New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 8, 2004

Julian Sanchez reports on the struggle for the Republican party's soul.

Comments

|11.8.04 @ 6:00PM|#

I've always loved the pictures that accompany the articles on the main page. But this one takes the cake. I assume you pick them Tim? Absolutely wonderful.

|11.8.04 @ 6:26PM|#

So here's the question:

In his first 4 years, Bush pushed a brand of politics sometimes referred to as "big government conservatism." The rationale has been that this is what it takes to win. And it seems to have worked, what with Bush's victory and increasing margins in the House and Senate.

Now comes question time: Was big government conservatism just something they used to get to this point, so that now they can finally start doing what they really want? Or is it the new winning strategy?

If the first is true, then "big government conservatism" can be abandoned now. If the later, then it's just been vindicated and is here to stay.

I'm not privvy to the deliberations of the Bush administration, but when in doubt I always bet that politicians will favor more government rather than less, at least when they're in power. It's usually a safe bet.

Tim Cavanaugh|11.8.04 @ 6:44PM|#

Now comes question time: Was big government conservatism just something they used to get to this point, so that now they can finally start doing what they really want? Or is it the new winning strategy?

Or question three: Why would they abandon something that works? And question four: Why would anybody ever want to reduce the size of what he controls? And question five: Has there ever been anybody who wanted to have less stuff? Pace Julian, I think this Pence reform movement is going nowhere. What possible motive would President Bush have for listening to a congressman who owes Bush his job? (I guess that's question six...)

|11.8.04 @ 6:47PM|#

It has a soul? :)

thoreau,

What else do you expect from a Southern Governor? :) Southern politicians clearly support a couple of things: (1) lowering taxes; (2) corporate welfare; (3) social control; and (4) education "reform" and funding. Bush governs like your typical Southern Governor.

Anyway, the notion that Republicans as a rule favor smaller and less intrusive government is simply a falsity and perhaps always has been.

|11.8.04 @ 6:52PM|#

Tim-

Right though you may be, we must always support Republicans. Because the Democrats would be much worse. So to keep big government Democrats at bay, we must unconditionally support big government Republicans.

What? Somebody thinks that unconditional support might encourage them to grow the government even faster? Nah, nonsense! When has a politician ever done more of the same in response to winning an election? Hogwash!

|11.8.04 @ 6:54PM|#

Thoreau-
Well, the piece really isn't about Bush; it's about a group of GOP legislators who have been (heretofore quitetly) unhappy about the direction Bush & leadership have been going. So it's less about pulling an about face than about reservations that've been there all along finding a post-election voice. Maybe it isn't going anywhere, but this is the party that's gonna be in the saddle for the near future, so I figure it's worth keeping an eye on any internal developments that might conceivably be cause for hope.

|11.8.04 @ 6:58PM|#

Ever since Reagan started his War on Drugs, I don't see how ANYBODY can seriously believe Republicans favor smaller government, unless they think the DEA, cops and prison guards don't count.

|11.8.04 @ 7:05PM|#

Julian-

I didn't mean to seem critical of your article. It is heartening to learn that there is discontent amongst the Congressional Republicans.

|11.8.04 @ 7:09PM|#

...unless they think the DEA, cops and prison guards don't count.

Solution: Just privatize them and let the contract bidding begin.

Future: I just got popped for a joint but my DEA stocks are sure doing well. To bad I am going to have to forfeit them.

|11.8.04 @ 7:12PM|#

Sam-
Adding the profit motive would only make things worse--look at the civil-forfeiture laws and private prison complexes. It's bad enough that thanks to "Small government" drug policies, you can have your worldly goods confiscated even if you haven't been found guilty of anything.

|11.8.04 @ 7:17PM|#

Jennifer-
Since the election, I have been filled with sarcasm and low brau humor. :)

|11.8.04 @ 7:20PM|#

Ah. My bad. On these libertarian blogs, though, you never can tell.

|11.8.04 @ 7:30PM|#

Actually Jennifer, I just read Eric Schlosser's book Refer Madness, finished it last night. Funny how the Republicans can put the fear into the Democrats of appearing to be soft on drugs and then later be the ones to critize the failure of drug policy. Right there should be enough for one to realize why the Dems have become the minority party.

