6 ms·

> FDR turned giving money away into something that was literally awesome, using the Tennessee Valley Authority to reshape the landscape with bridges and dams.

> FDR turned giving money away into something that was literally awesome, using the Tennessee Valley Authority to reshape the landscape with bridges and dams. Some more libertarian-minded folks would probably make the point that the government is never actually giving away money, it got that money by obtaining it from somewhere else. Regardless, government spending is definitely not charity in any traditional sense. Not to mention, that was a very difficult time. Spending money on a project like that was perhaps necessary just to keep things going. Getting back to your original point, can you make spending cool, or transfer of money from the wealthy to the poor cool by private means (charity) when it isn't required?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Some more libertarian-minded folks would probably make the point that the government is never actually giving away money, it got that money by obtaining it from somewhere else. Almost everyone giving away money got it from somewhere else.
- nova 13y ago
  From mutual agreement in exchange of goods and services, or by force. Not the same. Only thieves and governments do the latter.
  - squidfood 13y ago
    I dunno. I think the system of laws by which we elect people, they set taxes, build a road, and if we don't like the exchange we turn them out, is as close to "mutual agreement" as a city or larger-sized group of people can come up with...
    - technologue 13y ago
      Wrong Wrong Wrong. Could not be more wrong. Freedom of Contract is one of the most important concepts of free market capitalism. People must have the right to review the terms of contract, decide to sign or not and be held to the terms, and there should be penalties for breach on both sides and conditions for dissolution of the contract. The "Social Contract" you are talking about is no contract at all. It is imposed by force, you are given no chance to sign, a false choice (red or blue!) and only 1/385millionth of a say in it. There is no remedy for breach and no conditions for dissolution. It is the very opposite of voluntary exchange and mutual agreement. DO NOT conflate the two, or go back to whatever liberal arts school terribly educated you.
      - squidfood 13y ago
        PhD in STEM, if it matters. And as someone who specifically and directly moved from one city to another because I didn't like the local policies (school district, in this case), I'm a straightforward and simple example of someone who left one social contract for another and paid for the privilege, thanks. (If I repeat the word "wrong" a few more times, will it improve my opinion?) The mistake of both libertarians and liberals in these loud arguments is that they focus on the top (national government) where the real social contracts start locally. If you start to build up a system of local social contracts; well, if it quacks like a government, it's a government, even if you'd rather call it a Homeowner's Association with Guns.
        technologue 13y ago
        Governance is fine, but there are contractual forms of governance and non-contractual (non-consensual) forms of governance. But please don't use "social contract", it's just a liar's word. It is neither social or contractual what people do under a "social contract". It is naked force: "Do what I say or I will hurt you". Since you have a PhD, I'll assume that you are not so lazy you can't separate these things in your brain.
        _delirium 13y ago
        Your level of confidence seems entirely out of line with the level of education in politics and history you display here. Instead of insulting people from a position of ignorance, why not read more books? Sorry for putting it bluntly, but every one of your comments in this discussion so far is a rudely worded assertion of something that at best is highly contested, and at worst something you could not even possibly believe if you had read more than a few libertarian newsletters and websites. Not even if you had read only libertarian-leaning theorists (such as Hayek). Stop it.
        technologue 13y ago
        Since you've advanced literally no argument, I don't feel a need to respond to this. Sorry I hurt your brain?
    - brucefancher 13y ago
      Fine, but let's not conflate government taking money from people with people voluntarily giving their money away (charity). They're two different things.
  - MisterBastahrd 13y ago
    That's amazingly naive. Violence comes in more forms than just striking someone. Democratic governments don't even enter into that frame of reference unless you want to have a governmental system where you elect a personal representative.
  - a8000 13y ago
    Ironically if the Government was not spending that much money, fiat money would be worthless.
  - boie0025 13y ago
    I don't know where you reside, but I always find it interesting when people in the US refer to taxation as thievery. In a representative democracy, the "government" is the people[^1]. Don't like taxes? Rally support behind yourself, and run for office. [^1]: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... see: preamble.
    - marris 13y ago
      I don't think your opponent believes that the US system is a "representative democracy" or a "democracy" or whatever it is that lets N-1 people take arbitrary stuff from 1 person. Your "rally support" solution would not fix the situation.
      - tomp 13y ago
        You're forgetting that that 1 person is also getting stuff from N-1 others - his freedom, safety, absence of famine/war/disease, ... It is simply illusionary to expect a person to be really well-off if everybody else around him is dirt poor. Yes, there were rich people throughout history, but today the average US/European citizen has better healthcare than anyone 20 years ago.
      - boie0025 13y ago
        I don't think that it's fair to say that any "democratic" type of government lets any number of people take anything from any 1 (or any arbitrary grouping) person, it's that the self governed group decides that the cost of existing is paid collectively. And rallying support, from my understanding, is the only way to fix any situation in any type of "democracy". [edit] More directly to your point, it's irrelevant what anyone thinks is "letting" government "steal", the "thievery" is enabled by laws which are created by elected representatives, therefore "the people" (aka government) is directly responsible for taxation.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dannypgh 13y ago
    What about slavery? What about robber-barons paying strike breakers to shoot organizing workers - or for that matter, the missing Coca-Cola union organizers in Columbia? What about businesses that made their money from violations of treaties with the Native Americans? Or from contracts to organize the data necessary for the Holocaust? What about the people who ended up with a leg up in life due to inheriting any of the ill earned wealth above? Or do you write most if not all off as thieves?
- technologue 13y ago
  Yeah a normal businessman doesn't threaten to throw me in jail if I don't give him money for his pet project. Please DO NOT conflate taxation with charity, they are NOT the same in any way, shape or form.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Some more libertarian-minded folks would probably make the point that the government is never actually giving away money, it got that money by obtaining it from somewhere else. Almost everyone giving away money got it from somewhere else.

