What does don weiner think the national government's responsibilities should be?

It seems to me that the tree to which your opinions are attached actually represents some pretty radical ideas that have been rarely tested in modern western societies.

http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/environment/images/DutchElm.jpg

The purpose of a government is to exercise the power that the people cede to it. To organise that which cannot be organised individually or corporately.

These responsibilities are potentially limitless in both directions so this is where the subjective opinion comes in. I believe that government has the responsibility to ensure that it's people are educated, healthy, are not limited in opportunity, are supported when that support is needed, are encouraged when encouragement is needed. Government should ensure that people are kept safe, that their liberties are maintained. Governments must maintain the economy and protect the people from might and exploitation of corporations. Governments above all must only exercise power to the limits that their contract with the people allows them to.

(Add to this that I think governments ought to be socialist, collective and democratic)

The impression I get from don is that the national government needs to raise just enough taxes to support a powerful and effective security force and then they can call it a day.

from this thread

I'm not sure what to make of a thread that has a dozen posts before I even answer the question directed at me. But whatever, inquiring minds want to know I guess.

I really don't think I could succinctly sum up my thoughts on the federal government, other than what has already been written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I would not call myself a strict constructionalist though.

This thread bears the implication that I have some sort of manifesto, or some sort of explicit rules for what the federal government can or cannot do. That's not really the case. I'm not that smart, despite what my degrees and career might imply.

I will say that I think the federal government should have a more narrow reading than is currently fashionable. That, more than anything, is probably my guiding principle. I generally have libertarian leanings, if that makes anyone happy to know. I don't really give a rat's ass if some of the things my opinion gets attached to (eliminating federal arts funding, for example) a more radical movement overall.

Also, I do not consider pork a sideshow, despite the relatively minor size of the petty projects generally considered "pork" because I see it as further corruption and increased power for the feds. Moves like federalizing airport security, expanding the Dept. of Education's reach, expanding the role of Medicare and a host of other moves are equally offensive to me if not by pure cost but by the increased power it places in the hands of people who don't deserve it.

from this thread

That's because this thread is so damn wide. As I assert earlier in the post, I do not have an all-encompassing iteration of every single responsibility for the federal government. That would take weeks to formulate. If you want my opinions on other threads or other precise issues of federal government responsibility, go look at the threads or ask me directly.

I sometimes wonder if you are being at least reckless in doing so.

If I am being reckless at any time I apologize. It is certainly not intentional.

you advance normative arguments that differ from those that are conventionally-accepted, and in doing so, appear to present them as conventional wisdom

Again, not my intention. I don't really accept your assertation that I am presenting convention wisdom, but if you interpret it that way so be it. Frequently, on matters such as the economy, I am presenting a different perspective issues that is backed up by empirical evidence. Some people around here, I think, confuse my intentions with their political or ideological disagreements.

"I think the federal government should have a more narrow reading than is currently fashionable. That, more than anything, is probably my guiding principle. I generally have libertarian leanings."

In other words, I think I've answered your question.

I'm not a strict constructionalist, but I lean that way more than the other.

I'm not a strict Libertarian, but I lean that way more than any other. If you don't know what a Libertarian is, then go to a website and read about it.

My opinions generally fall along these lines. I don't know how I can be more specific. You've posted my voting record, and I think that's quite explanatory in itself.

my disagreement with the libertarian position as outlined by don, is basically the standard opposition to it. That, in my opinion, removal of power from government doesnt lead to more power and self-determination for ordinary people, it leads to power being helf by corporate bodies and already established power blocks.

Also, america is an interesting case in regards to this, because it espouses self-determination, freedom, the free market and small government more than most european states by some distance, yet, as don has said previously, in actuality, there is a much larger state role in the economy, than you might imagine. the free market of course, needs to be fenced off from the rest of the world by quotas and subisides in order to prevent it being undercut by cheap foreign produce (US farm subsidies being the classic case of course, of state involvement in the private sector)

Further, I say some stupid shit from time to time that earns ridicule. But hopefully I generally make my case in a way that is not offensive or condescending. I certainly do not think that my opinion is superior--merely different. And probably totally wrong on occasion.

viz Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost.

Kind of, although that statement seems less succinct than I would have imagined. I don't necessarily believe that America would be more prosperous or more thriving in that scenario than before, just that we would have more freedom to pursue those ideals.

run it off OTM.