Now back to the thread topic....

|11.8.04 @ 7:33PM|#

Funny how the Republicans can put the fear into the Democrats of appearing to be soft on drugs and then later be the ones to critize the failure of drug policy.

That sounds fascinating. Could you share an example? I'm familiar with some of the Republican critics of drug prohibition, but I'm not familiar with the double-cross games that you're referring to.

|11.8.04 @ 7:40PM|#

So to keep big government Democrats at bay, we must unconditionally support big government Republicans

That's a really silly strawman argument, thoreau. There are no libertarians who unconditionally support the Republican Party. I can't even think of any examples of people who *claim* to be libertarian, who unconditionally support the Republican Party.

Libertarians offer *conditional* support to the Republicans; the condition is that the Republicans must favor less spending, lower taxes, and fewer regulations than the Democrats do.

Ever since Reagan started his War on Drugs

Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs, Jennifer. It's been continued by every President since then. Reagan's contributions were "just say no" and the position of "drug czar".

Warren|11.8.04 @ 7:41PM|#

The notion that Republicans can be distinguished from Democrats is false.

|11.8.04 @ 7:42PM|#

Thoreau-
I have to grab the book and check it again. It has been a few days since I read that chapter. But I do recall GOP governor Gary Johnson as one of the most out spoken critics. On the flip side, I do recall that in the early 80's, Rep Newt Gingrich sponsored a bill to decriminalize pot and then in the early 90's sponsoring a bill that would give traffickers the death penalty for selling to minors. Now thats a flip-flop!

But, I will have to check that chapter to check names and get back to you, maybe later tonight. Or read the book yourself, its a quick read. Of course I can't vouch for the credibility of the author.

|11.8.04 @ 7:45PM|#

Dan-
The cost of the WOD did sky rocket under Reagan. And again with Clinton.

|11.8.04 @ 7:48PM|#

Dan-
Reagan also contributed mandatory drug testing for federal employees, which helped spread the corporate testing culture. But hell, Nixon was a Republican too, so my core argument still stands.

You know, my first comment wasn't written as a question, but I meant it as one. I once asked a "small government" Republican why he favored the WOD, and he spouted the usual line about how drugs MUST be kept illegal, bcause they're so dangerous that one puff of a joint will turn you into a mindless zombie rapist. Or something to that effect.

But you guys--Julian and Tim--know better than that. So please let me ask you: how can you guys seriously think that the party of the war on drugs (and, to a lesser extent, the demonization of gays) is seriously committed to the idea of Smaller Government and Less Interference with Private Citizens' Lives? Bear in mind I'm talking about the MODERN Republican Party, not the ones from before we here were born.

|11.8.04 @ 7:49PM|#

Even more, how can you believe it of the CURRENT Republican administration?

|11.8.04 @ 8:17PM|#

Dan-

How much of a strawman is it really? Prior to the election, some of us on this forum argued that divided government might be preferrable to the status quo, given that Bush has shown only limited interest in limited government, and considerable interest in lots of spending and new programs. Many other posters regarded that as a ridiculous suggestion.

Now, if they had limited their critique to foreign policy (where the stakes are high, and the President faces the fewest checks and balances from Congress) then I might see their point. But they extended their critique to domestic policy as well.

So, if even George W. Bush is worthy of support (with respect to domestic issues), and is deemed preferable to divided government under a Democrat (with respect to domestic issues), how is that not unconditional support? Under what circumstances would divided government be preferrable to unified GOP control? If you can't name any, I'd say that comes close to unconditional support.

|11.8.04 @ 8:33PM|#

One point of hope is the rather strong inverse relationship between what Bush says and what he does. So it may be that "big-government conservativism" was a purely tactical first term phenomenon.

