Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[Skepdick]

What did Big Government do, though? That's your problem with that argument.

They fund large-scale projects private corporations can't afford to!

It's probably because you are economically and mathematically challenged is why I have to spell this out for you.

[henry quirk]

'It's part of any liberal creed to maximise the space for personal conscience and give people space to live their lives."

My creed: the individual owns himself; has a right to his life, liberty, property; is responsible for himself. Ain't nuthin' in there about givin' the down-on-his-luck gifts. Earn your keep (even if, as I say, earning it is just offering a sincere 'thank you').

As for your creed: it's not your place to give them space; just get the hell outta their way; hold 'em accountable when they overstep into another's life without permission; help them as you can and like (when they ask for help) but don't commit others to participate in or fund your good works; accept that other folks, as they help, have differing ideas on how to go about it.

#


"A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility, so we aren't going to buy into the idea that a little more religion or a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people. It is liberal to aknowledge that sometimes a person will make a really bad decision, and sometimes a really good decision won't work out anyway, so we provide chances to remediate the effects with the minimum of judgment."

Yeah, I didn't bring religion into this discussion, Flash, and I didn't mention or hint at perfectibility, so I ain't defendin' against that (see, Flash? that's how you deal with the other guy's 'load'...you flat out reject it).

As for self-sufficiency: how is this a bad thing? You dismiss it (a slice of self-sufficiency) as though bein' able to tend to one's self or fend for one's self is just trivial bullshit. No, accordin' to you we need to 'take care of them' and hell no we aren't allowed to say 'man, you fucked up in a royal way' cuz we might hurt their feelings. Mebbe them feelings need to get blistered a little, mebbe that person needs to feel discomfort. Joe stumbles as he's shenaniganizing and he falls into a ditch. I call him a dumbass and give a hand gettin' out the ditch. I don't coddle his dumb butt and call EMS to come delicately remove him from the muck and then give 'em a fifty for new clothes.

#

"Stigmatising people for not living their life how you would, and not making the choices in it that you approve of, is I'm sure very nice for conformist little villages where everyone is the same religion and anyone who doesn't go to Church on Sunday is a slattern, but that's the sort of society that the socially excluded flee, so I'm not really interested in building a bigger or more efficient social aparatus along those lines."

One: human beings are not flowers; we're not supposed to wilt just things get a little hot.

Two: I'd have them live free and autonomous and-- if they come to me for help -- they're gonna get an earful of how they aren't livin' free and autonomously, and why.

#

"The real world is where we make policy choices, and it is better to pursue policies that work towards their objectives than those which set themselves up to fail. A return to middle ages morality plays may be a wonderful fantasy for some, but it isn't workable, so it isn't an avenue to pursue."

No, the real world is where folks make their own choices, reap the reward of success, and suffer the consequence of failure. This world of policy and policy-makers is make-believe, disconnected from how human beings actually 'work', and can only bring greater levels of dependency down the road.

#

"If you are intent on analysing poverty as a moral failing instead of an inability to afford goods and services, you are in a state of denial that I can't really assist with. Nobody is going to be persuaded, the analysis helps with no real life issues, so it is just another reason to sideline your out of touch concerns."

Sometimes it is a moral failing, sometimes it's just poor luck of the draw: either way, you help (to get them back on their feet and off the dole) and you impose expectations. Pattin''em on the head, sayin' poor you, and then givin' 'em a check is no damn help at all.

[FlashDangerpants]

A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility,

so we aren't going to buy into the idea that...a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people.

Those two quotes were one sentence, with the second clause being dependent on the first.
You dismembered that sentence and repsonded to the second clause as if it were nothing to do with the first.
Stop doing that shit.

[Immanuel Can]

As for your creed: it's not your place to give them space; just get the hell outta their way; hold 'em accountable when they overstep into another's life without permission; help them as you can and like (when they ask for help) but don't commit others to participate in or fund your good works; accept that other folks, as they help, have differing ideas on how to go about it.

This might be a small variation between us, Henry. I would suggest that personal charity is a good thing, if rationally practiced. But I'd be with you 100% that substituting government "beneficence" for it would be a disaster, because Big Government has no mercy.

Yeah, I didn't bring religion into this discussion, Flash, and I didn't mention or hint at perfectibility, so I ain't defendin' against that (see, Flash? that's how you deal with the other guy's 'load'...you flat out reject it).