But at this point, I would rather the feds move towards those minimal requirements instead of farther and farther away from them.

While any Congressional expenditure toward this end would be justified under the spending power (to provide for the "common defense" perhaps moreso than or instead of the "general welfare"), the use of the the products of the expenditure could be challenged under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Thus, the right to spend money itself does not allow Ashcroft to "widen the scope of government surveillance" merely because it is in the national interest.

politicians spend millions of dollars to urge people not to smoke -- while spending more millions to subsidize tobacco farmers. They send billions overseas for foreign aid -- while the federal deficit swells. They spend millions to subsidize public art -- while working families struggle to pay their taxes.

Politicians also run trains, bail out savings and loans, construct houses, sell insurance, print books, and build basketball courts -- you name it! But the fact is, every service supplied by the government can be provided better and cheaper by private business.

The better and cheaper by private business argument is only true in certain circumstances, in certain economic sectors and even then is far from ideal. The crucial difference between pubically funded services and privately funded services is that the latter does what is does for profit. As such, a service that provides a valuable social service which is calculated as breaking even at best is not even touched by private investment. That's not what private investment is looking for.

Also, it stands to reason, when a company is run to produce profit then part of its income will be siphoned off for the shareholders or owner etc, whereas the publically funded service can reduce its costs by the equal amount of the funds taken as profit. Profit has to be factored into the cost of an item as an extra cost unless it is taken out of the hands of the workers in the form of cheaper, exploited labour. Either way it's not cheaper socially or politically better.

I find this somewhat patronizing--I always have the opportunity to post whatever it is I feel like or start my own threads. Nobody is really giving anything to me that I already don't have, at least in this context.

As for being dickwaddish, well, whatever. I could take this thread as antagonistic or as curiosity by Tracer Hand, and if it's antagonistic then it's his problem and not mine. I have no problem defending myself, especially in a forum like this where most people are inclined to disagree with me. As was noted, I enjoy defending my opinions so if someone thinks it needs a separate thread then fine.

The only thing that grates this the sight yet again a fine politcal word being used very differently stateside. Libertarian in my mind comes attached to socialism, a way of saying anarchism without the misdefinition bound up in that word. But that's got nothing to do with don, I ahve problems with the use of liberal in american political speech and the inability to use socialism except in a reds under the bed context (a condition that is unfortunately spreading to britain).

having said that, I described myself as libertarian socialist on one thread and a poster was confused, thinking i meant libertarian in the US sense. So now i just say im Socialist (though, as for someone co-opting ther term socialist for their own agenda, how about that little guy with the tache in the 30s, you know, the one with the uniform and the side parting...)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Isn't this a good basic description of the Libertarian position? So doesn't that mean that libertarian-capitalism is laissez faire?

libertarian - 1789, "one who holds the doctrine of free will" (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty on model of unitarian, etc. Political sense of "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct" is from 1878. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971.

thanks for pointing this out Ed--I should have noted it myself. It is a very important distinction to make in this forum, and had I referenced it earlier it probably would have solved a lot of confusion.

Noninterference in the affairs of others

This tenet is probably the one that appeals to me the most, assuming that the noninterference includes exceptions for fraud, theft, etc.

For example, I do not find the federal government's support of the arts to be convincing in any matter whatsoever. Most specifically, I think the Constitutional arguments in favor of it are total bullshit.

the U.S. Constitution is not a self-limiting document, no matter how much originalists would like to claim it is.

Who is claiming it is? Who are these originalists, exactly, and what do they have to do with this thread? Have I ever claimed to be an "originalist"? No, I have not.

I have no problem defending myself on this thread or elsewhere. But I'm having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say about me in your comments, J.

This is too vague to answer. Help me out with something more specific.

For example, there are no "constitutional" arguments in favor of the arts funding, as such. Congress pretty much has the authority to tax and spend as it likes, as others have noted on the religion thread, and there is nothing in the Constitution itself or the two hundred-odd years of cases and experience that we have to suggest that there is a congressional prohibition upon arts spending. Not like, say, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause re: religion. You may think such spending unwise; that's fine, but don't go dragging the Constitution into it unless you have a real reason to.

