Neil Cavuto's Deficit Exercise

Jon Russo: Government has the power of coerce compliance, that is true, but in civilized countries, that power is checked through a variety of means--consent of the governed, separation of powers, rule by law, etc. The alternative is private coercion, which is what occurs in the absence of government. Left to their own devices, men resort to force to get their way.

In other words, government does not ensure that coercion will not be wantonly applied, but the absence of government guarantees it. Without government, it is might makes right. With government, right has a shot at being mighty.

You evidently do not understand my argument about markets. What I am saying is that in the absence of governmental oversight, private activity becomes coercive. Now, the utopian vision of our libertarians is touching and sweet, but we cede coercive power to the government because if we don't, private interests will become coercive. In fact, the ONLY reason that does not happen is government. So, if your argument is that markets are not coercive, you can thank government. In the absence of government, I guarantee markets will become coercive more quickly than you can say Jack Robinson.

I think the problem is that Americans--who are largely "conservative" (or so they think)--have come to assume the existence of a civilized order. They grew up in a stable and orderly country and so they think it is a given--in much the same way children think Christmas is a given. Add to it the libertarian myth of a "spontaneous order" emerging from the marketplace, that privately interested agents will, through market competition, create optimum outcomes, and "conservatives" come to believe that government is little more than an albatross. And so, then, they come to embrace upside down, black is white, ideas that act as though agitating against taxes or behaving in an ungovernable manner is moral and patriotic, instead of what it is in fact, which is civic recklessness and morally corrosive. And btw, it is not true conservatism. True conservatism recognizes how fragile and tend civilized order is. True conservatives do not have any illusions about what resides in the hearts of men. True conservatives are governable. They are good citizens and good sports. To be otherwise is to fail in one's duty.

American conservatives are silly buffoons who act as though men behave like civilized creatures automatically. But then, childish naivete pervades right-wing thought in America, whether it is the magic voodoo of libertarian "economics," the dumb belief in the efficacy of military force, or the sweet faith that men are angels and do not need government.

our Founders handed us a government, in Lincoln's formulation, of the people, by the people, and for the people. There is nothing noble in vilifying that government. That government reflects us. If you have a problem with that government, look in the frigging mirror. And indeed, as each generation must continue "producing" civilization, the moral failings of American government are exactly and precisely the moral failings of the American people. Our government is a big stupid failure? It is because Americans are big stupid failures. And I say that in the full knowledge of my own stupidities and failures. I, for one, do not buy for an instant this notion that the American people are great, if only their government gets out of the way. That is just a conceit, something politicians say to get elected and something tools believe because they are gullible, lazy, and self-satisfied.

As for Rousseau, I admire him as much as the next guy, but there have been 200+ years of historic evolution. Nations are urban, not rural. World population was less than a billion in 1800. Now it is 7 billion. His observations about physical distance and government do not pass the test of experience. It is not timeless wisdom, even if some of his other insights are.

And actually, the Founders rejected the Confederation and developed a stronger central government. So you are quite wrong about that. The constitution was a consolidation of authority, not its limitation. It took place within the Whiggish tone of the time, but that tone still exists, in substance, if not form, through us liberals.

Gotta hop. Pretty long winded, but it is not often one encounters a conservative these days who is capable of thinking beyond soundbites and Drudgian snippets.

Nobody is arguing that there should be no government. Nobody who is considered "rational" anyways. That is a strawman used by Libs to attempt to discredit those of us who want a limited government. Please quit accusing constitutional conservatives of being anarchists. True conservatives believe in the Rule of Law and the law of the land is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as defined by the Federalist Papers.

When our Congress, President, and Courts decide that they can regulate non-economic activity (Obamacare, Raiche vs Gonzalez) then there clearly is no limit to what government can do, regardless of the mechanisms that have been put into place to prevent such abuses of power. These are things which Constitutional Conservatives are properly opposed.

"And actually, the Founders rejected the Confederation and developed a stronger central government. So you are quite wrong about that."

The central govt is certainly stronger than the Articles of Confederation allowed, but they in no way gave the Federal level of government more power than the states or the people. I'm absolutely correct, and I've got the Federalist Papers to prove it. If you are so sure of your opinion that the Founders wanted a large, all-powerful Federal govt, you'll have no problem quoting the appropriate Federalist Paper.

About democracy and statism, Madison wrote,

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other IMPROPER or WICKED project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists."

About the free market, Hamilton writes,

"The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares. By multipying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. The assiduous merchant, the laborious husbandman, the active mechanic, and the industrious manufacturer, -- all orders of men, look forward with eager expectation and growing alacrity to this pleasing reward of their toils."


