Trust and Obey, For There's No Other Way, To Be Happy in Government…
In what circumstances should you trust the government? That's an easy enough question to answer here at Hit & Run, where suspicion of government, like home-brewing and Neal Stephenson fandom, is built into the cultural DNA.
But as my former colleague Conor Friedersdorf points out, it's a question that causes a lot of tension in mainstream political debates. And it's the crux of today's back-and-forth between Ezra Klein and Will Wilkinson over whether government is capable of "madness." Klein says that health care protestors are driven by "distrust in the political system" and that they unreasonably "believe the government capable of madness." Wilkinson responds that the government commits acts of madness all the time, and points to the war in Iraq, torture, and rendition as obvious examples.
Not surprisingly, I'm inclined to say Wilkinson wins this round, and to think that Friedersdorf is exactly right when he goes on to remark as follows:
It is notable that the mainstream Republican position is that the President is a mysterious quasi-socialist who isn't to be trusted… except with sweeping executive powers to do pretty much anything he wants in foreign policy… whereas the mainstream Democratic position is that it's irrational to fear that the federal government will engage in obviously immoral practices… except for all the torture it committed and detainees it abused over the last 8 years.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's an easy enough question to answer here at Hit & Run, where suspicion of government, like home-brewing and Neal Stephenson fandom, is built into the cultural DNA.
You really think such transparent pandering to us homebrewers will work?
Okay, it does. On a related note, anybody who's brewed with lactobacillus or high amounts of acidulated/sour malt (~15%) please shoot me an email.
I never understood putting absolute faith in any institution comprised of humans.
The more pertinent discussion would be why the trust and why the distrust. As usual we are looking at the symptom and not the disease.
HOMEBREW THREAD WOOOT!
So, my hefe blew up in the basement and i am not sure why. Under pitched, underaerated, and cooler temp (approx 67) WTF?
MORE BEER!
Holy Barack, Klein is an idiot. He's implicitly saying that citizens' should have the same relationship with the government as they have with their spouses.
A healthy relationship does not require an explicit detailing of the "institutional checks" that will prevent one partner from beating or killing the other. In a healthy relationship, such madness is simply unthinkable. If it was not unthinkable, then no number of institutional checks could repair that relationship.
Which is why I don't plan on marrying the government, and given the Founders' insistence on checks and balances in the Constitution, they weren't archophiles either.
It is notable that the mainstream Republican position is that the President is a mysterious quasi-socialist who isn't to be trusted... except with sweeping executive powers to do pretty much anything he wants in foreign policy... whereas the mainstream Democratic position is that it's irrational to fear that the federal government will engage in obviously immoral practices... except for all the torture it committed and detainees it abused over the last 8 years.
All that matters to these people is that their guy is in charge. TEAM RED TEAM BLUE douchebags are positively tribal, and don't really care about what their side does, only the other side.
Haven't we humans validated the proposition that we can't be trusted with too much power by now? Holy cow, you have to be a complete moron to think otherwise. Even in the United States, where we still retain some limits on government power.
Episiarch,
That kind of thinking drives me to drink. This ain't football, folks!
"In what circumstances should you trust the government?"
Ninety-nine percent of the time... don't.
To reword the Reason entry preceding this:
"Any person who shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of Government, by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Government, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Just wait, soon it WILL be a crime to blaspheme the state.
For years, I've given 50/50 odds that either major party would be equally capable of turning America into a martial-law state. I'm standing by it.
I would be happier if the was a beer thread.
I die a little inside
the government commits acts of madness all the time, and points to the war in Iraq, torture, and rendition
That was the other guy. Our guy won't do anything bad with the powers we give him.
And of course, a great deal of morons commenting on Will's site seem to think, "But many of the protestors supported the war!" is somehow a worthy comeback rather than an utter non sequitur.
"...like home-brewing and Neal Stephenson fandom, is built into the cultural DNA"
Eck, hate having people explain what's in my cultural DNA... being a a fairly regular reader and... bi-weekly? poster here, I must say that I don't know who Neal Stephenson is and I think that beer is one of the most vile things people consume.
...and I think that beer is one of the most vile things people consume.
