Thank a Liberal

[Finch]

You know, most of the points in this essay result in laws or regulations. Bye Bye liberty...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Read it again.  I think you misunderstood it.

I think I understand it better than you do.  The article wants you to think that if not for Liberals nobody would have edible food, or a worthwhile paycheck, or the ability to travel, or the means to hire a doctor, or whatever else.  Besides being utterly stupid, this premise reeks of arrogance, the notion that their stupid (I mean "loving and caring") policies are the sole reason anyone can get by in life.  They can write all the article they want mocking those of us who can take care of ourselves, but the fact remains that we really can take care of ourselves without needing the government to do it for us.  Maybe they couldn't get by without Big Brother, but the rest of us can and do. 

It's stupid.  And I think it illustrates the shortcomings of the average liberal.  Only a liberal would think people are so pathetic that they can't actually get through the day without the government holding their hand. 

A conservative would trust the average man not only to provide for himself, but to be the best and most able person in the world to provide for himself.

[Manedwolf]

I definitely do not blame Reagan for signing the 1986 law...I've researched it thoroughly, and know of all the things it allowed or protected. I couldn't own most of what I do own without that back then, and I definitely couldn't afford to shoot them.

I do resent the liberals who most certainly slipped that little poison bit into it to ban new full-autos, like children who tried to break a toy in a last fit of spite when they were unable to get their way.

The modern equivalents are people like Schumer and Feinstein. Last I heard, some others of their ilk were trying to poison the otherwise perfectly reasonable NRA-approved NICS-overhaul bill the same way.

[K Frame]

"like children who tried to break a toy in a last fit of spite when they were unable to get their way."

I THINK it might have been Col. Cooper who used pretty much the same description.

[Ned Hamford]

How about an essay thanking Tort Law?

[wooderson]

Who slipped the language into FOPA 1986 at the last minute in a piece of procedural ice skating?

Did I miss a Constitutional amendment placing the power to sign bills into law in the hands of individual Representatives?

[K Frame]

And zoom. The point goes straight past you.

The fact that FOPA 86 rolled back many of the most onerous provisions of GCA 68?

The fact that FOPA 86 established the "right of transit" that helped stop the most blatant harassment of gunowners who were transiting unfriendly states?

The fact that FOPA 86 helped reign in some of BATF's worst excesses, and put a definitive stop to the BATF plans for a nationwide gunowner registry?

All very unimportant and not worth it even given the fact that FOPA didn't actually outlaw ANY existing machine guns. That's right, it didn't ban existing machine guns, it didn't place new restrictions on those that were already privately owned, it didn't increase the Federal tax or paperwork burden when transferring those firearms.

Welcome to ABSOLUTE world, in which if it's not ALL 100% beneficial all the time, it's pure evil. 

And all of which makes Ronald Reagan the single most evil, most gun grabbing, most anti-liberty President ever to set foot in Washington, DC.

[Nitrogen]

Read it again.  I think you misunderstood it.

I think I understand it better than you do.  The article wants you to think that if not for Liberals nobody would have edible food, or a worthwhile paycheck, or the ability to travel, or the means to hire a doctor, or whatever else.  Besides being utterly stupid, this premise reeks of arrogance, the notion that their stupid (I mean "loving and caring") policies are the sole reason anyone can get by in life.  They can write all the article they want mocking those of us who can take care of ourselves, but the fact remains that we really can take care of ourselves without needing the government to do it for us.  Maybe they couldn't get by without Big Brother, but the rest of us can and do. 

It's stupid.  And I think it illustrates the shortcomings of the average liberal.  Only a liberal would think people are so pathetic that they can't actually get through the day without the government holding their hand. 

A conservative would trust the average man not only to provide for himself, but to be the best and most able person in the world to provide for himself.
[/quote

I still don't think you get it.
Let's break this down a bit.

1) minimum water-quality standards.
Minimum water quality standards infringe on big corporations right to pollute your water.  This is bad?  Are you saying that it's perfectly okay for someone to poison your water with contaminants?