That's why I have tried to say that I don't have some blanketing ideological pathway that I follow. I've pointed out already in this thread that it is nearly impossible for me to give some manifesto that describes exactly what "national government's responsibilities should be". I've said generally I tend to be libertarian (in the American sense) or at least that perspective tends to appeal to me.

However, as an example, some Libertarians are absolutely in favor of the death penalty. I am not. I am completely against it. I'm not completely dogmatic, but if I had to lay my hat down somewhere, it would probably be with the Libertarians here in the US.

"Helping others" is exceedingly wide ranging to me: the police force, fire stations, are obviously positive to me. To at least some degree, many other municipal services (schools, parks, etc.) are also valuable. But sometimes it's how the government (especially in the case of the feds, which is the context of this thread) interferes with these services that I disagree with. Like arts funding, for example.

If so, then I guess the thing that troubles me most about what you so often say viz the role of the government in society, is actually an exaggeration of your position. When asked if you believe what you say you believe then you begin to talk about exceptions and complications that are simply not there in your more forthright expressions of your 'libertarian' principles. Does my understanding of this sound far-fetched to you?

I think it is better stated that much of the time, I don't think the federal government makes a good case for why it does what it does. I think much of the reasoning behind it is purely for power and ultimately, unnecessary control over citizens. Maybe my expectations are too high, but I want more justification for political pork. As I've noted earlier, the "general welfare" clause is routinely exploited for purely political gain and little else. As for the Constitution, are you saying that the "general welfare" clause has never been successfully limited in judicial review?

For example, there are no "constitutional" arguments in favor of the arts funding, as such

Yes, and I think that is reason enough to expect reasonable limitations.

Your argument, by definition, assumes one thing about the Constitution that simply isn't true: that we can understand its contours by just reading it.

You made this up.

I'm sorry, can you point out to me the part of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review of statutes?

Yes, and I think that is reason enough to expect reasonable limitations.

Well, first of all, who gets to say what's reasonable? How about the democratically elected Congress? Makes sense to me.

You made this up.

No, Don, I really didn't. Every time you have appealed to the Constitution (and you've done it several times), you've assumed that it absolutely has to mean what you think it means in regards to property rights, federalism, etc.

here's an example of what worries me in your antipathy to governmental 'interference' in the affairs of the citizens that vote it in. Let me explain.

When you say we'd all be a lot better off, I'm not convinced that that we is as universal as it sounds. The reason I don't trust this 'we' is because the positive purpose of what you're calling 'social engineering' (if I understand you correctly) is giving some advantages or assistance to those without advantages. Take this assistance away from the disadvantaged, and I don't think they would be part of that 'we', who will all be better off.

Arguing against 'government interference' in this way is basically an argument that the well off get more than they already have and the poor get less. I'd rather have the interference.

If you see it as an exaggeration of my position, I don't know how to control that. There are always exceptions, so if the point of this thread is to have me state some grandiose perspective that guides my life just so that everyone can then take potshots at all the exceptions that inevitably come along, I don't see the point.

This thread is about the federal government. I would prefer less interference than more on this level. The United States continually is finding more ways to interfere on a federal level, not less. I would rather have less federal taxes, for example, than more. I would rather have less federal programs than more, for example. If I have exaggerated my position, it is merely to try to give the curious on this thread some sort of a reference point in which to divine my views. I really do not see the curiosity in trying to box me into one particular political or philosophical worldview since I do not think mine is particurarly a) interesting or b) consistent. On the most ideological of levels, I would prefer to lessen governmental interference. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. Practically speaking, there are lot of exceptions due to the complexities of life and the mingling of culture in the United States. Practically speaking, I have to make compromises in order to facilitate my views on individual issues with whomever represents me in the federal government. Those individuals typically are more libertarian than anything else. I really don't know another way to explain it.

I'm not asking you to control how I see your position; I'm asking you to take responsibility for the position that you express in your posts. That is, when you say that you are against governmental interference one minute and then that you support *some* interference the next. All it takes to be a little bit more consistent is to state your position less dogmatically in the first instance so that the statement of your position in the second instance doesn't come as such an inconsistency.

You're not really thinking this is a convincing way to defend your comments are you?

Makes sense to me.

I'm sure it does.