Btw, Rousseau's wisdom is as timeless as man's desire to rule over others.

Gonzales

Some people find this "entertaining"?

My apologies, PL. My client had complications which required my attention well after midnight.

I know that govt is a necessary evil. If men were angels, we'd not need it. If men were governed by angels, we'd not need a constitution by which to constrain government. It should be clear though that going to work for government doesn't change the nature of nature of man or government. The same "gangsterism and barbarity" of which you claim the market "devolves" is even more true when one is given the power to coerce compliance as is the case when a human (not an angel) goes to work for the bureaucracy created by humans (not angels).

This being the case (humans make up the market as well as govt), you haven't proven yet that the "barbarity" of too little govt is less preferrable than the "barbarity" of too much. History suggests that it isn't.

You write: "In other words, government stupidity is a different issue than the size of government."

"Stupidity" is a characteristic of humans. Humans make government. If humans increase the size of government then it goes to follow that "stupidity" inherent in humans will increase within govt as well. Unfortunately and unlike the private market, govt has the power to coerce compliance. This necessarily means that the "barbarism" of govt is on a scale many time more dangerous than the "barbarism" in the private market simply because govt is given a monopoly in the use of force.

Our Founders recognized the nature of man and the nature of govt created by man. Thus they created a system by which the large population and land mass, the several states, are governed by a small govt with limited and enumerated powers, and left the majority of power with the states and the people. Rousseau writes,

"...all governments are not of the same nature. They are more or less voracious, and the differences between them are BASED on the additional principle that the further public contributions [taxes] travel from their source [private sector taxpayers], the more burdensome they are. This burden must not be measured by the amount of taxes, but by the distance they have to travel to return to the hands they came from. When the circulation is PROMPT and well established it does not matter whether the peoples pay a little of a lot. It is always rich and finances are always in good condition. On the contrary, however little the people may give, when this amount does not come back, it is soon exhausted by always giving. The State is never rich, and the people is always destitute.
"It follows that the greater the distance between the people and the government, the more burdensome taxes become."

This is why it is quite absurd to compare the United States to a European country which is no bigger than Nebraska.

Odd to see a conservative quoting Rousseau, but there it is.

"This burden must not be measured by the amount of taxes, but by the distance they have to travel to return to the hands they came from."

You're aware that in general the blue states pay more in taxes than they get back, while the red states receive more in federal benefits than they pay in taxes.

Arizona and southern California are breeding grounds for right-wing anti-government types. Where would they be without federal highway, water, and power projects? The deep South has always proclaimed "state's rights," but they, too, benefit at the expense of the people on the coasts.

okay. its been a long and busy day. I am going home.

I salute Jon Russo for delving into his assumptions a bit deeper. Again, small vs. big government does not equal lean vs. fat government. They are two sets of problems, and excessively small government is far worse than excessively large government. Better than both, government that is the right size. But we are not going to get to that point as long as there are morons like you guys, who lack even a fundamental humility. And by humility, I don't mean the mealy-mouthed bowing and scraping one sees around here--I mean the confession that our knowledge is imperfect, that we do not know the answer to fundamental questions, and that we are condemned to work with each other to find the rational way.

There is no rational way with the American right. Just the lazy conceits of a cohort who has been pandered and sucked up to for far too long. Which is why you are reduced to resentful snark when I come around. ya got nuthin..

btw, although the American right is untethered from rationality, the moral truths in this life are objective, rationally knowable, and binding to us all. So, even though you clowns have nothing to do with the rational way, that way still is a duty, and your failure to meet that duty is not only a moral failure, but a failure of manhood--much less a failure of human excellence.

Liberal thought and rationality is as oxymoronic as your handle.

Two words discredit Hengler's post:
Neil.
Cavuto.

And a FOX logo.

Such wonderful logical arguments from rachel and marie?

Jon Russo: notwithstanding your cheap slur regarding Mussolini, I do not disagree with Rousseau's insight regarding the size of government. There IS the question about relatively small land mass and relatively large population--which is our historic situation today. We have the benefit of added historic experience since JJR wrote Social Contract. Still, we ALL want limited government and we ALL recognize that government is essentially a parasite to the market economy (now, there may be some leftists--even many--who do not recognize this, but you are not talking to them. You are talking to me.)