2) Medication safety.
This infringes on pharmaceutical companies to sell untested drugs on the market.  Do you think it's ok for pharmaceutical companies to put a drug on the market, without being thorougly tested to see what the side effects are?

3) Employer provided medical insurance
Okay, so you want to go purchase your own medical insurance.  I get that.  As someone that's paid for their own medical insurance, and also had company provided insurance, I can say that the company provided insurance was always a better deal.  On average, I've saved money when the company provided insurance, rather than me getting it myself.  Economies of scale usually mean the company can negotiate a better price.  Maybe I'm just lucky, but I doubt it. 
Personally, I am for universal health care, but that'd start another huge argument, so let's not go there.
So basically, you're saying that health care provided by your employer, who can usually get it on a price break based on you buying it yourself is bad?

4) Food Safety.
This goes with drinking water safety.  Are you saying that having minimum standards for food safety is a bad thing?  Are you saying that meat packers should be allowed to sell contaminated meat?  Are you saying that every consumer should invest in testing aprataus, and test their food themselves?

5) Product Labeling requirements.
Are you saying it's bad that a company should be required to list the ingredients in products they sell?

6) Clean air
Are you saying that clean air standards are a bad thing?  China and Russia have no clean air standards.  Pollution there kills people.  Is that your idea of "freedom?", breathing air that can kill you?

7) Public Transportation.
Now we're getting into an area where I can at least see there being a reasonable argument, but I personally still don't buy it.  Economically, in most cases, having a public transportation system in a large city is a good use of taxpayer money.  Most dense cities with a decent public transit system enjoy its benefits, while it cuts down on pollution (see #6) as well as gridlock on city streets.  In a dense city, streets can only go so far.

Now I'll admit that public transportation would be useless in Bumfart, Idaho, and that would be a waste of taxpayer money.  Public transportation isn't for every city.  For the sake of argument, let's assume they are talking about a city like New York.
Is public transportation in a very dense city a bad thing?  Should we be putting more cars on the street there?  If so, how would we support the increase in cars? 

Federal Student Loans
Now, shockingly, here, I don't necessarily agree with this one!
But, I can see the societal benefit.  Tax money goes to help someone get a better education.  Better education means that someone increases their earning power.  Increased earning power means more economic contribution (they buy more, helping the economy) as well as less dependance on the government (which most of you seem to be enspousing)
To me, this seems like a good investment in people.  Is investing in people bad, especially then the government can make a bit of money off of it?

9) Car safety standards
Like any product safety standards, these are bad how?   Do safety standards infringe on someone's liberty to produce a product that can kill people?  Would you like to have highways full of Ford Pintos or Chineese Landwinds?

10) rural electrification.
How many people here live in rural areas?  It's nice having electricity.  Most people in cities paid for that.  Should we force every farmer to purchase a generator and power their own farm?  While generator companies might like that, air pollution in rural areas would skyrocket.  Another societal investment.

11) Farm Loans
America has had a cheap-food policy for a majority of her existance.  Part of making sure everyone can feed themselves, means helping the farmer.  Farming is a volitile enterprise, and sometimes it makes sense to help.
Now at this point, I can at least understand the arguments against this.  At least at this point, the arguments aren't nonsense.  I can understand someone stating that the free market should take care of this.  Personally, I disagree; with the free market comes consolidation, and as far as food is concerned, that can be dangerous.  Having diversity as far as the food supply goes means some extra safety, and the benefit of that to me outweights any benefit of letting the free market completely take over.

12) Social Security / Pensions
Now we get to the meat of it.  There are plenty of good arguments against social security, and plenty of good arguments for it.  Most of the vitriol toward this essay seems aimed at this point, which I will concede at this point.

Now I've also seen some people argue that some of these are taken too far.  Ok, valid criticism. That doesn't negate the value of the idea, does it?

Liberals are wrong about a few things.  According to me,  They are wrong on illegal immigration.  The upper echelon that believes in gun control is wrong, for a few.
Conservatives (until recently) were all about fiscal responsibility, which is something liberals aren't known for. 
Conservatives as a whole are on the right side of the gun issue, as well as dealing with crime and illegal immigration.

