Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[kandrathe]

You believe that's possible. I no longer do. But it doesn't really matter. My emotions are controlled by my intellect. Pictures of starving Colombian children break my heart. But I refuse to send them aid as long as the organizations that distribute that aid don't make birth control their first priority. Otherwise, my contribution would not be to the solution but to the problem.

I do. I do believe that the true "correct" position is for people to attempt to take care of themselves wherever possible, and if altruistic people want to step in to help those who cannot help themselves, that is their choice (one I wholeheartedly support). What we see now, however, is the sensitive caring altruists insensitively using "government" as a means to fund their every whim. I just don't see "care-taking" as a role for government. I think it leads to a child like state of dependency (a form of self enslavement). So, using your example, feeding the starving as a form of altruistic compassion, would need to be coupled with a community health program which requires the people receiving the aid to voluntarily assent to practice birth control. However, this is only the half that prevents a tragedy. Now, there needs to be a mechanism which allows them to be prosperous (often poverty is coupled with government repression). Kofi Annan has famously linked prosperity to security, and security to human rights. He also said, "Today, no walls can separate humanitarian or human rights crises in one part of the world from national security crises in another. What begins with the failure to uphold the dignity of one life all too often ends with a calamity for entire nations."

As I've said before, I DO believe in an active mechanism by government which people would need to qualify and sign up for which would help prevent starvation, homelessness, and even the lack of dental and health care. But, this mechanism should be a process which results in people again taking care of themselves. Not all people will be able to function as able bodied adults in our society, and for the ones who are perpetual dependents, there must be a mechanism for care which begins with their family, and in my opinion, stopping at the State level.

This recession was partially caused by government interference, and not only by the formation of credit default swaps (also a bad idea). CDS were just the grease that helped hide the risk of home foreclosure in a trade-able loan portfolio. In a period of economic growth, and home price appreciation, everything worked fine. It was government, through FHA, and other programs who kept pumping more demand into a system with over consumption. New housing starts are used as a key indicator of economic growth, so the government does everything they can to promote them. However, these programs are blind to the underlying fundamentals which create the statistics. New housing is needed for new families at local levels, which should come at the birth rate + the net immigration rate to the locality. Government programs and regulations exacerbate the disconnected nature of the financial incentives creating either a glut of unoccupied homes, or high demands (over inflated prices) where housing cannot be built.

Beyond the housing bubble our nation is plagued with decades of inaction on creating a sustainable energy policy, and a decade on dithering and inaction in dealing with unfair global trade and harmful financial manipulations by foreign governments. We want a computer (or ten) in every home, vehicle, and classroom, but we don't consider the power needed to sustain them. Practical? It is the US government that gave BP the oil lease to drill in deep water, without regard to safety. And, why doesn't the Coast Guard, or FEMA own the ships necessary, or require the industry to own the ships neccesary for containing an oil spill? Isn't this like allowing your renter to mess around with fire, but not to have any extinguishers handy. I'd say collectively, from a practical stand point, WE, the people, have our heads up our rears. AND, the congress WE elect to represent us, are a special interest and money diluted sample of our collective stupidity.

I want poor people to own a home, buy health insurance, send their kids to college, and have a good retirement. But, I think the best way to do that is to help them to not be poor anymore, and let them choose how they might spend their own earned wages. When the government helps fund, or reduce the price of these things, like homes, like health care, like education, it creates an increase in the price, and potentially a bubble in the appreciation of that "asset". The increase in price that is caused by government can be in the form of inefficiency, increased demand, regulatory constraints, and fraud.

How can government help? As I said earlier, above, government should focus on helping to enable the creation of wealth. So, yes, things like the coordination of some major building projects, like a dam, which provides power and irrigation. Like high speed freight, and interstate freeways, which promote commerce, and the rapid movement of goods to markets. Like, technology projects which result in world wide boons like the internet. With space exploration, and someday the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources. If we are to "build" a society, then it is these things that will propel us forward. What we don't need are egoists building modern equivalents of the pyramids to celebrate their glory. Heck, why not create some *real* incentives (like zero taxes for ten, or twenty years) for some companies to built a few thousand wind mills in SE Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa? If they do it correctly, the bulk of that land can still be farmed at the same time. There is no need to worry about taxing carbon, if you focus on making electricity much, much less expensive. Eventually, people will not want to pay the high prices for carbon based energy, when they can spend much, much less for transportation and heating. There was a time when people burned coal in their homes, but they chose to move to fuel oil or natural gas by economic (and perhaps ecologic) choice. I would rather see the move to electrical generation, and distribution, rather the the return to home coal use.

This is why, in my opinion, excessive regulation, subsidies, and government involvement in passing around money (borrowed or taken) is a very bad thing. Recessions happen as a result of a shock whereby people either cannot, or choose not to continue spending as usual. When government gets so huge, seemingly small things result in many people being crushed.

If we had a society that would allow a person to die because he'd been injured in a motorcycle accident without a helmet unless he had insurance to cover it, then some of what you propose makes sense. If we were, as a society, willing for the bulk of the population to be uneducated, then some of what you propose makes sense. If we were, as a society, willing for the houses and properties of those without fire insurance to burn down unchecked, then some of what you propose makes sense.

Right, but we don't even let people die, who are terminally ill, and want to die with dignity. McDonalds is responsible for serving hot coffee, that spills and burns someone. 22 states have banned text messaging while driving, and yet they also offer traffic awareness services by text messaging. How about the laws in some States preventing atheists from adopting? There are laws on how long I can leave my children alone without adult supervision, but it's considered fine if parents let their kid climb Everest, or attempt to sail around the world?

My point is that our laws and legal system is 1) often unfair, 2) often idiotic, and 3) no longer based on individual liberty or common law (let alone common sense). Also, I would point out that as for education, *want* has nothing to do with it. We have an uneducated electorate, and we can't seem to be able to cram the learning into their darned skulls.

The problem with practical politics is that you have to work with the people as they are and not as you wished they were. You have to work with the tools and resources you have, and not some ideal set. Indeed, politics *is* the art of the possible.

Yet, if a once in a lifetime event happens, impractical idealists pass laws trying to prevent it from ever happening again. How is it practical to attempt to create social and financial equality by force? I don't see much "practical" or pragmatic in what happens in our Congress. It seems driven by unrealistic ideals of giving everyone "the American dream". But, they don't realize that the dream is not to be given it, but to live in a society where you can easily earn it and maintain it. I'll take the government that seeks to guarantee my rights to seek prosperity, over one that attempts to give me unearned prosperity. I'll take the government that seeks to protect my property and my rights to use it (and within reasonable stewardship for land). I want the government that let's me live my life as I see fit, and gets the heck out of the way, as long as I don't harm anyone, or their property.

I see our modern politics as the practice of like minded bands of opportunists using events (even natural cyclical ones) as a means to seize power, money, and freedom from individuals. Whatever government gives people, it first had to take it from someone else. Governments don't give us freedom, they can only defend it for us. But, they surely can take it away from us.

Edit: I'm just reading The Constitution in Exile.