The problem is, government is a necessary parasite. In the absence of effective government, which requires an ability on the part of the people to be governable, by the way, the market economy devolves into gangsterism and barbarity. So, whether or not one accepts JJR's premise, which I do, it still leaves untouched the fundamental fact that too small government is a worse fate than too large government.

We can discuss whether government should be 10% or 20% or 30% of the economy, but if we are getting pennies of value on the dollars we spend, then our taxes have to be MORE than whatever amount we agree to--and in proportion to the waste and inefficiency. In other words, government stupidity is a different issue than the size of government. And if you do not realize this, you are a key reason why our government is so stupid.

..and the funny thing is, for all your certitudes and blustering about the evils of excessively big government, not one of your morons can answer my argument below about the greater evil of excessively small government. And there is a reason: because you are tools who do not think things through and are led around by the noses like a bunch of slaves.

"because you are tools who do not think things through and are led around by the noses like a bunch of slaves."

And yet here I am. Still alive. Still not using as many govt services as the average illegal alien family, and paying through the nose, like a dumba** slave for the looters and moochers.

Btw, I answered your question. Scroll down. I'll be back later with eager anticipation of having an "intellectual" discussion with you.

There are tools and there are fools. Tools are needed to build and create. Fools have no use, they only berate. The left uses fools like Patriotic Liberal as the tools of their ideals, grandiose intent with no substantive means of achievement.

Pat lib you are acting very presidential tonight.Very condescending and arrogant while being woefully uninformed and ignorant.It's no wonder when I see a flurry of your ramblings I become vice presidential and nod off.

again, it takes more than your say-so. it takes a rational argument.

Hey, son, I like insults like anyone else. Difference is, for us true liberals, insults are not enough. they are just something we do for fun. And in any event, condescension and arrogance is what you nitwits deserve. You get respect from the pundits and the corporate media and inside-the-beltway fools, but what you deserve is contempt. And that is what you get from me.

When you prove you can handle a civil conversation, I will treat you civilly. In the meantime, I will destroy your arguments with my reasoning AND kick you in the butt for good measure.

Pat Lib talking about kicking butt....now that's funny!

vonryan: ya got nuthin, chump.

liberalism is rationality. conservatism is emotional reaction. Look it up. It is neurological. In "current biology" or some such scientific publication.

And up is down, left is right... You live in a bizzaro world within those 5 inches between your ears.

I once flipped by chrissy mathews when he had some guests on. The first thing I heard him say after one guest finished to the other guest, "what is your initial emotional reaction?" He had capsulized the Left perfectly...and it was all I needed to see.

i don't care about Chris Matthews, son. I honestly do not give a rat's backside about inside-the-beltway prattle. As for me living "in bizzaro world," that's gonna take a little more than your teevee induced say-so.

Right. Men are angels and we don't need government.

Government that is too small is more destructive than government that is too big. Too small government leads to anarchy and blood in the street. And let me tell you something else about too small government--it is just as inherently wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt as big government.

Government is government. Any fool can see that it is wasteful, fat and stupid. "Refuse to notice" nothing. It is simply that you clowns have derailed intelligent conversation about government and markets with your weenie chanting. And the most disgusting part about it is that you creeps think that you are clever and insightful. In fact, you are a bunch of tools who know nothing of freedom, nothing of duty, led around by your noses, and are singularly responsible for the decline and fall of our republic.

Nancy boy alert

for clarity, i am saying that the issue of government waste and corruption is not a function of its size. And when government is too small--and the more inefficient government is, the more we have to be taxed to ensure government is properly sized--it rewards avarice, fraud, force.

You know, a man needs three things to be economically competitive: talent, ambition, and integrity. The first two cannot be faked. The last one can. And in fact, the man who is good at faking integrity has a competitive advantage over the man who does not fake integrity. And that is why we need government--because men, left to their own devices, without governance and governing, albeit with their consent, are guaranteed to dissolve into barbarism and even savagery. Government does not guarantee a civilized order, but it is civilization's precondition.

And yet, you clowns act as though you deserve a medal for noticing the public sector spending gets pennies of value on the dollar. Get out of here with that, you morons.

Geez, I thought that was going to be Liz Claman in work-out togs.
I'm so disappointed.
---------------------------------------------------

Check your email Mr. Hengler for a link on the Kobe slur that is too over the top to be believed.

"revealing" to nitwits who think they get a gold star for noticing that public spending is wasteful and inefficient. Yikes one gets tired of these self-satisfied fools.

As opposed to nitwits who refuse to notice wasteful and inefficient govt spending.

Public spending IS wasteful and inefficient, especially when Democrats, the most self satisfied fools of them all, are in charge.