Oh you didn't...
The "madness" is inherent in those humans, it's not as if being in the government automatically makes a human "mad". If you don't like the bad things that government does, stop being Beltway establishment hacks and FightThePower in a smart and effective way. (Hint: making cutesy videos isn't effective).
P.S. Here's more on Conor Friedersdorf. Maybe someone could read my coverage to him.
P.P.S. While I should save it for one of Reason's many "special substances" threads, here's the best definition of libertarian I was able to find.
He's implicitly saying that citizens' should have the same relationship with the government as they have with their spouses.
I agree, if your spouse is a prostitute.
The history of "civilized" man has produced a grand total of TWO different kinds of governments: monarchy/dictator and democracy/whore. The first is madness by definition, and the second is madness by logical conclusion.
In what circumstances should you trust the government?
When it has the bare minimum of power necessary to perform its constitutional responsibilities.
-jcr
If only we could harness LoneIdiot's energy for some practical purpose.
Thanks for the advice on effective political strategies, Lonewacko. How's that stopping illegal immigration coming along, by the way?
In what circumstances should you trust the government?
When you're holding a gun to its head after a night of torturing it.
Trust and Obey, For There's No Other Way, To Be Happy in Government...
I'm impressed: a post title that refers to a hymn. Is this a first for H&R?
When it proves itself to be trustworthy. Also when you're driving over a bridge, drinking from a faucet, eating food, etc.
When it proves itself to be trustworthy. Also when you're driving over a bridge, drinking from a faucet, eating food, etc.
Government doesn't build bridges or grow food, they don't even manage water supply in many cases. They contract for such things.
Oh good, Tony's admitting that all the complaints about Bush letting bridges collapse and the FDA doing a terrible job were way exaggerated. (Since food safety, like mine safety and nearly everything else, has had a pretty steady secular improvement really independent of most variables, including government composition or action or spending.)
Tony does have a point, though. We should always trust the government to act in the best interest of the government. Occasionally that means doing something useful with the inconceivable amount of money appropriated from the governed on an annual basis. Usually it means doing what it wants when it wants and artfully reminding disgruntled citizens who has the guns and the jails.
Well you should trust government in those circumstances insofar as its necessary to live a life relatively free of constant paranoia. But I wouldn't put anything past the Bush admin.
Okay so regulations about water and food and road safety came about organically? Even if that were so, which it's not, government is still necessary to enforce them, otherwise they mean nothing.
Clich? Bandit
Blew up in primary?
If so, easy answer. It is a hefe, it is what they do. That is one reason I never use an airlock on primary. AIRLOCKS ARE FROM TEH DEBIL!
In what circumstances should you trust the government?
When they eliminate the two party system, enact Congressional term limits, and institute real campaign finance reform. That would be a start.
Looking forward to my clone of Edmund Fitzgerald Porter to mature. In the bottles now!
Just put tags on my beers for KY state fair comp this weekend.
Schwarzbier, ESB, Mild, Hefe.
Have a nut brown in primary and a Blackberry/blueberry wheat wine in secondary (and it will be for a loooooong time, I think).
"Well you should trust government in those circumstances insofar as its necessary to live a life relatively free of constant paranoia. But I wouldn't put anything past the Bush admin."
Tony,
Sound logic about Bush, but is your skepticism switch in the "OFF" position now that Obama is in power?
Sound logic about Bush, but is your skepticism switch in the "OFF" position now that Obama is in power?
Of course it is. Skepticism and presidential analingus cannot be done simultaneously.
And of course, a great deal of morons commenting on Will's site seem to think, "But many of the protestors supported the war!" is somehow a worthy comeback rather than an utter non sequitur.
It's intellectually inconsistent to distrust the government to provide healthcare and education while trusting it implicitly to invade countries it says are dangerous and to bomb places it says are hiding bad guys (as long as those places aren't in the U.S.A., the sentiment is "bomb away!").
So, what's wrong with calling out the inconsistency?
I have always found my local, state-sanctioned librarian to be pretty darn reliable.
