My opposition to those who propose increased spending on government programs is twofold. 1) I probably don't agree with how they got the money(as all taxation is necessarily theft) and 2) I probably don't think they'll spend it right(paternalist notions of how to cure societies ills[in this case almost literally] reek of what F.A. Hayek called "scientism")
My problem with Obama is further twofold. 1)when speaking he seems to advocate, above all else, CHANGE. also, HOPE. Buzzwords in politics, while effective, won't convince me you're the right man for the job. 2)When he gets around to talking about what it is he plans to do, it usually involves expanding social programs. I have already stated my issue with this.
Ultimately, I feel that freedom is more important than whatever "help" government is pretending to provide, especially given that government programs more often than not have the opposite of their intended effect.
I'm certainly suffering under my fair (gah) share of flawed government programs, but I disagree with their uniform dismissal. All of my experiences are by definition anecdotal, but there are enough strident examples of people I love and care for being lifted up or spared a grim death by government programs that I can't discount the compassionate appeals that Obama bases his campaign around. Things like Amtrak and Medicaid Plan-D are terrible cash sinks, and I recognize and accept this, but it isn't just an affection for the devil I know. What Obama offers is platitudes and 'necessary sacrifice' in exchange for progress and change in a system ripe for overhaul. What your counter-philosophy offers is 'necessary sacrifice' and a rational overhaul/excision of the broken systems that keep the vast underclass of America breathing in exchange for platitudes and promises that 'things will fall into place'. I am sure it makes more sense to you than anything else, that it's clearly the superior path to your reasoning mind, because you are
( ... )
Comments 3
1) I probably don't agree with how they got the money(as all taxation is necessarily theft) and
2) I probably don't think they'll spend it right(paternalist notions of how to cure societies ills[in this case almost literally] reek of what F.A. Hayek called "scientism")
My problem with Obama is further twofold.
1)when speaking he seems to advocate, above all else, CHANGE. also, HOPE. Buzzwords in politics, while effective, won't convince me you're the right man for the job.
2)When he gets around to talking about what it is he plans to do, it usually involves expanding social programs. I have already stated my issue with this.
Ultimately, I feel that freedom is more important than whatever "help" government is pretending to provide, especially given that government programs more often than not have the opposite of their intended effect.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment