universal healthcare

[eppie]

I'm not really sick or anything, but since I live in Canada and I get free healthcare I think I might just hit up the local hospital for whatever free stuff they will give me.

edit: mission aborted. too many death panels and really long waiting lists in my way.

Sweet:D.

[eppie]

Governments cannot create wealth

O yes they can. The only reason you have so many opportunities is that your government created a safe and functional place to work and make money. Or do you think people in Congo or just very bad business people?

Having a strong stable government is the best recipe for creating wealth. People with nice incomes should think about that before complaining about paying taxes.

There is a problem if a government wants to give its people too much wealth....more than they can pay for. That is when you get a crisis like the one we just had.

[kandrathe]

O yes they can.

How does the government create wealth directly (not indirectly by allowing people to prosper)?

There is a problem if a government wants to give its people too much wealth....more than they can pay for. That is when you get a crisis like the one we just had.

Giving away money (perhaps the wealth of others), is not the same as enabling wealth. They can engage in corruption, which enables their cronies to become wealthy. Also, who said the crisis was over?

Having a strong stable government is the best recipe for creating wealth.

Like in the Soviet Union? No, I'd say the biggest factors in allowing people to create wealth have more to do with liberty, and justice. Liberty, in getting out of the way, and justice in ensuring that the playing field is level where people'a rights, and property are protected.

[Jester]

I could neither find a source for kandrathe's Franklin quote nor a refutation that it was one. Do you have support that it is spurious?

I have no definitive support that it is spurious, but after quite a while of searching google and the usual suspects (wikiquote, etc), I have not found any source, and more than a couple accusations that it is sourceless. At least one blog claims, without any citation, that it is not found in any of his archives or writings, but cites if favourably anyway.

I'd put good money on this being invented. Regardless, as with all such quote claims, the burden is to demonstrate its source, not to definitively prove that there isn't one, which is a nearly impossible task.

-Jester

[Jester]

I've been looking too. It is used often, and always credited to Ben. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/govt.html And another citation here; http://mises.org/daily/1144

Edit: Ok, attributed to Franklin in "Pearls of Wisdom", by Jerome Agel and Walter D. Glanze(Amazon)

No lack of its use in articles (almost all from libertarians) or collections of quotables - universally without citation. This might give us some clues about when it was invented or attributed to Franklin, but it's not going to demonstrate that he said or wrote it.

How about; "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson

Works well enough, though it would be well to remember that this aphorism has a context, and that context is very different from the reality of modern government.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

No lack of its use in articles (almost all from libertarians) or collections of quotables - universally without citation. This might give us some clues about when it was invented or attributed to Franklin, but it's not going to demonstrate that he said or wrote it.

And, to be entirely fair... The sentiment was probably a paraphrase by Franklin of something he read in Plato's Republic, or from the writings of Herodotus. Poor Richard's almanac in fact, was a collection of pithy time worn sentiments.

You can find variations on the theme attributed to Thomas Babington, and Alexander Tytler. I think they too were repeating what they had learned in their classical educations.

In the past it has been a common argument against democracy, and for monarchy, or authoritarian rule, rather than in the context we use it as a caution on the excesses of democratic political power. Of course, to ignore the cautions of Herodotus, or Plato and their contemporaries would be to prove the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, and reinforce the predictability of ignorance. According to historian and paleocon Clyde N. Wilson in this article, it was also a point of discussion between Federalists, and anti-Federalists.

As for context, consider this excerpt from Madison's notes of the Convention in 1787; <blockquote>"Those who mean to form a solid republican government ought to proceed to the confines of another government. As long as offices are open to all men, and no constitutional rank is established, it is pure republicanism. But if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy. The difference of property is already great amongst us. Commerce and industry will still increase the disparity. Your government must meet this state of things, or combinations will, in process of time, undermine your system. What was the tribunitial power of Rome? It was instituted by the plebeians, as a guard against the patricians. But was this a sufficient check? No. The only distinction which remained at Rome was, at last, between the rich and poor. The gentleman from Connecticut forgets that the democratic body is already secure in a representation. As to Connecticut, what were the little objects of their government before the revolution? Colonial concerns merely. They ought now to act on a more extended scale: and dare they do this? Dare they collect the taxes and requisitions of Congress? Such a government may do well, if they do not tax; and this is precisely their situation."</blockquote>So is it any wonder that the two parties vying for power in the US are called the Democrats and the Republicans? One side pressing for more social democratic (european style) government, and the other attempting to conserve the principles of a republic. Does the American plebiscite continue to have representation in the House of Representatives, or do we only have patricians due to the costs of elections and investments of special interests?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Regardless, as with all such quote claims, the burden is to demonstrate its source, not to definitively prove that there isn't one, which is a nearly impossible task.

