Republicans or Democrats?

[Darth Wong]

One of the things that I think has been the problem with modern efforts at deregulation and privatization is that they often go after things which might be better regulated, or under government control, because they're politically safe to eliminate, while ignoring the real things that need to be eliminated--the heavily socialist programmes that have creeped into western democracy. Governments have always maintained roads, waterways, etc, and they have reasons for doing so. It would be silly to privatize that, and wouldn't work. There are other things that should and can be cut, however.

Of course. In the perfect world where no socialist programs whatsoever are ever necessary because nothing ever goes wrong to anyone who doesn't deserve it, and the people who deserve it can burn in Hell, and their children too.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course. In the perfect world where no socialist programs whatsoever are ever necessary because nothing ever goes wrong to anyone who doesn't deserve it, and the people who deserve it can burn in Hell, and their children too.

You know that neither of us believe in hell. I'm speaking about the Federal Government here, Mike. I think that those programmes are unconstitutional and should be eliminated. If you are an American and want that socialist care, move to a state with such a programme. I understand that Oregon is considering universal healthcare. States should deal with issues like this on their own; the federal government has specific duties and this is not one of them.

[Darth Wong]

Of course. In the perfect world where no socialist programs whatsoever are ever necessary because nothing ever goes wrong to anyone who doesn't deserve it, and the people who deserve it can burn in Hell, and their children too.

You know that neither of us believe in hell.

Which has nothing to do with the point being made.

I'm speaking about the Federal Government here, Mike. I think that those programmes are unconstitutional and should be eliminated. If you are an American and want that socialist care, move to a state with such a programme. I understand that Oregon is considering universal healthcare. States should deal with issues like this on their own; the federal government has specific duties and this is not one of them.

So you switch from your predictions of rosy outcomes to a recitation of legalistic state/federal jurisdictional limits? Is that not-so-subtle subject change a concession that you cannot justify those claims of rosy outcomes?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Which has nothing to do with the point being made.

Then why bring it up?

So you switch from your predictions of rosy outcomes to a recitation of legalistic state/federal jurisdictional limits? Is that not-so-subtle subject change a concession that you cannot justify those claims of rosy outcomes?

No. I would eliminate the socialist care programmes in a state that I lived in, on the grounds that charity has traditionally supplied for the surplus of people unable to work--a figure to be reduced as the state reaches its maximum employment potential through the economic programme, and the reduction in the tax burden would increase the charitable donation commisurately; and that charitable organizations are likely to be more efficient than government.

But in a federal system not every state has to do this.

[Darth Wong]

Which has nothing to do with the point being made.

Then why bring it up?

I didn't. You did. The inference that I was speaking of the Biblical Hell rather than using a figure of speech for "something bad" was yours alone.

So you switch from your predictions of rosy outcomes to a recitation of legalistic state/federal jurisdictional limits? Is that not-so-subtle subject change a concession that you cannot justify those claims of rosy outcomes?

No. I would eliminate the socialist care programmes in a state that I lived in, on the grounds that charity has traditionally supplied for the surplus of people unable to work--a figure to be reduced as the state reaches its maximum employment potential through the economic programme, and the reduction in the tax burden would increase the charitable donation commisurately; and that charitable organizations are likely to be more efficient than government.

Where has charitable giving ever been "traditionally" generous enough to completely supplant all social programs?

But in a federal system not every state has to do this.

If your argument were that social programs should be a state responsibility rather than a federal one, you could have said so, instead of simply advocating that we "Eliminate certain socialist provisions which hamper productive workers and drive companies overseas, crippling the American industrial base (in the particular case of the USA), without any appreciable gain for the average member of the full-time workforce." That statement sounded like a blanket statement to me, without regard for whether the federal or state levels of government implemented these "socialist provisions".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Where has charitable giving ever been "traditionally" generous enough to completely supplant all social programs?

