badgenome said:
So why, then, do you constantly hammer on this point that if the government doesn't do something it means we will live in a society that doesn't value that thing? My belief that the government should be involved in welfare, according to you, isn't the result of my belief that welfare is morally corrosive and corrupts the system, that government interventionism creates a moribund economy, or that tremendous harm - ranging from accidentally created shortages all the way to the most monstrous of mankind's evils - has been done by political regimes in the name of caring; it's because I simply hate poor people. I'd wager that nearly everyone believes in social contract theory complete with rights and responsibilities, so that isn't really saying much at all. The devil is in the details. When the GOP candidates want to save Medicare and means test Social Security and turn Medicare and food stamps into block grants, this is hardly a party that wants to get rid of the safety net. |
You miss the point, and get what I have been saying backwards. I was saying the government does things that society values (well values at least seeing less so the government deals with it), that society doesn't do on its own. If society did it, government wouldn't be involved. Government doesn't get into things that somewhere the body politic doesn't feel is a problem. What I see here, whether you sign up to this or not isn't even the point, is a belief that you slash government and then somehow the problems will resolve themselves. My take is that the problem doesn't go away simply by slashing government. Cut welfare and housing people, they will funnel elsewhere. The way to shrink government is for society to do things outside of government and make the problems go away. The opposite won't do it.