It makes me wonder why Flash thought it had to come in.

What's the connection in his mind between "religion" and classical Liberalism? It seems to me the examples of secular classical Liberals can be multiplied; but Flash seems to think you can't be one without the other...but doesn't say why.

Or maybe it was just a rhetorical flourish...I can't tell.

Flash wrote:
"If you are intent on analysing poverty as a moral failing instead of an inability to afford goods and services, you are in a state of denial that I can't really assist with. Nobody is going to be persuaded, the analysis helps with no real life issues, so it is just another reason to sideline your out of touch concerns."

Some times it is a moral failing, sometimes it's just poor luck of the draw: either way, you help (to get them back on their feet and off the dole) and you impose expectations. Pattin''em on the head, sayin' poor you, and then givin' 'em a check is no damn help at all.

Actually, I would even argue it can be toxic.

Does a good person give an alcoholic a bottle? Does a good person give a gambler more opportunity for debt? Does a good person give a drug addict the means for more drugs? Does a good person reward having children out of wedlock, in order to get welfare benefits (the phenomenon of the strategic "welfare mom")? Does a good person give anybody who is already socially and morally malfunctioning the means to make their situation worse?

But that is what handing out money without commensurate expectations of moral responsibility does. It just makes all pathologies, personal and social, much worse. It increases the power for bad behaviour.

[Immanuel Can]

Stop doing that shit.

I will include all your future quotations in full, if you wish. No problem.

However, the function of the little arrow at the top of your message is to allow others to jump back to the whole message anyway; so all we're doing is making our exchanges much longer and more awkward then they would otherwise need to be.

But that's fine.

[henry quirk]

"He wants to subsidise coal miners"

Obama penalized them, essentially regulated 'em out of existence: Trump just got 'em back to where they were.

#

"punish companies that move their supply chain across borders"

Can't whiz on your own carpet and act surprised when your house smells like piss. Can't own a house, never pay the gas bill but expect the furnace kick on smooth in the winter. If X is an American company, it should 'be' an American company. If X chooses to act as foreign company, treat it as such.

#

"remove unskilled migrant workers from the local economy"

Pancho is more than welcome to do whatever he likes in America: just come through the front door (knock first) instead of sneakin' in by way of the bathroom window.

#

"impose import substitution tarrifs"

No reason America should pay taxes imposed by china...returnin' the favor is just illustratin' the point.

#

"cancel multilateral trade deals"

When such deals are obviously skewed against America, then cancelled they should be: then new deals can be forged, more balanced deals.

[henry quirk]

Only four.

Constabulary (to preserve life, liberty, property).

Courts of last resort (to arbitrate in disputes over life, liberty, property).

Border-protectin' millitary (to preserve life, liberty, property).

Militia (all of us) who hold constables, judges, and soldiers accountable when they overstep and won't fess up to it.

[FlashDangerpants]

"A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility, so we aren't going to buy into the idea that a little more religion or a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people. It is liberal to aknowledge that sometimes a person will make a really bad decision, and sometimes a really good decision won't work out anyway, so we provide chances to remediate the effects with the minimum of judgment."

Yeah, I didn't bring religion into this discussion, Flash, and I didn't mention or hint at perfectibility, so I ain't defendin' against that (see, Flash? that's how you deal with the other guy's 'load'...you flat out reject it).


As for self-sufficiency: how is this a bad thing? You dismiss it (a slice of self-sufficiency) as though bein' able to tend to one's self or fend for one's self is just trivial bullshit. No, accordin' to you we need to 'take care of them' and hell no we aren't allowed to say 'man, you fucked up in a royal way' cuz we might hurt their feelings. Mebbe them feelings need to get blistered a little, mebbe that person needs to feel discomfort. Joe stumbles as he's shenaniganizing and he falls into a ditch. I call him a dumbass and give a hand gettin' out the ditch. I don't coddle his dumb butt and call EMS to come delicately remove him from the muck and then give 'em a fifty for new clothes.