Certainly libraries could be provisioned without force, and would be better for it. But in my experience (that is, I haven't lived in the CA Central Valley where Grapes of Wrath was banned, etc. etc.), libraries are something in my life that gubmint has not thoroughly pooch-screwed.
The other 99.999999% of life? Never.
One of Freidersdorf's commenters quotes Nietsche on the madness of crowds.
Which got me thinking, maybe the reason that crowds (and likewise governments) are so much more capable of evil than people as individuals is because of the anonymity factor. Having the mob (or the state) do your dirty work - oppressing your enemies, robbing others to give you free stuff, enforcing your moral code or religious beliefs, crushing your business competition - gives you the plausible deniability you need to avoid not only the pangs of conscience, but the social opprobium that would otherwise come with doing all those things in person. As a member of a mob, or as a voter, you get to distance yourself emotionally from what you are doing. You get to inflict distant harms on anonymous others for your personal benefit, and you get the salve of chalking it up to "majority rule" or something to that effect if you get your way.
Skepticism and presidential analingus cannot be done simultaneously.
They call that move Cupcake Reacaround and even Helen Thomas cannot pull it off convincingly.
Hazel Meade,
That's already been stated roughly thousands of times. But I agree.
As a former Hillary supporter I never stopped being skeptical of Obama. In fact I'm pretty well convinced there won't be rainbows shat anytime soon. But do I trust him and Democrats more than Bush and Republicans? Yes. Because I have very good reasons to. Not because he seems like he'd be good to have a beer with, or is right with Jeebus, or whatever the fuck Bush lovers felt it was they were feeling.
Tony,
Good on ya for being skeptical about Benito, and of Republicans, but you're not taking the next logical step of being skeptical of the party that is CURRENTLY taking our country down the shitter.
Dig this: If there was one guy with a net worth of a trillion dollars, and the IRS liquidated his entire estate, down to the last penny... we'd STILL be fucked in the pocketbook.
It. Won't. Work. Democrats (and Republicans) think we can just keep on expanding the state, one way or another, and it won't collapse in on itself like a black hole. The bigger the state, the bigger the tab, and the bigger the bite in our personal autonomy.
Obama isn't, in the long run, a fuck's worth of difference better than a "president McCain" would've been - or a "president Rodham", for that matter.
Tony, I ask my Democrat friends this, so consider it a friendly barrage of questions.
Didn't it bother you that she lied to the faces of her supporters about being under sniper fire? Or that she opposed a ban on cluster bombs in civilian areas (a very anti-child position for someone who brags about her work for children)? Or that she supported the Iraq invasion? Or that she supports the war on drugs? Or that she supports capital punishment? Or that she supports a flag-burning amendment? Or that she's against gay marriage?
What is it about her that negates all of this awful stuff?
So, my hefe blew up in the basement and i am not sure why. Under pitched, underaerated, and cooler temp (approx 67) WTF?
Ditto what robc said. Next time just use a blowoff tube.
...I must say that I don't know who Neal Stephenson is and I think that beer is one of the most vile things people consume.
You hate beer. I hate sci-fi. Let's call it even.
Klein:
"The protesters believe the government capable of madness. There is no evidence for that claim, which means that there is no answer for it, either."
The very first thing that lept to mind was FDR paying farmers to burn crops. It would take all of 2 or 3 minutes to think of a couple hundred more such instances.
In what circumstances should you trust the government?
In what circumstances would you trust the Mafia? Now imagine a much more powerful and intrusive Mafia, albeit with better PR.
Short answer: none.
He's implicitly saying that citizens' should have the same relationship with the government as they have with their spouses.
I agree, if your spouse is a prostitute.
Actually, prostitutes tend to be pretty libertarian, what with being outside the law, being hassled by cops for providing consensual services, and engaging in non-taxable free market transactions.
beer is proof God wants us to be happy...and it ain't me that coined that phrase...
hating on lite beer or cheapo watered beer...quite ok
the X-files motto is my own...trust no one
Hazel,
I can't articulate it nearly as eloquently as you, but I've had a similar line of thought recently with regard to healthcare.
I believe that very few people would demand the 10's of thousands of dollars spent to keep themselves alive for that 85th year of life if they were in a situation where their descendents would directly foot the bill. Hell, I bet that a lot of people, if they had a couple hundred grand, would rather the bulk be inherited by their descendents than keep themselves alive for an extra year.