If there's one thing Reagan Revolution apparatchiks learned from the failure of their government shrinking schemes, it's that fighting fire with water just doesn't work.

So maybe explosive spending increases, a bogus war and tax cuts were the preconditions necessary to justify an orgy of second term social spending cuts. If the Iraq war is any indication, the administration's favored tactics seem to revolve around creating the conditions used to justify their actions post facto (i.e. the Muslim world hates us, there are terrorists in Iraq, etc).

If the administration was as smart as it is deceitful, this would be the case. But in the end, I fear we're just trading one set of entitlements for another.

|11.8.04 @ 8:42PM|#

"Why would anybody ever want to reduce the size of what he controls?"

Personal integrity aside, there are logistical reasons. There's an inverse relationship between the size of a bureaucracy and the ease of control. Small government is still popular with a portion of the electorate; being responsive to such constituents might be more important than the thrill of control. Cutting the budgets of your enemies may scratch the same itch that bloating the budget of your friends scratches, etc.

There are reasons to hope.

|11.8.04 @ 9:05PM|#

By the way, I don't expect the Republican Party to come back to the fold, at least, not until after the next congressional election.

I expect the Presdient and the Congress to overreach. The President is even now dancing on the third rail of politics, and even this is being overshadowed by the phantom of Supreme Court appointments. We may look back at the Bork and Thomas hearings and think of them as garden parties.

"Why would they abandon something that works?"

Indeed. If they had lost, they might have changed. The suggestion that Republicans would change tacks after having been rewarded so defies everything I know about behavioral science.

|11.8.04 @ 9:10PM|#

Thoreau,

Here was the situation: Kerry advocated larger government than Bush did. The supposedly pragmatic reason for voting for Kerry -- that divided government is smaller government -- doesn't hold up under scrutiny. This made Bush the better libertarian candidate on purely objective grounds, because the available evidence is that the government, under Kerry, would be at *least* as large as it would under Bush.

So, if even George W. Bush is worthy of support (with respect to domestic issues), and is deemed preferable to divided government under a Democrat (with respect to domestic issues), how is that not unconditional support?

It's not unconditional support because it's conditional upon Kerry being worse on libertarian issues than Bush is.

Under what circumstances would divided government be preferrable to unified GOP control?

If the Democrats favored smaller and less intrusive government than the Republicans did. The sensible libertarian position is to constantly push for whichever candidates favor the least intrusive government to control as much of that government as possible.

|11.8.04 @ 9:17PM|#

Dan-
What if the Democrats were intrusive in different ways? They're certainly not perfect, but last time I checked THEY weren't the party trying to use the power of government to obsess over people's sex lives.

|11.8.04 @ 9:34PM|#

Reasonoids like Julian Sanchez are very smart and very quick on the trigger... too quick.
This topic should not even be started until all the Repuglickin "wise men" have jumped on their camels and made their pilgrimages to lay gold, francense and myrrh at the throne of Karl Rove.
After that the "palace intrigue" among the courtiers can begin, but it will begin very stealthily and slowly. Slow as Christmas, I'm thinking.

|11.8.04 @ 9:37PM|#

Ruthless-
So you're saying it will happen in a month and a half?

|11.8.04 @ 9:39PM|#

Small government is the dream of the minority party. Distrust of government is lost when you run the government. Our legislature here in Colorado is now under the control of the Democrats. It will not take long for them to argue that local control is better than federal control.

Other minority party dreams:
Term Limits: How many Reps have ducked their pledge?
Line Item Veto: It was a great idea under Bush senior, and cause for alarm when Clinton used it. It's now a dead subject.
Balanced Budget Amendment: Haven't heard this idea in years.

The point, placing controls on the party in power is always the desire of the party that is out of power. The party in power has no interest in limiting its power.

This group of congressman is destined to form a 3rd party. The Religious Right has spent too much money, provided too much strategy, motivated too many people for them to decide that morality should be left to the states much less the individual.

|11.8.04 @ 9:55PM|#

Jennifer asks:
Ruthless-
So you're saying it will happen in a month and a half?

Yep. Frist's middle name is "Ruthless," and Hastert is a rassler. They will enforce at least a brief honeymoon.
I didn't even need to mention "Hammer" Delay.

|11.8.04 @ 11:00PM|#

Ever since Reagan started his War on Drugs, I don't see how ANYBODY can seriously believe Republicans favor smaller government, unless they think the DEA, cops and prison guards don't count.

Well, I'm currently in favor of extremely small government (zero government) as an anarcho-capitalist -- but I didn't get there all at once. My path was something like idealistic moderate liberal to Cold Warrior Reaganite Republican to libertarian Republican to minarchist libertarian to an-cap. At one point in my evolution, I had already decided I was a libertarian, but still supported the War on Drugs. After being convinced the WOD was both immoral and impractical, I reluctantly gave it up. It took me even longer to give up the Pentagon.

People can change. Maybe I'm projecting too much from my personal case, but if I can follow that particular path, others can too, if educated and persuaded.

|11.8.04 @ 11:05PM|#

I feel sorry for the voter who would choose their money over their rights.

But, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, property rights are the Mother of All Rights. Beginning with ownership of self. You have no freedom of the press if it is illegal for you to own a press. No freedom of assembly if it is illegal to own a place where people can assemble. Etc. etc. The desire to keep, use or dispose of what you earn as you please is not a "fascist tendency." Collectivism is a poor place from which to begin the path to maximum individual liberty. (IMO)

|11.9.04 @ 12:19AM|#

Julian:

How successful Flake, Pence, and their fellow travelers can be will depend in large part on the willingness of their fellow small-government Republicans to stick their necks out under an administration not renowned for its tendency to brook dissent gladly.

And that may well depend on their hearing from us. Get a hold of your congressperson (or even a few congress people in your state) and your two senators...

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

...and tell them that you want this spending binge to end, that you expect real cuts and nothing is off limits. Tell the Republicans that if they don't restrain total spending, that they might as well be Democrats and won't be worth voting for. Tell them that they are in firm control now so there will be no excuses for not making good progress on cutting spending

Tell the Dems that since Bush took office, total spending has ballooned and you expect them to help stop the Bush spending binge.

Make it clear to all of them that you know where to go to see how they voted on total spending...

http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/

...and that you will be checking up on them to see if they have improved their NTU scores.

|11.9.04 @ 12:22AM|#

We talk about advancing the cause of liberty. This is something we can actually do about it!

|11.9.04 @ 12:39AM|#

I feel sorry for the voter who would choose their money over their rights.

The right to control the product of your own labor is the most important right that humans possess. The government, directly or indirectly, takes somewhere in excess of half what I earn. That means I spend over twenty hours a week performing slave labor by order of the government.

What if the Democrats were intrusive in different ways? They're certainly not perfect, but last time I checked THEY weren't the party trying to use the power of government to obsess over people's sex lives.

Clinton signed more anti-gay and anti-pornography measures than Bush has. And remember the intrusive Paula Jones suit wherein she got to interrogate Clinton about his entire sex life? The law which allowed that was supported by the Democrats and signed by Clinton. The incredibly boring lecture on sexual harassment law that my entire company had to sit through because the legal department was afraid of lawsuits? Wherein I learned that it's basically illegal for me to be attracted to a coworker unless I'm absolutely positive she was attracted to me first? Again -- thanks, Democrats!

The position of the Democratic Party is that it's very wrong for anyone to intrude into your sex life so long as you're part of one of their voting blocs. If you're a straight white male, on the other hand, you can go fuck yourself -- provided, of course, that you can manage to do it in a way that's inoffensive to women and minorities. :)

|11.9.04 @ 1:33AM|#

Dan,

No, *some* libertarians offer conditional support. Then again, as you've stated, you're not a libertarian, so I can't see why you are commenting on the matter. I just wish you would be honest for once and admit that you are a Republican; that way we would know the real rationale for your willingness to pimp for them.

Bush and Kerry were equally bad in their own specific ways; they were a wash. Lowering taxes is great and all, but please, Republicans want to openly discriminate against me, and some even want to throw me in jail; such provides me absolutely no reason to support them; indeed, it would be a kin to suicide for me to support them. What you call for is the height of irrationality.

And Reagan's contribution to the drug war was far more than you describe; he, along with the Congressional Democrats, brought us far stricter sentencing guidelines, etc. His efforts entailed far more than you falsely claim that they were.

The right to control the product of your own labor is the most important right that humans possess.

And being in prison for selling drugs or being gay (note that the Republican party supports imprisonment for consensual homosexual behavior) is a direct assault on that right. Enjoy the fisking.

The position of the Democratic Party is that it's very wrong for anyone to intrude into your sex life so long as you're part of one of their voting blocs.

Funny, this is also the position of the Republican party. Again, a wash.

Stevo,

Beginning with ownership of self.

One wonders, how can one exercise such ownership when one is in prison? The state owns your ass when you are in prison.

|11.9.04 @ 1:49AM|#

The Republican party sold its soul to the Creationists a long time ago. The evangelists don't have any particular interest in small government or states' rights. They believe what the liberals believe: that government is the primary organizing influence in society. They want to use the power of government to remake society, to engage in social engineering, to Make America Better. I shudder to think of where that's going to take us.

A better America won't come cheap. Of course, the "starve Leviathan" crowd has convinced itself that once the currency is ruined, government will come to its senses. Bad news: the Flat-Earth Society that has seized control of the "small government" party is not going to come to its senses no matter how badly they screw the country up. They base their whole ideology on the principle that you can't trust your eyes or your intellect. We are totally screwed.

|11.9.04 @ 1:54AM|#

The "starve government" argument sounds far too conspiratorial to take seriously; furthermore, even if it were true, it seems hopelessly naive, since creating more and entitlements, while reducing taxes, is a way to get people to like and expect those entitlements, not to ween them off those entitlements - its self-defeating in other words.

raymond|11.9.04 @ 2:08AM|#

It is disappointing to hear the libertarian view limited to a discussion of money and taxes.

imo, That's not a fair presentation of "the libertarian view".

imo, A "libertarian" discussion is always based on respect for fundamental individual rights (Life, Liberty, Dignity, Property).

imo, Amnesty International is where the real libertarian action is.

|11.9.04 @ 2:41AM|#

I and some friends have been discussing a "Gay State Project" along the lines of the "Free State Project." The problem is figuring out a state to move to.

|11.9.04 @ 8:01AM|#

Californica would seem an obvious choice for a gay state, or take it as gay friendly and squat next door in Nevada. Then any of the northeastern blue states. Or be bold and choose Texas. I'd pay big bucks to see a gay rodeo:)

|11.9.04 @ 8:05AM|#

bigbigslacker,

I choose Nevada. :)

|11.9.04 @ 10:32AM|#

I and some friends have been discussing a "Gay State Project" along the lines of the "Free State Project." The problem is figuring out a state to move to.


Why not pick the same state as the FSP? No income tax, reasonably well off economy, and the FSP sure could use the help of each and every one who wants the government out of their private lives - unless you're talking about gay collectivists who just want more government interference in everyone's life including their own.

|11.9.04 @ 10:44AM|#

metalgrid,

No income tax...

But heavy, heavy local property taxes. :(

...unless you're talking about gay collectivists...