Every time you have appealed to the Constitution (and you've done it several times), you've assumed that it absolutely has to mean what you think it means in regards to property rights, federalism, etc.

Yeah, it's called my opinion. You disagree. What's your point? The fact is, it is your summation that came up with this sentence "Your argument, by definition, assumes one thing about the Constitution that simply isn't true: that we can understand its contours by just reading it."

Suddenly, it's you who is making assumptions what things absolutely have to mean. I've never said or even implied that the contours of the Constitution can be understood simply by reading it. You made that up. Those are your words, your interpretations, and they are there to make your arguments against me to be more convincing. I don't know why you can't just stick to what I actually post--the targets are apparently pretty easy without your editorial spin.

Here's what I said with regards to noninterference: "This tenet is probably the one that appeals to me the most, assuming that the noninterference includes exceptions for fraud, theft, etc." (boldface added, obv.)

I regret that you would take this as an absolute, but I can see how you might. In general, I am suspicious of governmental interference. I find it appropriate at times, but especially on a federal level I am cynical about governmental interference as a whole.

The only reason I have stated that I am against governmental interference is because it has been my impression that certain individuals in this thread want me to justify various positions against some sort of general ideology. If it is incoherent to have inconsistencies within this position, I have not tried to hide these inconsistencies. I am open to judging each case of governmental interference as it comes, but as a general guideline, in order for you or anyone else to predict my support (or not) of that interference, I have told you that I am generally cynical towards it--especially on a federal level.

Somehow, I knew someone would sink to this level on a thread devoted to me. I'm just surprised it's you J.

Sorry--but when you start putting words in my mouth, and then deny it on a thread where I'm supposed to defend myself, then I really don't think you honestly care what I think. Oh wait, then there's your next sentence...

If all you've got about interpreting the Constitution is your unsupported opinion, why should anyone care what you've got to say?

I dunno J. You really got me there. It certainly isn't a good explanation for your participation anyhow.

but this thread was started because you were saying these things already. Don't pretend that you are being forced into a corner here. You stated that you were against governmental interference on other threads! So, it's not that we want you to justify your various positions against some general ideology - we (or I at least) believe that there already is a general ideology that is incoherent that underpins all your statements on the subject.

Maybe there's some connection between resisting state intervention and resisting an implied ideology - as if you want to keep your statements free from an overall system, just as you want to keep citiizens free from the government. If so, it's just the same mistake. You can't avoid the connections between your statements adding up to an ideology, any more than you can prevent the social organisation of citizens adding up to a politics.

You're probably right. I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to reconcile this though. Are you asking me to admit that my thought process is incoherent?

I have a general aversion to government intervension. It is not all encompassing. If that strikes you as incoherently situational, I cannot explain it other than it would be hard for me to reconcile any ideology against my personal experiences.

Maybe there's some connection between resisting state intervention and resisting an implied ideology - as if you want to keep your statements free from an overall system, just as you want to keep citiizens free from the government

Maybe there is. I don't wish to keep my statements free from an overall system necessarily, I just need one that fits my worldview better. I have a strong desire for limited federal government, and limited federal government is not what is happening in the United States.

So why do you think that other citizens want a more expanded federal government that you do? I mean, your argument usually turns on how the government expands in order to increase the power of the government, so why would anybody outside the government think that an expanded government would be a good idea? Do you think they are just dupes, or do you think they have other positive things to say about an expanded, interventionist version of government?

From your political posts on other threads don you give the impression of having a very coherent set of beliefs about what govt should or shouldn't do. The issues that push your buttons are extremely consistent: taxation and govt role in society. You jump to post when these things are mentioned, and your posts are very polished, so I thought it stood to reason that you have a kind of exoskeleton of convictions that your others posts are kind of draped over. They all have the same shape, which you boil down to "non-interference" (with exceptions, of course). But whether you favor MORE or LESS, the word "interference" itself is an incredibly loaded word that wins the argument for you at the outset. It's a little like the phrase "tax relief." Once you are speaking in terms of taxes exerting a pain and pressure on the citizen, a person or organization that "relieves" that pressure or pain is a hero. So for Democrats to argue for "less tax relief" makes them villains: people who want to increase the pressure or pain felt by normal citizens. Similarly, saying you want "less government interference" muddies the issue unneccessarily, and tilts the rhetoric towards your corner.