I think a case could be made that in the Interwar period prior to the Great Contraction that, at least in the USA, there was a sufficient surplus to take care of the needs of the destitute through charity. It was the collapse of this system under the strain of the Great Contraction that really allowed Roosevelt to put through the Workfare programmes of the 30s.

If your argument were that social programs should be a state responsibility rather than a federal one, you could have said so, instead of simply advocating that we "Eliminate certain socialist provisions which hamper productive workers and drive companies overseas, crippling the American industrial base (in the particular case of the USA), without any appreciable gain for the average member of the full-time workforce." That statement sounded like a blanket statement to me, without regard for whether the federal or state levels of government implemented these "socialist provisions".

At the federal level they can all be removed and I'd have to look at the setup in all of the fifty states to give you an answer on the economic/vice care issue. I certainly don't support eliminating job retraining programmes at any rate, possibly even at the federal level (at least as a temporary measure--I'd want to see how the states percolate down their responses). The question is what to do with the people whom will never work.

[Joe]

Were you listening to what I wrote? I said that Bush wouldn?t have been able to justify removing the sanctions because it would be a PR nightmare to the people of the UNITED STATES. You think that with all the years of telling us how Saddam is an evil dictator, they can just lift the sanctions without committing political suicide?

Yes, basically. Who would stop us? It would be hypocritical (and I don't think it should have been done, I remind you), but I imagine it would not have been enormously difficult to do.

Your forgetting that Clinton actually signed the Kyoto Protocol during his tenure. Might I also add that this is hardly the work of ?eco-loonies?? Here is the biggest stipulation of the Kyoto Protocol:

An exercise in pointlessness. He knew it would never go through the Senate.

?This treaty would commit the United States to a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels during a "commitment period" between 2008-2012.?

Does this sound unreasonable to you?

Yes, it sounds unreasonable to me. It discriminates against the first world. Less developed countries are not called on to absorb nearly as much of the costs of Kyoto. China and South Korea, for example, would not be required to reduce their CO2 output at all.

Personally I think that the environment has taken one too many for the team and it is something we need to concentrate on NOW. You notice how over 16,000 people died in France this year because of a simple heat wave?

The heat wave deaths can be attributed to many other factors as well; lack of air conditioning in homes, problems with French society (but I'd not like to get into France-bashing in this discussion).

Can you imagine what a global increase of only 5 C might do to our climate and population? The greenhouse effect isn?t some whacked out theory; just take a look at Venus if you want to see a firsthand example of the greenhouse effect in action.

It would be devastating. But it is rather questionable just how effective human beings have been in raising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The hefty majority of CO2 emissions come not from human beings, but from natural sources - swamps, other animals, volcanoes in particular. It's even more questionable whether or not the recent warming in global temperatures is really anything to fuss about. Admittedly, there is limited data to measure global warming/cooling trends against - the ancient Sumerians never got around to launching weather satellites, after all - but there is also little evidence to suggest that human activity has been responsible for the observed increase in temperature over the last few decades. More than likely, it's simply part of a natural cycle. Global warming isn't something that should simply be abandoned; it should continue to be researched, but until conclusive evidence can be presented to prove that adherence to the Kyoto Treaty would have a long term gain more beneficial than its massive costs, there is no reason it should be implemented.

We still don?t know for sure how damaging the greenhouse gasses we are pumping into the atmosphere are. But the problem is that if they are as harmful as a large percentage of the scientists on Earth fear, we can cause major climate changes that would take decades to reverse. Personally, I think we should spend the extra money on clean air upgrades just in case, don?t you?

No. Not until there is sufficient evidence to justify it.

You?ll need to provide some evidence to back up this claim. As I state below in my response about the Rockefellers, the estate tax has a number of exemptions that protect small business?.

http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/ ... /calim.htm

A recent study by the research company, Prince and Associates, for National Life of Vermont reviewed the history of 749 family businesses which failed within three years after the death of the founder. The Prince study reinforced and supported the conclusion of the deadly effect of estate taxes. The businesses could not continue as a result of the tax drain on working capital needed to effectively compete and cover errors in judgment made by new and younger management. Jobs were lost in the communities. Key families in the community lost the family business as their base of power and faded away as leaders in that community.

Emphasis mine.

If you read what I said, I was referring to the people OPPOSED to the estate tax. I think there are some valid reasons for opposing it, but I also believe that the benefits outweigh the advantages.

What "benefits"? 26 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket of the federal budget (and keep in mind, that's estate and gift taxes combined, not just estate taxes). 26 billion will fund a number of pork barrel projects, but it will not significantly alter the spending of the United States government, nor is it material enough to produce much of a benefit that truly outweighs the costs of destruction to small business.

The Rockefellers, in case you didn?t know, acquired their wealth long before the first meaningful estate tax was implemented. An estate tax of > 10% wasn?t around until 1916. Also you should remember that the Rockefellers are the most extreme example of a wealthy dynasty that has ever existed in America (yes, including Gates). Don?t you know that the whole reason that Teddy Roosevelt initiated his anti-trust campaigns was because of Rockefeller and a couple of others monopolizing whole markets?

Irrelevant. They support the estate tax now, because they're a bunch of elitist snobs who don't want their status challenged by up-and-comers.

There is already a considerable amount of exemptions from the estate tax for the middle class. Under current laws, anything up to $1 million is exempt. Farmers, like I said before, have special provisions so that their exemptions can go as high as $8 million. Beyond that, the estate tax is on a sliding scale from about 3% up to 77%.

The $1 million dollar exemption is not enough. The most successful small businesses need much more working capital than that. Furthermore, I'm not talking about farmers, I'm talking about small businesses.

So this basically shoots down your idea about the middle class getting shafted by the estate tax. What it DOES do is prevent those who have accumulated a great deal of wealth to pass it on to their children without the children actually doing anything to maintain that wealth. Is it really so bad that we make the children of those who EARNED the money to work at KEEPING it? When you have that much capital and you get half of it taken away, you can easily turn the other half into as much as the original, it just takes work and smart investments.

I am not really interested in debating the morality of the estate tax, I am interested in its utility. That said, I do not see the morality in taxing the estate of an individual at death, that's just double taxation.

Social mobility is maintained, it just means that it is possible for one to slide DOWN the scale as well as climb up. The American dream is maintained.

Downward social mobility is not really a good thing. The important thing is that the tax decreases upward social mobility.

His new budget puts the future solvency of Medicare and Social Security into question.

The solvency of these programs has been in question for years. Not a new development.

Clinton spent years trying to get Social Security back on track and Bush derailed all of that in a matter of months, just to support a $2 trillion tax cut.

Clinton didn't do a fucking thing. Under the Clinton administration, the tradition of raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for unnecessary government spending continued. And it has continued under Bush, and it will continue under the next President. The system is doomed.

And Bush's tax cut (the first one) ended up being 1.3 trillion dollars, allocated over a ten-year period.

Aside from the two biggies, I can?t see how you seriously believe that Bush hasn?t been cutting social programs. The changes he has made to Head Start and the cuts from after school programs are hurting the lower class substantially.

Are these massive cuts, or just drops in the bucket? Net spending on social programs has only increased under the Bush administration.

So the rich get tax breaks thus spending more of their money and increasing their wealth through investment. How does this help the lower-middle class?

Who do you think signs the paychecks of the lower middle class? When the rich invest in new products, they create new jobs, and new opportunities. Giving tax breaks to lower income earners is justified, and certainly a good thing to do, but it will not stimulate the economy as will cutting the taxes of the wealthy. It may increase consumption, but that will only clear out existing inventories; it won't encourage investors to engage in new projects.

Sure if you?ve got stock options it?s wonderful but the cold hard truth is that by cutting taxes to the rich, we are simply moving the distribution of wealth into an even smaller group of people.