Most of the gay people I know are Democrats, but I think that's an issue of not feeling welcome in the Republican party more than an ideological agreement with everything Democrats stand for. Anyway, I think you'll find that gay people are as a rule are a pretty individualistic lot.

|11.9.04 @ 10:47AM|#

metalgrid,

I suppose New Hampshire is close enough for off-Broadway shows in Boston, and to take the ocassional trip to NYC, but still... :)

|11.9.04 @ 11:05AM|#

But heavy, heavy local property taxes. :(


You could do what many people here in MA do - live in NH, but commute to MA for work. The property taxes are still less than taxes in MA in addition to making more money for the same job you'd do in NH. Although, I don't particularly know why people call this Taxachusetts when our state taxes are about 5.7% and the property taxes aren't that bad either. For a so called Democrat run state (and we usually elect fiscally responsible / socially liberal Republican governors like Weld/Cellucci, etc. Romney is not typical of our Republicans - but then again, he's from Utah, not home grown). The biggest complaint I have about this place are the gun laws; you basically need to go to court in order to get a gun license.

|11.9.04 @ 11:28AM|#

"I'd pay big bucks to see a gay rodeo:)"

I think that was on the HBO show Real Sex.

|11.9.04 @ 11:34AM|#

"I'd pay big bucks to see a gay rodeo:)"


Apparently you don't need to pay big bucks to see it: http://www.igra.com

|11.9.04 @ 11:49AM|#

For those here trying to decide which is more important: live, liberty or property; I'd like to nominate family.

|11.9.04 @ 12:04PM|#

The Republicans, especially under George Bush, have a particular handicap when it comes to internal reform - they do not tolerate dissent. A passion for cultural conformism, an aggressive certainty that equates learning with weakness, a manicheanism that equates accommodation with moral weakness, and an obedience to authority puts any potential minority faction into a tough spot. Look at the party discipline in Congress over the past 12 years - either deviation is ruthlessly punished, or members willingly subvert their own judgement to the leadership, or both.

Factions with different, even opposing, positions on issues can co-exist peacefully in the Democratic Party, but the GOP is a different beast. You don't sit down an alpha male wolf and convince him to change how he divvies up the carcasses. Your choices are to accept his authority, kill him, or he kills you.

|11.9.04 @ 12:35PM|#

I suppose you could, Jason, but you would be incorrect. Internal bickering of the sort described in the article is a daily occurance in the Democratic Party. It's only when it happens among Republicans that it becomes noteworthy.

Look at how the Democrats split on the Use of Force resolution and the DHS bill. Think back to the battles between Clinton and Gephardt in 1993-94. Look at the splits on welfare reform. Nothing like this is even conceivable with the Republican Party. Nails that stick out get hammered down there; in the Democratic caucus, they get fair hearings at least, and open pandering more often. This is why Democrats have changed their stripes so dramatically over the past 20 years, going from the party of deficits to the deficit hawk party.

|11.9.04 @ 2:16PM|#

I forget who started it by saying: "I feel sorry for the voter who would choose their money over their rights."

Stevo T. responded: "But, as Murray Rothbard pointed out, property rights are the Mother of All Rights. Beginning with ownership of self.
Regarding "ownership, beginning with self-ownership," as the Mother of All Rights..."

Jason Bourne responded: "One wonders, how can one exercise such ownership when one is in prison? The state owns your ass when you are in prison."

I sez: But if you can get a government that respects the fundamental right to own yourself and your other property -- as opposed to the collective of "society" or whatever -- you're less likely to get thrown in prison in the the first place...

... for not being able to pay your taxes. Your income is seen as belonging to you, not the state, so less is likely to be demanded of you.

... for not hiring the right gov't-designated people at the right gov't-designated wage. Your business is your own property, and you can hire whomever you like who wants to work for you, at whatever mutually agreed-upon wage.

... for not wearing a helmet on the head you own when you ride a motorcycle.

... for poisoning the body you own with the substance of your choice.

... for putting whatever body part you own into whatever orifice that is owned by another consenting adult.

