the government should arrest the perpetrator, douse the fire, and then leave you to die? I don't see campaigns to privatise police forces or fire brigades. This is one of my major problems with libertarian philosophy. It is hugely inconsistent to call for the abolishment of 'socialist' governments which every day spends your money to make sure you don't get mugged, comes to your rescue if you do, saves you from fires, makes sure the cars you drive are within stringent safety regulations, maintains the roads you drive them on, provides you with subsidised public transport, maintains your telecommunications exchanges, bails out the shonky businesses you invested in when they go broke, makes provisions for the preservation of wildlife and national parks, builds and maintains vital infrastructure etc etc. And all with the publicly known motive of what is in the best interests of the people.
The government is held accountable by the people who will not re-elect it if it does not do a good job (i know this is slightly theoretical - look at bush lol). In the privatisation of any public service, such as healthcare, who holds big business accountable? And what is big business' motive? Thats right, as you were so eager to proclaim; profit. It boils down to who you would rather trust; the democratically elected representatives of the people held accountable by the democratic proces, or the greedy big business moneygrubbers who are held accountable by nothing. The profit motive is an extremely unethical motive. Where does the name 'Ponzi Scheme' come from? Was it a government? Or a business tycoon?
Time to catch up!
Assuming that your interpretation is the correct one (which I doubt, but we'll go with it for the moment), this leads us to the conclusion that perhaps your constitution is outdated. It's not like it's an inviolate set of laws; there is a provision to create amendments so clearly your founding fathers saw that there may be a need to alter the constitution in the future (and thereby admitting that the document they were creating was not perfect).
That's the debate that has been raging in this country between liberals who want the "freedom" to change the constitution by changing the meanings of the words clearly to mean the opposite of the intention and conservatives who generally believe the constitution- as a set of principles- means what it says and what the authors intended which can be found by reading some of their other writings.
But it seems like arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate about the efficacy of the thing in question. As I've outlined before, public healthcare increases social welfare and leads to a higher standard of living. There are few convincing arguments against implementing it at least as part of a mixed market solution. If your only argument against it is that "it's unconstitutional", perhaps the constitution is wrong and needs to be changed (or, perhaps, it's not actually unconstitutional).
Actually you've got that backwards. That argument- "arguing that something is "unconstitutional" is short-circuiting any debate" is in itself just a method to short circuit the debate. Kind of like the "global warming" so-called debate. They proclaim without EVER debating it that "the science is in the debate is over" and just blow off the fact that most scientists and research disprooves it. (No please dont start global warming here I was simply citing the standard communist method)
Actually, you've got that backwards. There is a debate to be had, and some attempt to play a trump card by saying that it is unconstitutional. This is an attempt to stop debate. Those wishing to debate are unable to because it falls on deaf ears hiding behind the assumption that unconstitutional=wrong. Do you think it was wrong that women should be permitted the vote? No provisions were made for that by the founding fathers. It wasn't until 1920 that the nineteenth amendment was ratified. That was
133 years that the constitution was used to deny rights to women. Lets not even start on the race issue. The constitution is not gospel. It was written by people who could not possibly envision the society that we live in now, and the challenges we face. No one could have. But the founding fathers were wise enough to make provisions for it to be changed because they knew that it would have to be. If you argue against changing the constitution, then you argue against rights for women, which is simply unconscionable.
Guest Posts
Well, thats not really true, because I agreed with you to begin with, but man, you make some powerful points! I'm eager to see if EH is going to ignore your 'roadbuilding' example or attempt to argue the point. 