Yes, tax breaks will lead to the rich getting richer, no doubt, but they will also lead to the middle class and lower class getting richer, albeit at a lower rate.

The number one priority for the US government has to be establishing stable social programs. We have one of the worst health care systems in the western world,

The WHO disagrees with you. In the WHO's infamous 2001 study of various healthcare systems across the world, the U.S. ranked first in the area of Responsiveness, the only truly qualitative measure the WHO used in the study (the other two, Fairness/Equity and Life Expectancy, are not really accurate indicators of the quality of a healthcare system).

Social Security is at the edge of insolvency and our public education system is laughed at by everyone.

Of course Social Security is on the edge of insolvency. But as I pointed out, that's not a new development and is hardly the fault of Bush.

As for education? Fair enough, although our public university system is still quite good. How to improve public education is something I honestly don't have an answer for; I am certain, however, that the solution is not more money. Education spending has steadily increased over the years with little marked improvement in the quality of our public schools.

Would you care for a school voucher?

No, I don't believe in subsidization of private industry.

By your logic, we should lower taxes to zero and the government will have all the money it needs.

No. The Laffer Curve is a taxation model that holds that once the marginal tax rate reaches a certain point, government revenues will actually go down as opposed to increasing. You want to tax at that point to maximize government revenue.

Regardless, Laffer won?t help you here. All the Laffer curve established is that as taxes decreased from fairly high levels, tax revenue received by the government would increase. However, as tax rates rose from fairly low levels tax revenue would also increase. Laffer is nothing but a bell curve and you know it.
So my point is still valid in that a tax cut can still HURT the economy under Laffer?s model because too low a tax rate hurts just as much as too high a tax rate.

And I am advocating taxing at the point where government revenues are maximized, which is neither the lowest nor the highest level of taxation. Point?

First you quote me Reganomics principles, now you are coming down on government spending? Are you aware that under Regan, government spending shot up to insane levels, especially in the area of military contracts. This cause a lot of debt, but as Greenspan noted many times in his life, sometimes controlled debt can be a very good thing. Regan didn?t do the best job of this as inflation was through the roof, but in controlled amounts government spending (especially on programs for employees outside government employment itself) can help create jobs and strengthen the economy.

Not likely. Most data from the 20th century shows that the economy is not significantly affected by the fiscal policy that the government takes.

You still haven?t proved that. In fact Laffer would disagree with you.

I have. Tax cuts put money in the hands of the people who have the initiative to invest in new projects, creating new jobs and strengthening the economy. I am getting tired of repeating myself.

Depends on where you live I guess. Here in Silicon Valley, we currently have over 10% unemployment and it is getting worse. Anyways, nationwide unemployment hasn?t been this high since the Bush Sr. recession in 1989, which was technically decades ago.

6.1 is the national figure. Which is, again, outstanding for a recession. And damned good considering what Europe is going through.

I?m not talking about blue color jobs, I?m talking about all the tech jobs that the big technology firms are transferring overseas. Or didn?t you notice that IBM, HP, Dell and others have made announcements to this effect recently?

Oh, I am aware of it, and it is inevitable. It's going to happen, regardless of who is President. However, this is not the first time these arguments have been made. Certain jobs will go, new ones will come in, as they always do. Labor is not finite. We have lost millions of agricultural and manufacturing jobs over the past 100 years, but to replace those jobs came the growth of the tech sector, which no one anticipated. Likewise, new jobs will be created in the long run to replace tech. One theory holds that "hands on" jobs that cannot be "outsourced" are the wave of the future.

[Darth Wong]

I think a case could be made that in the Interwar period prior to the Great Contraction that, at least in the USA, there was a sufficient surplus to take care of the needs of the destitute through charity. It was the collapse of this system under the strain of the Great Contraction that really allowed Roosevelt to put through the Workfare programmes of the 30s.

Actually, the living status of the poor prior to that era was something that we would consider inhumane today. If that's your evidence for charities supplanting social programs, it doesn't work.