By "anonymizing"/distancing these responsibilities, they're actually harming their children much more than they would if each family had to individually face end of life decisions.
"Okay so regulations about water and food and road safety came about organically? Even if that were so, which it's not, government is still necessary to enforce them, otherwise they mean nothing."
1 true
2 false
3 false
your lord god government is an subjective entity comprised of individuals. it is capapble of nothing w/out the support of those individuals (and taxpayers).
Sorry Joe_D, as much as I agree with you on the "cultural DNA", we still have to put a fake nose on you and compare your buoyancy to that of very small rocks.
In what circumstances would you trust the Mafia? Now imagine a much more powerful and intrusive Mafia, albeit with better PR.
Let's not go overboard with the analogies. When was the last time a Don peacefully surrendered his position due to an election, for instance?
"Sorry Joe_D, as much as I agree with you on the "cultural DNA", we still have to put a fake nose on you and compare your buoyancy to that of very small rocks."
a witch!
I hate sci-fi.
I should have punched you when I had the chance. But, then again, that perry was awesome, so I will let it slide.
Fuck That shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon!
" Klein says that health care protestors are driven by "distrust in the political system" and that they unreasonably "believe the government capable of madness."
I believe the politicians who make the laws are capable of stealing my money to give handouts to other people in an attempt to buy their votes and perpetuate their own power.
Whether that qualifies as "madness" or not is irrelevant. There's no reason why I should support it either way.
Someone else's inabilty to obtain health insurance is their problem - not mine.
The government's attempt to make it my problem is proof that the government itself IS the problem.
I don't agree with the premise that Obama is doing exactly the same amount of damage. I think he's doing much less, and a fair amount of good.
You're right, except for the part about me worshiping the government. So? It's like the idea of social contract never existed for libertarians.
Tony:
my point is about your implicit faith and false hope in the notion that nothing is possible w/out govt.
people create ideas and demand, not congress.
Tony, tell us what "good" Obama has ever done to date.
IMO, if McCain had won, we'd be untold billions in the hole, as well, and expansion of the state would continue at about the same pace, AND we wouldn't be able to criticize him without his supporters getting all pissy, either. Zero-sum game.
I want to tell my 19-yr-old I'd rather not be a grandparent, because God knows what his/her tax bill would be twenty years from now or so, let alone what kind of militarized hellhole we'll likely be in the future when the Constitution finally gets the heave-ho.
Thankfully, his current girlfriend can't have children.
seems apropos to post this here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KH12Ad01.html
First line of the article: "The majority of Chinese people believe that prostitutes are more trustworthy than Communist Party and government officials."
It's like the idea of social contract never existed for libertarians.
It doesn't. I didn't sign any social contract. Anyone else here sign one?
This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly...
If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems...
But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis-broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
I should have punched you when I had the chance.
At least I don't put roast barley in my Schwarzbier.
Oh, and I like Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Space Ghost. Is that good enough?
Don't try. You'll be screaming "I'm not Mexican, stop shooting at me!" but all he'll hear is "Who wants cake?" And he wants cake.
While I appreciate Wildinson's obvious examples here (which were probably required because anything more subtle would have flown straight over Klein's head), he didn't have to go this far. He could have pointed to Cash For Clunkers, as an example.
Paul, people like Klein think CFC is a success.
"It's like the idea of social contract never existed for libertarians."
The way most liberals use the concept of "social contract", it ends up being a blank check rationalization for government doing anything and everything.
Until a liberal can put some limits on what the "social contract" allows government to do, I shall ignore the idea.
I know I won't be the first one to say this, but... DUH! What I can't understand is why other people can't figure this out. Did they sleep through Bush II? Clinton? Bush I? Do they not live in a state with a state government? What kind of cognitive dissonance must be reverberating in their brains?
On a lighter note, I'm halfway through my IPA (OG 1.070 IBU 45). Next on the burner will be an Irish Stout.
Brandybuck:
how difficult is it to make an IPA?
IPAs arent hard, easier than some styles.