Difficult, yes, but not quite impossible. For instance, if Spiro Agnew were to attribute anything to anyone, then it is most probably false. :w00t:

Actually, it is a problem not unlike etymology. One searches through the literature for occurrences of the quotation, or of similar statements. If the first occurrence is from a source long after the person supposedly quoted has died, then the probability is extremely large that the attribution is spurious. If there are occurrences prior to . . . but you get the idea. It's just simple academic research -- tedious and boring, but not impossible.

And usually not worth the effort unless someone calls a quotation into question. :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

Difficult, yes, but not quite impossible. For instance, if Spiro Agnew were to attribute anything to anyone, then it is most probably false. :w00t:

Actually, it is a problem not unlike etymology. One searches through the literature for occurrences of the quotation, or of similar statements. If the first occurrence is from a source long after the person supposedly quoted has died, then the probability is extremely large that the attribution is spurious. If there are occurrences prior to . . . but you get the idea. It's just simple academic research -- tedious and boring, but not impossible.

I would say impossible, at least in any practical sense. What if an exhaustive search of known archives yields nothing, and no plausible contemporary source comes forth, but then, years later, someone produces a personal letter buried in a family attic somewhere that contains the quote? There would be no academic way to know, but Franklin corresponded with a hell of a lot of people in his day. And, even if the first known instance of a quote is before someone was born, that doesn't mean they didn't repeat it, or come up with it independently. And so on.

So, yes, we can develop very good probabilities. But, for perennially unsourced quotes from people whose archives have been trawled a hundred times (like Franklin), my policy is guilty until proven innocent, and the possibility of some unknown obscure source for a well-known, widely dispersed quote does not much trouble me.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

But, for perennially unsourced quotes from people whose archives have been trawled a hundred times (like Franklin), my policy is guilty until proven innocent, and the possibility of some unknown obscure source for a well-known, widely dispersed quote does not much trouble me.

That's a semi-valid argument. Often quotes are not even attributed. Sometimes they are attributed to the wrong person. And seldom, except perhaps in scholastic thesis, is a full reference given. Most sources are like this. No attempt appears to have been made to verify sources, and no sources seem to be given. Although I don't have any at hand, the books of quotations which I've looked at in the past seem to be the same.

We cannot verify everything every time or we'd never make any progress. Why do you question this quote, in particular, when you've accepted others with no more validation in the past? Is it subjective, in that you disagree with the content, or objective in that you have some indication it is false? The sentiment appears to be in line with Franklin's character and attitude.

--Pete

[Jester]

That's a semi-valid argument. Often quotes are not even attributed. Sometimes they are attributed to the wrong person. And seldom, except perhaps in scholastic thesis, is a full reference given. Most sources are like this. No attempt appears to have been made to verify sources, and no sources seem to be given. Although I don't have any at hand, the books of quotations which I've looked at in the past seem to be the same.

If I don't have a source, I call it out. I'm pedantic that way. It itches my historian brain in a very uncomfortable way that we could go around putting words in historical figures' mouths. Sometimes, they are egregious untruths (the Lenin and inflation quote from awhile back) other times, harmless but annoying pablum (Burke's supposed "all that is necessary for evil to triumph..."). But always a pet peeve, I'm afraid.

We cannot verify everything every time or we'd never make any progress. Why do you question this quote, in particular, when you've accepted others with no more validation in the past? Is it subjective, in that you disagree with the content, or objective in that you have some indication it is false? The sentiment appears to be in line with Franklin's character and attitude.

I try to be ideologically neutral in nit-picking. But, obviously, several things get in the way. Not being devoid of personal bias, even if I try, surely gets in the way. Reading posts from, say, Kandrathe pretty carefully and critically is another - I'll pick up his examples more often than others. I also, as a matter of course, check anything in them that seems odd or unsourced to me. Sometimes it checks out, and I say nothing, and sometimes it doesn't, and I bring it up.

I also think these lists of quotes are more popular on the right than among those more friendly to my viewpoint - or at least, they are on this board. Usually, if I want to use a quote like that, I'll search for a source, and if I can't find one, I'll flag it as such. But I don't use many aphorism-type quotes, so it doesn't come up much. (I probably account for a rather disturbing % of the left-leaning posts in many of these arguments myself.)

Kandrathe has correctly and amply demonstrated that this general sentiment, that a crude majoritarian populism could very easily undermine property rights and hijack the government to plunder the wealthy is known to have been shared by many of the founding fathers, and by plenty of other authors since. I'm not sure the extent to which Ben Franklin shared this idea - he seems slightly less... bourgeois than some of the other founding fathers. But who knows. All I know is I can't find a source for that quote anywhere obvious.

-Jester