At the federal level they can all be removed and I'd have to look at the setup in all of the fifty states to give you an answer on the economic/vice care issue. I certainly don't support eliminating job retraining programmes at any rate, possibly even at the federal level (at least as a temporary measure--I'd want to see how the states percolate down their responses).

I suspect that companies would exploit differences between regulations in neighbouring states in order to move their operations to deregulated areas in order to save costs, with no hampering from the federal government. The eventual result would be that the entire country is forced into this largely deregulated state by the need to keep jobs in state.

The question is what to do with the people whom will never work.

Make sure they have a roof over their heads, food in their mouths, clothes on their backs, and free school for their kids, but no more. This is the present approach (in principle; I'd agree if you said that the system is badly administered), and I don't see what's wrong with it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, the living status of the poor prior to that era was something that we would consider inhumane today. If that's your evidence for charities supplanting social programs, it doesn't work.

Well, if they could be successfully provided with a survival-level of food and emergency medical care. At that, we have a much larger economic surplus now than then--more luxury for such a support. Ultimately all support of those unable to support themselves must rest on the ability of society to overproduce; and that has continually increased in the past eight decades. I merely don't trust the government into reapportioning it.

Make sure they have a roof over their heads, food in their mouths, clothes on their backs, and free school for their kids, but no more. This is the present approach (in principle; I'd agree if you said that the system is badly administered), and I don't see what's wrong with it.

My distaste is having this system operate through the government. It would be much preferable if, at least, these people could live with their families and the families could receive support. Especially the ones with children, to avoid perpetuating the process.

In that, incidentally, I think some of this is temporary--the "stress and storm" on the family, if you will, is something that is the result of the massive reorganization of society that has been taking place over the past two centuries and is not yet over.

But emergency measures have a disturbing way of becoming permanent fixtures.

[Darth Wong]

Well, if they could be successfully provided with a survival-level of food and emergency medical care. At that, we have a much larger economic surplus now than then--more luxury for such a support. Ultimately all support of those unable to support themselves must rest on the ability of society to overproduce; and that has continually increased in the past eight decades. I merely don't trust the government into reapportioning it.

But you trust people to provide the funds for this on a voluntary basis? I still see no basis for this assumption. And what happens if charitable gift-giving drops off one year? Just tell all of the recipients to buckle up and wait till next year?

My distaste is having this system operate through the government. It would be much preferable if, at least, these people could live with their families and the families could receive support. Especially the ones with children, to avoid perpetuating the process.

I agree. But this is not a perfect world.

In that, incidentally, I think some of this is temporary--the "stress and storm" on the family, if you will, is something that is the result of the massive reorganization of society that has been taking place over the past two centuries and is not yet over.

But emergency measures have a disturbing way of becoming permanent fixtures.

Of course they do. Nevertheless, destroying these fixtures implies that their raison d'etre is gone, and I have not seen any justification for this. Frankly, I very seriously doubt that the average person will voluntarily contribute many thousands of dollars per year to charity, or that charities, grown to many times their size on the vast influx of money which represents a sizable portion of the government's income, will remain as they are now rather than turning into grotesque hives of corruption. And who would they be accountable to for the manner in which they choose to spend this money?

Governments are a lousy administrator of social programs. But that doesn't mean there are necessarily any better candidates out there.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hrmm. Mike, what do you think of a system of mandatory giving to a private charity(ies) of your choice, which would be subject to strict government audit? Non-religious ones, of course. That might remove some of the bulk from the system.

[Darth Wong]

Hrmm. Mike, what do you think of a system of mandatory giving to a private charity(ies) of your choice, which would be subject to strict government audit? Non-religious ones, of course. That might remove some of the bulk from the system.

Hmmm, I think there may be something to be said for regulated privatization of certain types of social programs. Of course, it's the sort of thing where one would not really know for sure how well it works until it's tried, but at least the idea does not seem wildly implausible.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hmmm, I think there may be something to be said for regulated privatization of certain types of social programs. Of course, it's the sort of thing where one would not really know for sure how well it works until it's tried, but at least the idea does not seem wildly implausible.

