These things Dean thinks are so great: Medicare, Social Security, etc. They aren't.

We send our money to the government. They take a big chunk of it in administration costs, then give us back what's left over?

Why is this a good thing, again?

Dean complains about the hidden "Bush Tax" caused by deficit spending. He should mention the "Dean Tax" that would be caused by increasing taxes on corporations (which increases the cost of goods.)

Yeah, I'm sort of with you, sort of not with you there Zan. I'd say that in general, American social programs are a failure. However, I've also come to the epiphany that the 100% libertarian system has been tried -- it's called Mexico.

Mexico has virtually no government regulation, virtually no social programs, low taxes, and for most everyone, no government interference in what happens. It is also, by the way, a third world nation.

To the North of us, we have a much more socialist system. Canada spends many times more on the poor, on social programs, on government education than America. Now Canada isn't perfect, but it seems to me the gloom and doom predicted by conservatives for spending on social programs just doesn't exist up there. Or, in Europe. Or Israel. Or virtually any other Westernized nation.

It also seems to me a crime, wholly immoral and unjust, what corporations do. Wal-Mart turns the entrepreneurial system on its head, by forcing America's true venture capitalists, the ones who VENTURE all the capital they have in starting small businesses to throw in the towel and work for below living wages at massive corporations. How is that system any different than China, where only large corporations are allowed to leverage captital and employ workers?

Furthermore, we can't say that throwing money at these social programs won't work, because, it's never been tried. The first generation of social programs in America, FDR's, had to fight for resources against the war effort, when everything from tires to shoes were being rashioned.

The second generation of social reform, LBJ's "Great Society" was sidelined for fighting the Vietnam war (The Iraq of the 1960s). LBJ only got one round of legislation through creating these programs, and they have NEVER, not ONCE been taken seriously ever again.

Don't think throwing money at government institutions can improve things? Do smaller budgets really equate to innovation? Cut the military budget by 80% and let's see how that prediction holds up. Then, get rid of the military because it's a failed institution.

Let me make up a more personal situation that is a pretty good analogue to the social services situation.

A 70 year old woman is having a hard time affording to buy her heart medication. Many people would be glad to give her money to help her out. But she decides this is too chancy and takes too much effort, asking people to give her money.

So she goes to visit Don Mafioso, and asks him to help her out. The Don likes her, so he agrees. He sends out a couple of tough guys to go get her some money. They come to your house and demand 20% of whatever you make. In fact, they go to your employer and tell him that they'd better give your money to the Don first. If you decide you'd rather not pay, these goons rough you up, throw you in a hole in the ground and take away _everything_ you've got.

Does this happen in real life? No. The government stops it.

They don't like competition.

Framed that way, it comes down to this fundamental question: Should the government play the role of Robin Hood?

As I have stated on a few past occassions, I have come to believe there are certain cases, when gross imbalances exist, that the answer should be "yes". If government does not do something to keep the playing field semi-level, history has shown us that such inequities tend to get worse and worse, until it reaches the point where peasants riot in the streets and set fire to the mansions.

I do not deny that there is some unfairness and injustice in our tax system. It is not perfect, and can never be 100% fair. However, I think it is better than the alternative.

The big difference between Don Mafioso and the IRS auditor is that if a sufficient quantity of people deem the IRS (or the entities it funds) to be doing a bad job, "we the people" can bring in new management. Ultimately, that is the only real regulating factor.

I guess I don't see the connection between organized crime and a democratically elected government making a judgement call. All governments must levy taxes, even libertarian ones. Governments levy taxes to promote the general welfair, protect rights and equality of the general public, and defend the nation from invasion.

Now I do see the connection between organized crime and campaign contributions. When Dich Cheney gives a no-bid contract to company, without any public record or accountability, and that's a company he still has very compelling interests in, I might call that corruption. When Exxon Mobile bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H contributes to Bush's campaign and Bush kills the exact enivornmental rules that prevented Exxon Mobile from causing athesma and cancer in urban children, I think that smacks of organized crime. In fact, you might as well call it legalized crime -- things that used to be crimes (dumping excessive amounts of pollution in the public air, for example) are not no longer illegal. In fact, you might say legalizing what these companies do, is indeed, criminal.

But I think likening social programs to organized crime is a bit far fetched, specially in light of all that goes on in Washington. I also think that the government should take on the role of Robin Hood (wasn't Robin Hood a hero populist, fighting against a greedy tyrant? Why is this bad?). The wealth and prosperity that the rich enjoy, I support them in enjoying, but the economy and society that they prospered in was built on a foundation of equality, a strong middle class, and hard work.

The reason the West provides such economic prosperity is its solid middle class. Innovation only happens when a people are free from the bondage of poverty, and we all benefit from a society that takes care of its own. If you don't like that system, move to a more 100% capitalist system, such as Mexico, China, or Guatamala. I think making money is actually easier in a society that values freedom and civil rights -- including the right to health care, shelter, and food. The right to live.