Yeah, but that's fine, you can skip the religion bit when dealing with me and I can accept that without issue because I don't care about it. So the thing you are refencing there is sort of fundamentally different. I think the issue of perfectibility is being skipped though, which was my actual point. Utopian visions of a perfectible society include assumptions about making the people more perfect. I'm not, never was, saying that people shouldn't be self-sufficient, I'm saying that telling people to be self-sufficent (or religious, or politically correct, or any of those other demands) doesn't make them into better people for a better and more perfect society. Neither society nor people are perfectible, so we have to take mistakes and regrets into account.

I am also not saying, nor ever was, that there are to be no consequences for mistakes. Prison is where we put people who make some sorts of mistake, hospitals are full of people who make others. I don't even care much about anyone's feelings (do I seem like somebody who really is?).

"If you are intent on analysing poverty as a moral failing instead of an inability to afford goods and services, you are in a state of denial that I can't really assist with. Nobody is going to be persuaded, the analysis helps with no real life issues, so it is just another reason to sideline your out of touch concerns."

Sometimes it is a moral failing, sometimes it's just poor luck of the draw: either way, you help (to get them back on their feet and off the dole) and you impose expectations. Pattin''em on the head, sayin' poor you, and then givin' 'em a check is no damn help at all.

I really don't think any of the poverty remediation strategies I've recommended counts as much of a pat on the head. They are overwhelmingly aimed at putting people to work. All I've done is favour strategies that work for this purpose above some that are known to fail.

[henry quirk]

"I would suggest that personal charity is a good thing, if rationally practiced"

I think personal or private charity is the only thing to be encouraged.

#

"What's the connection in his mind between "religion" and classical Liberalism?"

It ain't that. You're christian, I'm deist, so obviously we're just proselytizing and lookin' to convert folks.

[Immanuel Can]

Utopian visions of a perfectible society include assumptions about making the people more perfect. I'm not, never was, saying that people shouldn't be self-sufficient, I'm saying that telling people to be self-sufficent (or religious, or politically correct, or any of those other demands) doesn't make them into better people for a better and more perfect society. Neither society nor people are perfectible, so we have to take mistakes and regrets into account.

I actually agree with you whole-heartedly on this particular point.

I just don't believe that "give them more money" is automatically how it's done. It may be, if money is the actual problem. If not, it's not.

I really don't think any of the poverty remediation strategies I've recommended counts as much of a pat on the head. They are overwhelmingly aimed at putting people to work.

Again, I'm 100% with you on doing this. If people can work, they ought to.

Only where people cannot possibly work...as in cases of very severe handicap...should we not expect them to do so. Otherwise, they need only job-locating help and possibly bridge-financing until they're in one.

They will have more dignity as earners than they could ever have as welfare-recipients, and they will not take away from the opportunity to give better care to those who are truly needy. I've seen how that works: people can come from the most grinding poverty, and when they take care of themselves they grow in dignity and self-respect, immeasurably.

That all makes sense.

[Immanuel Can]

It ain't that. You're christian, I'm deist, so obviously we're just proselytizing and lookin' to convert folks.

You think so? Maybe.

But Christians and Deists aren't the only classical Liberals. So that's a problem for Flash's theory there.

[henry quirk]

"I'm saying that telling people to be self-sufficent (or religious, or politically correct, or any of those other demands) doesn't make them into better people for a better and more perfect society."

Well, I don't want them to be perfect or for society to perfect. I just want folks to take care of themselves (not for sake of religion or ideology or philosophy, but because it's their birthright, they're built for [or evolved for] self-direction). The society that comes from most folks takin' care of themselves wouldn't be perfect (in fact I expect it would be a bit on the harsh side).

#

"I really don't think any of the poverty remediation strategies I've recommended counts as much of a pat on the head. They are overwhelmingly aimed at putting people to work. All I've done is favour strategies that work for this purpose above some that are known to fail."

If you aim to help without judgement then -- yeah -- you're pattin' & givin' a pass. As for the rest: as I say above, charities can do a better job of it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Utopian visions of a perfectible society include assumptions about making the people more perfect. I'm not, never was, saying that people shouldn't be self-sufficient, I'm saying that telling people to be self-sufficent (or religious, or politically correct, or any of those other demands) doesn't make them into better people for a better and more perfect society. Neither society nor people are perfectible, so we have to take mistakes and regrets into account.

I actually agree with you whole-heartedly on this particular point.

I just don't believe that "give them more money" is automatically how it's done. It may be, if money is the actual problem. If not, it's not.