Now the interesting question is if the new prescription drug plan in the U.S. will end up something vaguely approximating this, or if the compromise will just be bulky and inefficient like everything else in this field that's stumbled out of the US Congress so far. I don't have many hopes, but probability demands they get something right someday. Ha. Ha.

[Joe]

Seniors have an average household wealth of $250,000. Let them pay for their own shit for a change; if we're going to have federalized social programs, it should be for people that actually need the help.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Seniors have an average household wealth of $250,000. Let them pay for their own shit for a change; if we're going to have federalized social programs, it should be for people that actually need the help.

Well, we need to get rid of social security. That's clear. The system is going to collapse--we should just ease it out and put all of the remaining money into the general budget to help deal with the debt. Yes, it's unpleasant, but the "retire at sixty-five" life ideal is over, and with people living longer they should also be able to work longer.

[Darth Wong]

Seniors have an average household wealth of $250,000. Let them pay for their own shit for a change; if we're going to have federalized social programs, it should be for people that actually need the help.

Actually, living for 10 or 15 years off $250,000 will not be all that comfortable (especially when an average automatically implies that there are large numbers well below that figure).

[Joe]

Seniors have an average household wealth of $250,000. Let them pay for their own shit for a change; if we're going to have federalized social programs, it should be for people that actually need the help.

Actually, living for 10 or 15 years off $250,000 will not be all that comfortable (especially when an average automatically implies that there are large numbers well below that figure).

Yes, but that figure doesn't take into account pensions, social security, other annuities and such.

[The Kernel]

Seniors have an average household wealth of $250,000. Let them pay for their own shit for a change; if we're going to have federalized social programs, it should be for people that actually need the help.

Well, we need to get rid of social security. That's clear. The system is going to collapse--we should just ease it out and put all of the remaining money into the general budget to help deal with the debt. Yes, it's unpleasant, but the "retire at sixty-five" life ideal is over, and with people living longer they should also be able to work longer.

We need to get rid of something that we are already paying for? I've been paying Social Security since I was 15 and I am entitled to the benefits when I get older. If you want to replace it or refund everyones money fine, but don't you see the problem with closing down a program that some people have been dumping money into their entire lives?

[phongn]

We need to get rid of something that we are already paying for? I've been paying Social Security since I was 15 and I am entitled to the benefits when I get older. If you want to replace it or refund everyones money fine, but don't you see the problem with closing down a program that some people have been dumping money into their entire lives?

You do realise that Social Security works by paying off the current generaiton, not investing in your own future, right?

As for cutting it, yeah, it's a problem, but not as big as a problem as the massive unfunded liability that's coming up.

[Peregrin Toker]

In particular we need to eliminate the minimum wage and as many of the current regulations as possible to increase industry efficiency and increase industry retention.

But if we eliminate regulations, then how should we prevent corporations from treating their employees like dirt or worse??? History shows that large corporations will do anything which brings higher profits - no matter how questionable it might seem from an outside perspective.

This will also legalize the labour of (legal--but I have an immigration plan as well) migrant and resident workers in the southwest who work for less than the current minimum wage. Bringing that over the table should have considerable benefits for them.

How the heck does a worker benefit from being paid less than he deserves?? When corporations are allowed to pay their employees as little as they can get away with, it's pretty obvious that the ones enjoying such a lack of minimum wage are not the workers, but the corporate leaders whose profits are increased by a wage reduction.

And why would anyone wish to be paid a wage that's insufficient? Try to put yourself in that situation - if you were a store clerk who barely was paid any wage, brutalized by the store manager, you were forbidden from joining a labour union and the only alternative would be to be without a job ... would you be satisfied?? I think not.

1. Minimalizing regulation.

Obviously, such a decision would be vastly enjoyed by corporate bosses and capitalists who have no qualms about using morally and environmentally questionable methods to maximize profits.