It's wrong because taxes are force. The government is holding a gun to your head, requiring us to pay.

Making the problem worse is that our government doesn't feel representative to anyone I've talked to recently. How much influence do *you* have on your government?

Now, if the majority of American people really support social programs, then cut those programs from the government and give back the money to the people. Let them give it to charity organizations.

Not agreeing to this means to me that you don't trust the people to do the right thing. It means you want to force them against their will to do what *you* want, not them.

I suppose there's a certain amount of weight to the argument that taxes are forced and therefor unjust, but frankly that's so far removed from the status quo or what's worked in the past, that it's outside the scope of the presidential election. Right now we're in a federalist system and I don't see any anti-federalist candidates on the ballot.

Even the libertarian candidate, (I presume) Harry Brown would not completely eliminate there being taxes. Between Bush and Dean, both will tax you -- Bush will force you to pay for the (IMHO) murder of thousands of Iraqis, and Dean will force you to pay for the promotion of the general welfair. But if it boils down to taxes being wrong because they're mandatory, I'm not sure there is a single nation-state that has an optional tax code.

What gives ownership of property, money, or anything else its legitimacy? There are probably certain obvious and basic things that we could all agree upon. For example, anyone's personal effects could easily be classified as "theirs", but go much beyond that, and the obviousness of it starts to become more nebulous.

Is a home owned by someone because they've lived their for a certain period of time? Because they did the work to build it? Or does ownership come about simply because *government* says "this person has a title on this property"? This regardless of who built it, who lives there, or who maintains it. (This edict is backed up through the potential use of force against trespassers if necessary.)

Now, please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying I'm against property ownership. Without a system to organize and specify who has rights to what, we would have chaos. After much reflection on it, I've come to believe that our system is, for the most part, quite fair and reasonable.

Still, it must be remembered that without government's fist to back it up, any money and possessions you own beyond your own personal ability to defend would be meaningless.

When I see people who have worked their entire lives putting their energy and labor into the state-backed corporate machine, and received nothing in return but temporary subsistance wages while others "own" the products of their creation, then yes, I think society does owe them something.

If that means "stealing" a few thousand dollars out of a CEO's bonus package, as well as making the rest of us do without a few luxuries, so be it.

The logical alternative, to abstain from any and all "use of force" by the state, would be to do away with property ownership completely, because there would be nothing to back it up.

I believe a better solution lies somewhere in the middle.

OK, in practice, pure socialism has the problem that it doesn't provide sufficient motivation for people to excel. And in practice, pure capitalism is based on an incomplete picture of the market in which this idealistic market will take care of all the problems. Both have their own problems, so the point is to find some way that we can balance an individual's motivation from desire to acquire wealth with protections against abuses of the system by runaway capitalism which create a perpetually imbalanced system. There is no perfect solution, but I think at this point in my life I'm tending to think that some redistribution of wealth is a good thing, even though I have no desire to be on the recieving end of that redistribution at this point. But as a matter of principle, I think that people who are on the lower income levels can benefit far more from a small increase in income than people who will only use it to buy luxuries. Maybe I'm wrong, I honestly admit that I don't know enough about economics to claim that my theory is correct.

An interesting quote by Richard Feynman in his book "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", in the chapter "Alfred Nobel's Other Mistake" (the first being dynamite, the second being the Nobel prize):

After the dinner we went off into another room, where there were different conversation going on. There was a Princess Somebody of Denmark sitting at a table with a number of people around her, and I saw an empty chair at their table and sat down.

She turned to me and said, "Oh! You're one of the Nobel-Prize-winners. In what field did you do your work?"

"In physics," I said.

"Oh, Well nobody knows anything about that, so I guess we can't talk about it."

"On the contrary," I answered. "It's because sobody knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows anything about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather, we can talk about social problems, we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance--gold transfers we can't talk about, becaus those are understood--so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!"

So I would submit that nobody really knows anything about what's best for the economy, even though everyone thinks they know something.

Which is more important? Health care and livable conditions for the poor and elderly (even if the way it's administered is less than perfect), or an extra luxury yacht for every millionaire CEO in America?

What's better? Education for all children, regardless of parents' income, or an extra SUV in every middle class household?

There are some things that corporations are unable or unwilling to provide because they generate no "profit" in numerical terms, but do improve the quality of life for everyone (even if only indirectly). In such cases, it is prudent to consider whether a democratically elected government should assume such roles.

For example, if tax-funded social programs cut down on crime, alleviating the need for those in poverty to steal in order to survive, you might only see it as an expense on the tax bill, but there is an indirect benefit nonetheless.

I would be willing to pay the "Dean Tax" if it means living in a country with more equitable conditions for all.