... for putting the butt you own in the pew of any church that will accept you (or none at all).

Disclaimer: Some of the things you should be free to do are not "smart" to do, IMO. And Republicans are hardly perfect in recognizing all those rights of ownership. But I do see more respect for property rights in the Repub party, and more collectivism in the Demo party. I think the R's might be reformed over time, if they can just be made to see the logical conclusions that spring from some of the values they claim to revere; whereas I think the D's are dead at the philosophical core.

|11.9.04 @ 4:18PM|#

Jesse Walker's article made the points I wanted to make, but he did it better and with better economy of words:

http://techcentralstation.com/110804E.html

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/11/reason_writers_4.shtml#comments

I'm gonna go back to just doing sophomoric quips for a while.

|11.9.04 @ 8:10PM|#

raymond-

I'm not entirely sure Amnesty International is where the real libertarian action is.
From their home page: "Rather than fulfil its obligation to ensure the right to food for everyone under its jurisdiction, the government of Zimbabwe..."

raymond|11.10.04 @ 12:38AM|#

I'm not entirely sure Amnesty International is where the real libertarian action is.

From the article:

Stories of growing hunger and food insecurity in Zimbabwe emerge almost daily. Rather than fulfil its obligation to ensure the right to food for everyone under its jurisdiction, the government of Zimbabwe is manipulating the country's food shortages for political purposes and to punish political opponents.

From the letter:

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that discrimination in the distribution of food is a violation of human rights. By denying access to food, not only is the Government of Zimbabwe in clear violation of its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, in some cases violations of the right to food may compromise the right to life.

We're not talking about a right to filet mignon here.

And frankly, the "right to eat" is at least as important as the "right to bear arms", which so many libertarians here seem to consider pretty darn crucial.

|11.10.04 @ 2:56AM|#

But -- no libertarian will argues that it is the government's job to provide its citizens with guns.

raymond|11.10.04 @ 5:50AM|#

Amnesty is not arguing here about providing food to people. Amnesty is accusing the Zimbabwean gvt of "...manipulating the country's food shortages for political purposes and to punish political opponents."

The "right to food" is in this way sort of like a "right to oxygen". The government isn't just not providing oxygen, it's putting plastic bags on the heads of its opponents. (It's worthwhile reading the story, especially if one is going to debate the issue.)

Zimbabwe: accession to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 13 August 91.

But -- no libertarian will argues that it is the government's job to provide its citizens with guns.

This libertarian will argue that, since the only valid role of government is to secure the rights of the people, and since the US federal government has as a specific goal to "promote the general Welfare", it is not unreasonable to expect a government actively to provide its citizens with food if doing so is the only way to prevent death (or physical disability or brain damage to the "unborn") by starvation.

And though I'm not convinced by arguments in favour of lethal self-defense, I will argue, too, that in case of invasion it just _might_ be the job of the government to provide citizens with guns.

But I'm more interested in food right now.

|11.10.04 @ 11:04AM|#

"...it is not unreasonable to expect a government actively to provide its citizens with food..."

It is extremely unreasonable to expect a government to provide its citizens with food.

The government has no food to provide its citizens with. It must first take it from those who produce it.

Taking from one group or individual to give to another is not "promot[ing] the general Welfare" since it actively militates against the welfare of those forced to pay.

raymond|11.10.04 @ 1:36PM|#

It is extremely unreasonable to expect a government to provide its citizens with food.

The government has no food to provide its citizens with. It must first take it from those who produce it.

Yeah well... http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/.

And...

Fulfilling Commitments to Important Food and Nutrition Programs:

· Child Nutrition Programs (Mandatory) are funded at $11.380 billion, $36 million below last year and the same as the President's request.

· Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is funded at $4.9 billion, $295 million above last year and $120 million above the President's request.

· Food Stamp Program (Mandatory) is funded at $33.6 billion, an increase of $2.7 billion above last year and $6 million below the President's request.