3. Eliminate certain socialist provisions which hamper productive workers and drive companies overseas, crippling the American industrial base (in the particular case of the USA), without any appreciable gain for the average member of the full-time workforce.

Such as?

[theski]

phongn wrote:

You do realise that Social Security works by paying off the current generaiton, not investing in your own future, right?

As for cutting it, yeah, it's a problem, but not as big as a problem as the massive unfunded liability that's coming up.

It just gets worse..

Nor is this the worst that can happen. Under the pessimistic forecast, the future Social Security tax burden will be almost twice its current level and the elderly will spend more than $2 of Medicare money each year for every $1 they receive in Social Security checks. Workers will have to pay almost half of their earnings just to fund benefits already promised the elderly under current law. Put another way, under the pessimistic forecast, we have already pledged more than half the income of future workers without regard to any personal needs they workers and their families may have and without regard to the need to fund any other government program!

and The Kernel wrote:

I've been paying Social Security since I was 15 and I am entitled to the benefits when I get older.

You are betting on others to support you.. I would not count on SS to be there when you retire

[RedImperator]

We need to get rid of something that we are already paying for? I've been paying Social Security since I was 15 and I am entitled to the benefits when I get older. If you want to replace it or refund everyones money fine, but don't you see the problem with closing down a program that some people have been dumping money into their entire lives?

Nobody who talks about dismantling social security means that people who are already near retirement are stuck without their check. The system would keep going for years until all the current recipients and all the workers within, say, five or ten years of retirement right now, die off. The younger people who've paid in, though, they're just stuck. That sucks for them (them? hell, us--I've paid my share too), but life's not always fair, and I'd rather take a loss on the money I've already paid in than lose 50% of my paycheck to keep the baby boomers in Atlantic City money.

[Symmetry]

Of course the government pushes ideals upon people. That's part of its mandate, since (contrary to libertarian pie-in-the-sky naive idealist bullshit) people are too fucking stupid to choose wisely, people are going to do a lot of very bad things if given the freedom to do so, and the free market will not correct any of this because people don't actually know what a corporation is up to unless the government forces them to report everything (not to mention the fact that the wealthiest individuals and corporations will quickly run things on a cartel basis so that consumers effectively lose the freedom of choice).

If people are too stupid to choose wisely, how can you expect a democracy to choose well? I mean, look at it! Its just the will of the majority in action. I'm sure you're ideal government is an iron dictatorship with yourself at the helm, but if not that, would you ratherhave these stupid people you complain about telling you what to do? I also think people tend to be less stupid when its their own skin on the line. Of course I'm only a libertarian, rather than a Libertarian, and I think that there really are more roles for the government than just defense and law (at least at our current population density/dependance on commons).

[Symmetry]

For those of you who don't think corporations could get as bad as government, from the point of view of getting power, should well remember the "Company town" model of buisness. Like coal miners, paid company script, shopping in company stores, living in company housing, with company goons to watch over them.Tell me this wasn't corporate slavery!

It wasn't slavery, if I worker left his job, there wouldn't be any men with whips and dogs chasing after them. The overseers couldn't inflict corporal punishments on the workers, nor kill them. Their children were able to go to public school. And with basket cases like Ford or Disnesy, they honestly believed it was for the good of the workers.

[Symmetry]

I think a case could be made that in the Interwar period prior to the Great Contraction that, at least in the USA, there was a sufficient surplus to take care of the needs of the destitute through charity. It was the collapse of this system under the strain of the Great Contraction that really allowed Roosevelt to put through the Workfare programmes of the 30s.

Actually, the living status of the poor prior to that era was something that we would consider inhumane today. If that's your evidence for charities supplanting social programs, it doesn't work.

The living standards of the rich were horrible compared to today in many ways. I think the proper thing to compare is the standards of the poor to the lower middle class, and see if thats changed (I don't know myslef).