Now I'm guessing i'm just lost, because out of most of these, I see positives, not negatives.
Please help me see how these ideas are bad.  And let's try and stay away from the slippery slope arguments, or these ideas taken to extremes.  Even when they are (and i'll concede that at times they are) that doesn't make the core ideas wrong.

[Manedwolf]

Nitrogen, that's the longest line of consecutive strawmen I've ever seen outside of a fall harvest festival.

[wooderson]

Welcome to ABSOLUTE world, in which if it's not ALL 100% beneficial all the time, it's pure evil. 

And all of which makes Ronald Reagan the single most evil, most gun grabbing, most anti-liberty President ever to set foot in Washington, DC

Jesus Christ, did you ignore the part where I said "I'm not criticizing Reagan for it" on purpose?

Yes, signing the FOPA may have been a necessary evil - but it was still signed, by the Fearless Conservative Leader, and could not have become law without his signature. So no, you don't get to place the entirety of the blame for our current NFA situation on the damn dirty liberals - because y'alls hero decided it was a worthy trade-off.

[Nitrogen]

Nitrogen, that's the longest line of consecutive strawmen I've ever seen outside of a fall harvest festival.

OK, fine.  Explain how the listed points are bad.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The points listed in that article are wrong in their underlying premise.  The article presumes that all of those things listed (healthy food, access to doctors, safe transportation, good pay, security during unlucky times, etc...) would not exist except for the generous and caring actions of Liberals.  This is absurd.  In many cases those things exist despite Liberals and their overzealous government, not because of them.

I'd wager that most of the things Liberals claim to have done for society could be done better by individuals or by private sector organizations.  And by "done better" I mean cheaper, more effectively, and in a manner that is not abhorrent to a free society.

Liberals think they're God's gift to mankind.  If not for them and their minions in government, so they claim, we'd all be sick and starving and dying in the cold.  That is the substance of that article, and it's blitheringly stupid.

[Paddy]

They can write all the article they want mocking those of us who can take care of ourselves, but the fact remains that we really can take care of ourselves without needing the government to do it for us.  Maybe they couldn't get by without Big Brother, but the rest of us can and do. 

You're kidding yourself if you think you get by without government. From the tap water you drink, to the food you eat, the medicines you take, the buildings where you live and work, the roads you drive and on and on, government oversight and regulation have made them possible for you.  You're just suffering from an uncontrollable spasmodic kneejerk reaction to the word 'Liberal', that's all.  You can't help yourself. 

BTW, 'Liberals' are not responsible for all this stuff.  Especially modern 'Liberals'.  Government was instituted by reasonable men, beginning with the FF.  Reasonable men continue to use government for the common good.

[Nitrogen]

The points listed in that article are wrong in their underlying premise.  The article presumes that all of those things listed (healthy food, access to doctors, safe transportation, good pay, security during unlucky times, etc...) would not exist except for the generous and caring actions of Liberals.  This is absurd.  In many cases those things exist despite Liberals and their overzealous government, not because of them.

I'd wager that most of the things Liberals claim to have done for society could be done better by individuals or by private sector organizations.  And by "done better" I mean cheaper, more effectively, and in a manner that is not abhorrent to a free society.

Liberals think they're God's gift to mankind.  If not for them and their minions in government, so they claim, we'd all be sick and starving and dying in the cold.  That is the substance of that article, and it's blitheringly stupid.

Please explain how this is so, citing examples where appropriate.

[El Tejon]

Hughes, D-NJ.

[wooderson]

whose work was not possible without the assistance of

Reagan, R-CA

[K Frame]

Wooderson,

Sorry, I got on a roll. I know you said you weren't castigating Reagan; I was addressing, by proxy, all of the arguments made about how Reagan was so evil for signing FOPA 86.

It gets really frigging old REALLY fast.

Reagan was a proponent of the line-item veto, something the Democratically controlled house denied to him several times. Had he had line item veto power, it's very possible that he could have used it to kill the machine gun provision.

In this sense, legislators have MUCH greater power over the legislative process than does the President.