nova 13y ago
From mutual agreement in exchange of goods and services, or by force. Not the same. Only thieves and governments do the latter.
- squidfood 13y ago
  I dunno. I think the system of laws by which we elect people, they set taxes, build a road, and if we don't like the exchange we turn them out, is as close to "mutual agreement" as a city or larger-sized group of people can come up with...
  - technologue 13y ago
    Wrong Wrong Wrong. Could not be more wrong. Freedom of Contract is one of the most important concepts of free market capitalism. People must have the right to review the terms of contract, decide to sign or not and be held to the terms, and there should be penalties for breach on both sides and conditions for dissolution of the contract. The "Social Contract" you are talking about is no contract at all. It is imposed by force, you are given no chance to sign, a false choice (red or blue!) and only 1/385millionth of a say in it. There is no remedy for breach and no conditions for dissolution. It is the very opposite of voluntary exchange and mutual agreement. DO NOT conflate the two, or go back to whatever liberal arts school terribly educated you.
    - squidfood 13y ago
      PhD in STEM, if it matters. And as someone who specifically and directly moved from one city to another because I didn't like the local policies (school district, in this case), I'm a straightforward and simple example of someone who left one social contract for another and paid for the privilege, thanks. (If I repeat the word "wrong" a few more times, will it improve my opinion?) The mistake of both libertarians and liberals in these loud arguments is that they focus on the top (national government) where the real social contracts start locally. If you start to build up a system of local social contracts; well, if it quacks like a government, it's a government, even if you'd rather call it a Homeowner's Association with Guns.
      - technologue 13y ago
        Governance is fine, but there are contractual forms of governance and non-contractual (non-consensual) forms of governance. But please don't use "social contract", it's just a liar's word. It is neither social or contractual what people do under a "social contract". It is naked force: "Do what I say or I will hurt you". Since you have a PhD, I'll assume that you are not so lazy you can't separate these things in your brain.
        _delirium 13y ago
        Your level of confidence seems entirely out of line with the level of education in politics and history you display here. Instead of insulting people from a position of ignorance, why not read more books? Sorry for putting it bluntly, but every one of your comments in this discussion so far is a rudely worded assertion of something that at best is highly contested, and at worst something you could not even possibly believe if you had read more than a few libertarian newsletters and websites. Not even if you had read only libertarian-leaning theorists (such as Hayek). Stop it.
        technologue 13y ago
        Since you've advanced literally no argument, I don't feel a need to respond to this. Sorry I hurt your brain?
  - brucefancher 13y ago
    Fine, but let's not conflate government taking money from people with people voluntarily giving their money away (charity). They're two different things.
- MisterBastahrd 13y ago
  That's amazingly naive. Violence comes in more forms than just striking someone. Democratic governments don't even enter into that frame of reference unless you want to have a governmental system where you elect a personal representative.
- a8000 13y ago
  Ironically if the Government was not spending that much money, fiat money would be worthless.
- boie0025 13y ago
  I don't know where you reside, but I always find it interesting when people in the US refer to taxation as thievery. In a representative democracy, the "government" is the people[^1]. Don't like taxes? Rally support behind yourself, and run for office. [^1]: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... see: preamble.
  - marris 13y ago
    I don't think your opponent believes that the US system is a "representative democracy" or a "democracy" or whatever it is that lets N-1 people take arbitrary stuff from 1 person. Your "rally support" solution would not fix the situation.
    - tomp 13y ago
      You're forgetting that that 1 person is also getting stuff from N-1 others - his freedom, safety, absence of famine/war/disease, ... It is simply illusionary to expect a person to be really well-off if everybody else around him is dirt poor. Yes, there were rich people throughout history, but today the average US/European citizen has better healthcare than anyone 20 years ago.
    - boie0025 13y ago
      I don't think that it's fair to say that any "democratic" type of government lets any number of people take anything from any 1 (or any arbitrary grouping) person, it's that the self governed group decides that the cost of existing is paid collectively. And rallying support, from my understanding, is the only way to fix any situation in any type of "democracy". [edit] More directly to your point, it's irrelevant what anyone thinks is "letting" government "steal", the "thievery" is enabled by laws which are created by elected representatives, therefore "the people" (aka government) is directly responsible for taxation.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dannypgh 13y ago
  What about slavery? What about robber-barons paying strike breakers to shoot organizing workers - or for that matter, the missing Coca-Cola union organizers in Columbia? What about businesses that made their money from violations of treaties with the Native Americans? Or from contracts to organize the data necessary for the Holocaust? What about the people who ended up with a leg up in life due to inheriting any of the ill earned wealth above? Or do you write most if not all off as thieves?
technologue 13y ago
Yeah a normal businessman doesn't threaten to throw me in jail if I don't give him money for his pet project. Please DO NOT conflate taxation with charity, they are NOT the same in any way, shape or form.