· Food for Peace Program (PL 480) Title II is funded at a program level of $1.18 billion, a decrease of $5 million below the President's request and last year's level.

· Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is funded at $108 million, an increase of $9 million above last year and the President's request. This level of funding will maintain current caseload.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FY05 AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

and...

• USDA helps ensure open markets for U.S. agricultural products and provides food aid to needy people overseas.

btw, I find your editing of my statement particularly dishonest.

if doing so is the only way to prevent death (or physical disability or brain damage to the "unborn") by starvation.

raymond|11.10.04 @ 1:39PM|#

that should be:

The government has no food to provide its citizens with. It must first take it from those who produce it.

I certainly did not say that. It was Isaac Bartram.

|11.10.04 @ 3:36PM|#

The government has no food to provide its citizens with. It must first take it from those who produce it.

Is this not true?

What do the USDA's pointless and probably unconstitutional welfare programs have to do with anything. You may not have noticed but hardly anyone at this site supports them.

btw I edited because your appeal to emotion was based on an utterly flawed premise. In different words the state can only benefit your (dubious) victims by harming those from whom those benefits are extracted.

raymond|11.10.04 @ 4:36PM|#

I edited because your appeal to emotion was based on an utterly flawed premise.

I hadn't expected to be debating Mugabe on this site.

Zimbabwe is denying Mugabe's political opponents access to food. Food is necessary for life.

A "libertarian" who argues that everyone has the right to Life but no one has the right to eat is.. What is the kind word? "Illogical"? "Inconsistent"?

If we accept that the only legitimate role of government is to secure the rights of the people, and if we agree that the right to LIfe is a... right, and if we assent to the proposition that food is necessary for life, then "it is not unreasonable to expect a government actively to provide its citizens with food if doing so is the only way to prevent death (or physical disability or brain damage to the 'unborn') by starvation."

This is hardly an appeal to emotion. Nor is the premise that food is essential to life "utterly flawed".

The government has no food to provide its citizens with. It must first take it from those who produce it.

Governments buy and stockpile food (and petrol) all over the world. It's one way governments support farm prices. So your statement that "government has no food to provide" is false. Whether or not the USDA is constitutional or popular, your statement is false.

|11.10.04 @ 5:24PM|#

Raymond

You said "The "right to food" is in this way sort of like a "right to oxygen". The government isn't just not providing oxygen, it's putting plastic bags on the heads of its opponents." I agree; and by the way that was particularly well put. You then wrote a bunch of irellevant emotional claptrap. That is what I took issue with.

Nowhere did I argue that "no one has the right to eat...". You made that up. I argued that taking from one person to give to another does not "promote the general Welfare"

Governments buy and stockpile food with money taken from taxpayers. OK fine, they have no money but what they take from taxpayers. Obtaining goods with stolen money is generally considered the equivalent of stealing the goods themselves.

The consequences of price supports have been generally negative. Try disagreeing with that, I believe you've written something similar yourself.

Mugabe is not failing to "PROVIDE" Zimbabweans with food, he is actively PREVENTING them from obtaining food. Food shortages are far more often caused by Government action than inaction.

You have not established a scenario where taking food (or money) from one individual or group and giving to another "...is the only way to prevent death (or physical disability or brain damage to the 'unborn') by starvation."

Far too many "human rights" organizations advocate positive rights that can only be satisfied at the expense of others.

raymond|11.10.04 @ 5:38PM|#

Why don't you try reading the article on the amnesty site which all this is about.

raymond|11.10.04 @ 5:45PM|#

ps - In an ideal world, a government is a free association of human beings who throw some of their (imperfectly exercised) rights into a common pot.

People who set up a government do so to secure their rights.

In an ideal world, these people understand that food is necessary for Life. In this ideal world, they set up their government in such a way that they and their fellow citizens will not starve to death when exceptional circumstances arise.