Legislators can litterally slip crap in at the last minute (that's happening right now with pieces of the failed immigration package) and the President, at least at that time, had one of three options when confronted with a bill, sign it, leave it sit on his desk until it passed into law, or veto it.

The lack of power to address provisions individually, again something denied Reagan by Democrats at the time, gave him a series of options that, no matter which way he turned, weren't all that palatable.

Sign the law or let it pass into law without signature -- You've just screwed machine gun owners!

Veto it --- You've just screwed millions and millions of firearms owners nationwide!



But you know, even if you claim that you're not criticising Reagan, you're still, at EVERY turn, saying that ultimately the whole thing was Reagan's fault. So yeah, you ARE criticizing Reagan for actions of Congress.

Once again, did Reagan go up to the Hill in the dark of night, wrapped in his Darth Emperor's Robe, and appear before Hughes...

"My young apprentice, this you must do for me... Insert into the FOPA 86 legislation package a poison pill that will make whatever course of action I choose the wrong course of action."

"Yes, my master..."

[HankB]

. . . Conservatives (until recently) were all about fiscal responsibility, which is something liberals aren't known for.

Actually, Conservatives still are all about fiscal responsibility . . . I suspect you may be confusing Conservatives with Republicans . . . the two are not synonymous.

[Nitrogen]

. . . Conservatives (until recently) were all about fiscal responsibility, which is something liberals aren't known for.

Actually, Conservatives still are all about fiscal responsibility . . . I suspect you may be confusing Conservatives with Republicans . . . the two are not synonymous.

Fair enough.

[El Tejon]

woody, very true, I was merely answering a question that was posted earlier.

[wooderson]

But you know, even if you claim that you're not criticising Reagan, you're still, at EVERY turn, saying that ultimately the whole thing was Reagan's fault. So yeah, you ARE criticizing Reagan for actions of Congress.

I'm not saying it was 'ultimately his fault' - I'm saying that it was ultimately his decision. All the gun-grabbers in Congress could pass all the bills they wanted - but it didn't mean anything at that point without Reagan's signature.

What I'm claiming is that blame must be shared.

[Jamisjockey]

Where's the proof?  You've got this crappy feel-good story, with no proof that a Liberal did any of the work to make any of that stuff happen.

[Perd Hapley]

I thank "Liberals" every day, because they make me feel like I'm not such a bad guy after all.  I also feel so much more intelligent around them. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

They can write all the article they want mocking those of us who can take care of ourselves, but the fact remains that we really can take care of ourselves without needing the government to do it for us.  Maybe they couldn't get by without Big Brother, but the rest of us can and do. 

You're kidding yourself if you think you get by without government. From the tap water you drink, to the food you eat, the medicines you take, the buildings where you live and work, the roads you drive and on and on, government oversight and regulation have made them possible for you.  You're just suffering from an uncontrollable spasmodic kneejerk reaction to the word 'Liberal', that's all.  You can't help yourself. 

If government were to withdraw from every aspect of our lives except those listed in Article I Section 8, would the sky fall? 

Government touches every part of our lives.  That does not mean that we need government to touch every aspect of our lives.  It doesn't mean that we benefit from government touching every aspect of our lives.

You folks seem to be laboring under the misguided notion that government is the only organization that can do anything.  "Government does XYZ.  Therefore if not for government nobody could do XYZ."  Surely you see the illogic of your position.

Is FedGov the only organization that can be hired to inspect a bottle of shampoo?  Is FedGov the only organization that can inspect the food we eat?  Is FedGov the best possible organization for testing shampoo or food?  Do food and shampoo even need to be inspected for us, or are we adult enough to make up our own minds about what to trust as safe and healthy?

Example:  Every Saturday in Lafayette there's a farmers market.  Every country bumkin and yokel farmer with a garden brings in his produce to sell to the public.  The buyers inspect the food, select what they want, and go home to eat it.  No government regulation or safety checks as far as the eye can see.  I shopped there almost every week this summer, bought about 1/3 of my calories there.  If you believed the premise of that stupid article, I should be dead right now.  My autopsy should list the cause of death as "lack feel-good Liberal policies". 