I really don't think any of the poverty remediation strategies I've recommended counts as much of a pat on the head. They are overwhelmingly aimed at putting people to work.

Again, I'm 100% with you on doing this. If people can work, they ought to.

Only where people cannot possibly work...as in cases of very severe handicap...should we not expect them to do so. Otherwise, they need only job-locating help and possibly bridge-financing until they're in one.

They will have more dignity as earners than they could ever have as welfare-recipients, and they will not take away from the opportunity to give better care to those who are truly needy. I've seen how that works: people can come from the most grinding poverty, and when they take care of themselves they grow in dignity and self-respect, immeasurably.

That all makes sense.

Funny how countries with no welfare are the most poverty-stricken, corrupt, and with the worst standards of living, whereas those with the best welfare systems are the opposite. The vast bulk of our welfare budget goes on the very generous old age pension, so every time I hear some old shit-head whining about 'beneficiaries' I laugh and ask them what they think they are. We have never had a pension fund so their 'we paid for it in taxes and worked our arses off' is delusional fascist bullshit. Their taxes (if they paid them) went on all the goodies our taxes USED TO pay for. I couldn't care less if someone doesn't want to work--it means they have something unusual about them that sets them apart, and people like that are such a tiny minority that it makes no difference to anything. The unemployment benefit is considerably less than half the minimum wage (and less than half of the old-age-pension) and who would prefer to live off that anyway, with officious Govt. agencies breathing down their necks 24/7? That in itself isn't normal. Not to mention the fact that it's a lot more difficult for them to get work because neo-liberal Govts. here have virtually open-door immigration policies, with their Big Business buddies bringing in cheap labour to take a large portion of the jobs that pretty much anyone could do.
Every time we get a wanky anti-welfare Govt. we end up with a record-breaking national debt and higher taxes, yet they are just the ones that make a big show of 'cost-cutting' and 'fat-trimming'. There is never any indication of what exactly they have spent all that borrowed money on. It's the so-called 'left wing' Govts. that reduce debt while at the same time making life pleasanter for the general population (without increasing income tax). The only reason for disliking them is that many people hate the idea of welfare recipients having any sort of dignity or quality of life, thus reducing their ability to feel superior and have someone to look down on (the only reason any sane person votes for a 'neo-liberal' Govt. --unless you happen to be one of their very wealthy buddies). A Universal Basic Income would end all that (it's difficult to look down on someone when you are getting the same thing they are).

[Immanuel Can]

The vast bulk of our welfare budget goes on the very generous old age pension, so every time I hear some old shit-head whining about 'beneficiaries' I laugh and ask them what they think they are.

I'm going to give you two very typical scenarios, Veggie, and ask if you see any difference between them.

1) Joe Lunchbucket has worked in construction for 30 or 40 years. But now he's old. His knees and back are shot. And his job has a mandatory retirement scheme, so he's being forced out. Fortunately, his company had a pension plan. During his working years, he paid into it personally. Unbeknownst to him, the government was also taking a great portion of his wages, through direct and indirect taxations schemes; and some of it, they were putting into a pension for him. So between the publicly and privately funded pensions, he can retire, and he will live about another 10 to 15 years, if he's lucky. And when he dies, the surplus of his contributions from all sources will stay in the fund, so others can retire as well.

2) Jennifer Laxity is 17 years old. Having experienced the benefits of public education, she has decided she wants no more. She also does not want to get into the world of work. So she looks around for a man, creates a baby, and lives off the avails of the public purse. She will continue to create babies in a timely fashion, each with whatever new man is willing or unsuspecting, to secure her welfare check for the indefinite future. And when she dies, she will leave her children with nothing, and her society with a bill for the upkeep.

Now: can you figure out what the difference might be?

Just askin'.

[henry quirk]

"Funny how countries with no welfare are the most poverty-stricken, corrupt, and with the worst standards of living, whereas those with the best welfare systems are the opposite."

It's not a secret: wealthy countries can afford welfare; crapholes can't.

That is: it ain't welfare that pulls a country out of the shitter. The country has to already be out of the shitter to afford welfare.

Wanna see a wealthy country go into the shitter?

Here's one sure way: take a narrowly targeted assistance program and expand it, and keep expanding it till pretty much anyone who wants to be on it, can be on it. Watch that country sink like a stone.