Imagine you are an art teacher at an after-school center in Bristol, Tennessee. Your after-school center gets a little money each year from a local non-profit organization, just enough to hire a part-time art teacher. That non-profit - savvy to local issues, familiar with area schools, parents, and teachers - gets a chunk of change each year from the National Endowment for the Arts, earmarked for children's education in local communities.

Now let's say the NEA is abolished, It is now up to the state to provide money for art, should they desire to. Let's say your state legislators take the don weiner approach and feel that's it's deeply weird for Nashville to decide what's good or bad for Bristol. "Look elsewhere," they say. "There are plenty of non-governmental bodies to go to." But these non-governmental bodies have suddenly been swamp with grant applications, and what's more they've lost a significant part of their budget, which came from the NEA. Your after-school center can't afford you any more, and after looking for other part-time teaching jobs (you also have two children to take care of) you realize that no one is hiring art teachers. Your students like you, and can't believe that won't be able to mess around with pens and charcoal after school. You have a sneaking suspicion the after-school program is going to just park the kids in front of the TV.

In this situation, the withholding of federal money for programs that the govt has supported for many years is a horrible "interference" in your life and the lives of your students.

I really don't think it's fair for me to answer why other people would favor an expanded government. I can make plenty of assumptions, but frankly there are enough people around iLX who probably feel comfortable with government expansion and would be a better reference. I do not assume they are dupes. I assume they disagree with me. Take for example, federal funding for the arts--most of those people on the other thread (and Tracer here) disagree with me. They are happy to have everyone's federal tax dollars supporting the arts. They think it's a good use of funds. They made their arguments over there and I disagree with them.

I have a thick skin. I can handle your snide comments and the derogatory way you entered this thread. I can handle you picking apart of my arguments or statements. I just don't like people taking their assumptions and attributing them to me. You did that. If you want to expose my fallacies or lack of logic, do it with my own words or appropriate references.

That said, I accept your apologies. As for this:

I'm sorry, can you point out to me the part of the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review of statutes?

You know as well as I do that the Court reviews agency actions. You also know that while this is indirect, it is also an obvious example of how the judiciary validates or invalidates the powers afforded to Congress and the Executive branch by the Constitution. I am sorry that I wasn't explicit in saying this, but it seems fairly obvious given the context of our whole discussion on the Constitution.

An actual government "expansion" would be something like universal health care. I think this country should pay for the health of its citizens, and get preferential rates from health care providers. I think it's a good use of funds. Leaving businesses with the task of insuring their employees' health - and all the paperwork that goes with it - is an onerous interference in company business from coast to coast, and because pension plans and health benefits are the number one labor issue, employer-based health insurance ends up interfering with the general public in the form of strikes. It also interferes with employee wages, which would be higher if businesses didn't have to front so much cost for benefits packages. Take the money every employee puts in each week for their benefits package, add the money that their employers put in, and you have QUITE a bit of money. Increase taxes by that amount, put strict price controls on health care, and give everybody health insurance. No one would be paying any more than they were before, and with the price controls and economies of scale the government can leverage from providers, citizens will get more for their money. (I'm winging this a little of course, but I've heard proposals along similar lines and they make sense to me.)

The bottom line with health care is: let business concentrate on business. Let the government concentrate on protecting its citizens. AIDS and speeding taxicabs can be just as lethal as terrorism.

BTW, sorry I got pissy with you J. I have been sick all day, have shitloads on my plate, and my kids are driving me nutz. It was dickwaddish of me and I regret it.

Arts funding is expanding Tracer. As a concept, yes, it has been around for awhile. But it is the result of an expansion of governmental power that I do not like in its originality nor in its continued expansion.

As for your premise of eliminating the NEA Tracer, what I would say is that I don't wish to suddenly eliminate all sorts of federal programs that I disagree with. I would rather a sunset period, say, 20 years from now for something like the NEA. That way, a generation could plan on how to deal with the sudden lack of funds in Bristol and could plan accordingly. (I read it but have had only limited time to respond in the past hour dude. You know, life outside of the Internet does interfere from time to time. I was not ignoring you. Also, it's fine that some will be more contentious with me here than others. If I didn't want to participate, I wouldn't. I know exactly what to expect.)