I happen to suck at them, but it isnt because they are especially hard.
Realistically, the effort into most styles is about the same:
Mash grains
Boil wort/Add hops
cool wort
put into fermenter
Add yeast
wait (maybe dry hop here, maybe move to secondary)
bottle/keg
drink
In an IPA you add more hops and dry hop, but that isnt a big deal.
Styles that get tricky are ones that NEED (and none really need it) decoction. Or extreme boil times. And, really, all those do is add extra time to the process.
I guess some of the sour beer styles may require a bit more work, adding the layers of funk while aging.
robc:
try not to make it sound to easy. i'm comfortable in my ignorance! really wanna try distillation though...
"...It's like the idea of social contract never existed for libertarians."
Tony...in this country, we wrote the damn thing down. It's called the constitution. If you believe in social contracts, then you need to recognize that you need to follow the constitution to expand the size of government. That's what our social contract says. If you want the federal government to have a role in healthcare, you better get an amendment my boy. Otherwise, you're just talking shit.
ransom: this is a great website for home distillation. Just watch out for the revenuers.
oops - too easy
stupid grammar.
"If you want the federal government to have a role in healthcare, you better get an amendment"
But... but... the Preamble says... promote the general welfare! The Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to pick our own pockets to support people who won't get jobs! It says so!
Rich people suck! Tax the fuck!
Unless it's someone who agrees with us, that is.
Totalitarians don't usually take well to dissent; you should consider yourself lucky Obama allows it.
It allows the government to do whatever the people who are represented by it want it to do. That's the point. Limits are placed on it not because they're written on a stone but because the people chose to establish them for good and practical reasons. But even the most basic limits have mechanisms for being overturned or altered, since there is no authority higher than that of the people.
Since it's likely that healthcare legislation will be passed and (with luck) there won't be a coup, then it looks like the government has the authority. If it doesn't that's what we have courts for. Good luck.
Tony,
If I came to your house, and demanded you give me fifty bucks... what would you do?
If I came to your house with a government thug next to me, and demanded the same fifty bucks... what would you do?
Two separate questions, but there's a point to both.
Right, like torture. The basic limit of human rights gets overturned if the president can get 51% of people to agree with him. Or the drug war, where due process and the 4th amendment have been put to sleep because a majority of people who vote think that's just dandy.
Since it's likely that healthcare legislation will be passed and (with luck) there won't be a coup, then it looks like the government has the authority.
That's some awesome logic. So if it, no matter what it is, passes then they obviously have the authority?
Tony doesn't believe in social contracts, he was just talking shit. Tony is an authoritarian bullshit artist, and I am a name caller.
The Libertarian Guy,
If taxes were the same thing as theft then you'd be forced to be an anarchist since no taxes could possibly be legitimate.
I notice you didn't answer the first question, Tony.
Your second answer... if I had a dime for every time I've heard that lame comeback, I'd have a shitload of dimes.
I think torture is illegal, and if our legal system doesn't prosecute people who did illegal things then yes something's seriously fucked up. That's what liberals have been ranting about for years. Same with other abuses. I just think health care legislation is a legal action of the government.
Unless the legal system deems it illegal. Again, good luck with that. It's certainly not within the realm of possibility that you're wrong about what the government has authority to do, no sir.
"If taxes were the same thing as theft then you'd be forced to be an anarchist since no taxes could possibly be legitimate."
They would be legitimate if they were for a constitutional purpose. Any tax collected for an unconstitutional purpose is essentially theft. So...no, he wouldn't have to be an anarchist. He'd need to have respect for the law and the rights of his fellow man.
You authoritarian twat.
"I just think health care legislation is a legal action of the government."
Based on what Constitutional authority?
I'm no scholar of that document, but I've read it, and re-read it, and can't find anything in it that gives government that specific authority.
But then, I'm not a liberal.
TLG,
If you came to my house and demanded $50 I'd either give it to you or refuse. If you escalated it into an illegal theft, I'd work to make sure you were apprehended by the government authorities put in charge of enforcing the violated law.
I don't know what a 'government thug' is. Henry Kissenger? Or just a tax collector? The latter is performing a legitimate government function, so legitimate it's actually an enumerated power, reinforced with an amendment.
I should be able to choose whom I give money to - and, conversely, to NOT give money to.
I help family and friends, and - if I have it in my means - I *voluntarily* give to charity.
It isn't charity if you're being forced to contribute, Tony.
Tony, let me tell you about two people I know, who have felt what a warm, caring, compassionate entity the IRS is:
One, admittedly, didn't pay all his taxes, but made it right - and will be paying the rest of his life, because penalties and interest are so high, he'll never be able to pay it off.
The other, through a screw-up not of her making (two different birth certificates, somehow, due to her being adopted), is ALSO in the same boat - paying interest and penalties for the rest of her life.
These two people don't know each other - one is work-related, the other is a personal friend - but both used the same term: "I'm a lifer".
These people may never meet, but they both used the same sentence, verbatim, to describe what it's like to deal with an agency that won't settle, because they're greedy fucks who want the interest-laden payments.
A third, an old friend from back in the day, narrowly escaped this fate - one of her employers didn't pay the taxes they'd collected from her pay, and the IRS tried to put HER on the hook for someone else's wrongdoing. AND was told "you don't talk to us like that" during the process, as she had raised quite the stringent (but profanity-less) objections.
Now, tell us why "thugs" doesn't apply.
3 words: Mao, Stalin, Hitler.
If they don't represent 'madness' in government, then the word has no meaning.
Klein is a CUNT.
Holy Barack, Klein is an idiot. He's implicitly saying that citizens' should have the same relationship with the government as they have with their spouses.
Every girl has a fantasy.
Klein:
"The protesters believe the government capable of madness. There is no evidence for that claim, which means that there is no answer for it, either."
Someone should point Klein towards Balko's articles. Plenty of evidence for madness at all levels of government, from both teams.
Since it's likely that healthcare legislation will be passed and (with luck) there won't be a coup, then it looks like the government has the authority.
and
I think torture is illegal, and if our legal system doesn't prosecute people who did illegal things then yes something's seriously fucked up.
Do you not see the conflict between these two thoughts, Tony? Do you not see the huge fucking problem here? Do you honestly not get the idea that "if the government can get away with it, it's legal" can apply to things you don't approve of, too?
The problem was never that the right people weren't in power; the problem is and always has been the power itself.
If SugarFree's right and you're a troll, my hat is off to you for a masterful game, and should we meet someday all the Bud Light you can drink is on me. If you are an actual example of what passes for leftist (i won't say "liberal," 'cause you're not) thought these days, well, it looks like we'll be on opposite sides of the barricades a lot sooner than i had thought.
I want what Klein is smoking. Gimme it. Also, Neal Stephenson is awesome. That is all.
Yes, unfortunately. If courts never get around to ruling that torture ordered by the president is illegal, then it's not illegal. (I also happen to think it's illegal based on international agreements we are signed up to.) I think it's clear to everyone that the executive has too much power and more than is warranted by the constitution. We can only really hope the courts push back more.
But that's not what healthcare is about. That's a piece of legislation passed by congress in the normal way. I don't see how it's demonstrably different from thousands of other bills they pass.
"...I don't see how it's demonstrably different from thousands of other bills they pass."
It's not demonstrably different, and therein lies the problem. The legislation itself is illegal. Congress cannot pass any law that they see fit. They cannot pass a law banning you from saying stupid shit, because that would violate the first amendment. It would violate the social contract that you claim to hold dear.
Where does congress derive it's authority to expand the federal government's role in healthcare?
Klein forgets government is not a person, and can feel no pain, remorse, fear, sorrow, love, or guilt. Just as corporations are not people. They love to point to Bakan's "The Corporation" but forget anything true of corporations are also true of governments: because it's the same structure, a system designed to remove liability from the people running it. (You can't sue politicians for doing things that are bad and hurt you, there are only a few specific laws that govern their behavior)
We cannot assume any corporation or any government will not act with madness or even murderous intent at times, if it accomplishes their goals, it has happened in the past from both, and will happen again.
Or to paraphrase I book I just read:
Only trust government when you hold its beating heart securely in your hand.