I read this whole article: <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072402.asp">Let History Come to You</a>. And I'm proud that I managed to make it through without just shaking my head in disgust and closing the window. The tenor of the writing, the fact-checking, the mixing of argument, the heavy use of the straw man all perfectly match the picture of the smirking jackass at the top of the page. But, sometimes, you should read something you think you won't like just to make sure your filters aren't set too high. The basic tenet that the government should do nothing is sound. It would help a lot if the government would just leave well enough alone in most cases. However, that's not a morally tenable philosophy to have if the government has already fucked everything up. If the government has already been steered by special interest groups into doing what they want, we can't just sit back now and say: "see how fucked up it is? That's because the government does too much. You think it should fix problems? No way, government plainly can't do that." The fact that the government had a lot to do with making all the problems in the first place doesn't enter into it at all, for people like the writer of the article above. This is a great article to read to hone your skills at extracting valid argument. Just because he quotes the Simpsons doesn't validate this guy's arguments. Be very careful there. Here's the crux of the argument: <bq>If nobody else will solve your problems for you, you will be far more likely to fix your own problems. This is a naturalistic philosophy in that it embraces the natural order of things. No creature — except for man — takes responsibility for the ecosystem it lives in. Sharks eat as much as they can eat. Birds fly where they want to fly. Bears crap in the woods without so much as a "by your leave" from park rangers. Everybody does what they do and the ecosystem achieves balance because of it.</bq> Did everyone else just shudder too? Nowhere in this statement is there any hint of acknowledgement that humanity has a slightly more ravenous appetite than sharks, or that birds pollute the air slightly less than human craft or that the sheer numbers of humans crap more and create <i>way</i> more garbage than any population of bear ever did. If it's OK for bears to crap in the woods, then it's OK for humanity to do whatever it is capable of, regardless of how destructive or unfair because that's just the natural balance. How do people like this sleep at night? The statement: <iq>If nobody else will solve your problems for you, you will be far more likely to fix your own problems</iq> is also quite loaded. On the face of it, it's true. But the solutions people are likely to come up with are not likely to be tolerated. When that is the case, their solutions are taken away and they're exhorted to "try again" and not ask for handouts. For example, say that you can't get a job because you don't have skills or your skin color is wrong or you can't get skills because you have a bad record already from things you did a kid, then you have to feed yourself, but you have no money, so you either steal food or turn to drugs to forget your problems. Either way, you're going to jail, so the <i>solution</i> you've chosen from the myriad of wonderful choices available to every single person in exactly equal amounts in the land of the free, isn't accepted by those that rule it. To the author of the piece above, all people have exactly the same opportunity and face the same obstacles. In his world, there are no separate classes in America; this is a good attitude for someone who occupies the ruling class to have. The flip way that he can treat massive social issues is truly stunning: <bq>The best way to solve the problem is for the slacker to solve it himself. Indeed, he may solve his larger problem (being a slacker) in the process. This principle holds true with all of life's necessities: prescription drugs, cars, homes, public education, domesticated gnus, whatever.</bq> Again, the first part is good and correct. People should solve their problems themselves. But, and this is a very big "but", for a lot of people there is no solution available because they are not part of the population deemed worthy of solving problems for themselves. Many of them suffer from problems that are not at all their own doing and then the <i>creator</i> of those problems exhorts them to solve them for themselves. Very nice. It's like the bully that takes your lunch money, then makes fun of you when you can't buy milk and tells you you're poor and should get a job. It's a typical reaction. It's far easier to ignore the reasons why an individual or population is down and deride them for not helping themselves. Admitting that the only reason you're not down yourself is because you're standing on their back is not easy.