Ever heard of UL Labs?  These are the guys that inspect electronic products to make sure that they won't burn your house down when you plug them in.  Surprise!  UL is a completely private organization.  They were created 100 years ago, not by government or Liberals, but by regular folks trying to fill a market demand.  They do a remarkably good job.  That's one of the few areas that Big Brother hasn't fubar'd (yet).  Everything could be tested this way, and tested better I'd wager, if not for the fact that government enforces a government monopoly on testing everything else.

Need I go on? 

Should I remark that with the notable exceptions of New York City and Chicago, mass transit is generally useless and unused, and would be bankrupt except for the on-going theft we call "taxes"?  The truth is that most Americans don't want to use mass transit, so they don't.  Yet they're still forced to pay for mass transit. 

Should I point out that the private sector has fulfilled virtually everyone's transportation needs, from affordable cars to (profitable and self-sustaining, unlike mass transit) taxi services?

Should I remind you that the vast majority of the American population is gainfully employed and NOT a member of a union?  Believe it or not, most of us manage to accomplish both of these feats at the same time! 

Should I mention that the FDA's onerous inspection of medical treatments significantly limits the treatment options available to us?  Do I need to explain that you and your doctor should be the ones to decide what treatment is best for you, not some ninny bureaucrat in Washington?

Eh, that's enough.

[Euclidean]

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

The water would be clean anyway because consumers don't buy contaminated water.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

The medications aren't necessarily safe per se, they're just his doctor's best plan for controlling what ails Joe.  Also, people do not buy unsafe medications.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

More like Joe's union charges him $70 a month to negotiate on his behalf, purposefully drawing arguments out and making mountains out of mole hills in order to keep its members in line and keep the dues coming in, because the union, just like Joe's employer, is a company whose only purpose is to make money.

If Joe wants a medical plan with his employer he should find a better employer by becoming more competitive in the marketplace.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. 

Which would have self regulated anyway because consumers would demand non tainted meat. 

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

The bottle would be labeled anyway because someone would file a class action lawsuit against the shampoo maker.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

No it's clean because technology improved, and consumers demand cleaner burning fuels and facilities.

He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

In other words, it's okay for Joe to benefit from taking someone else's money by force.  Also, if a mass transport system is such a good idea, it would have come about on its own anyway.

Joe begins his workday. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.

Yeah right!  Joe works for Big Box Mart making $8 an hour with minimal benefits, and he's grateful for it.

Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

No, Joe's employer ups the standards because it's what the employer has to do to keep Joe from working at the Bigger Box Mart across the street.  As tough as Joe has it at Big Box Mart, it'd be even worse if it weren't for the competition between employers for his skills.  Of course Joe would be much better off if he wasn't shelling out his hard earned money to pay other people's bills against his will.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Yes, the public's distrust of the banking industry had nothing to do with banks changing the way they do business.  Nope, it was all some liberal on a white horse riding in and saving the day.  People love to support corrupt and unethical businesses, we need a good old liberal to tell them what to do.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

And more like Joe would just have similar programs from private institutions otherwise as lenders competed for his business.  In fact, Joe would probably be better off because people would be a bit more inclined to support scholarship if they weren't paying for all these government programs.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards.

And consumer demand had NOTHING to do with it.  People would actually purposefully buy the most unsafe cars in existence if not for the liberals telling them what to do.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

Funny thing about ignored rural markets...  there's a little company called Walmart you might have heard of that got its start by addressing a market no one else wanted to sell to.

Of course they're not very successful so obviously catering to rural markets other people are ignoring would never happen if some liberal didn't make it happen.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

And he lives miserably on a tiny fixed income because his benefits are at the mercy of politicians and a bloated, incompetent bureaucracy.  Had his father been given the chance to put that same money in an account with Janus or Merrill Lynch or even his local bank, he'd be doing better.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

That's because every "protection" comes at the price of unethically taking money from people by force and channeling it into the most inefficient vehicle possible for delivery of the intended service.