<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Does Government Have To Do Everything?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/</link>
	<description>Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Right-Wing Links (March 11, 2010)</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82336</link>
		<dc:creator>Right-Wing Links (March 11, 2010)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82336</guid>
		<description>[...] Does Government Have To Do Everything? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Does Government Have To Do Everything? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Wavering</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82331</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Wavering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:44:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82331</guid>
		<description>deleeuw,

That&#039;s exactly the point. If you add up the unfunded mandates for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and all the other health care programs the federal government already operates; then toss Obamacare in top of it: Well; by @ 2025 the country will be nothing more than a health care program with an army. Between interest on the debt, the health care costs of all the programs and defense costs, there&#039;ll be absolutely nothing left to fund anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>deleeuw,</p>
<p>That&#8217;s exactly the point. If you add up the unfunded mandates for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and all the other health care programs the federal government already operates; then toss Obamacare in top of it: Well; by @ 2025 the country will be nothing more than a health care program with an army. Between interest on the debt, the health care costs of all the programs and defense costs, there&#8217;ll be absolutely nothing left to fund anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weds links - Maggie's Farm</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82309</link>
		<dc:creator>Weds links - Maggie's Farm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:16:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82309</guid>
		<description>[...] Government Have To Do Everything?&#160;Darn good [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Government Have To Do Everything?&nbsp;Darn good [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deleeuw</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82307</link>
		<dc:creator>deleeuw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:52:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82307</guid>
		<description>Bill Wavering, your points regarding my paraphrase are actually spot on: A government can PROMISE anything, but not necessarily DO anything. Even with a complete disregard of economic realities, such as printing more money, to pay for goodies, as well as enforcement and bureacracy, after a while society WILL collapse, regardless of totalitarian measures to control.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill Wavering, your points regarding my paraphrase are actually spot on: A government can PROMISE anything, but not necessarily DO anything. Even with a complete disregard of economic realities, such as printing more money, to pay for goodies, as well as enforcement and bureacracy, after a while society WILL collapse, regardless of totalitarian measures to control.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Wavering</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82285</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Wavering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82285</guid>
		<description>Read Mark Steyn&#039;s book &quot;America Alone&quot;, It portends a world wide disaster; and the disaster is the shrinking world population. He begins by posing a question; &quot;Why is most of the world the way it is? The answer is that once infant mortality was pretty much defeated in the UK in the 18th century there wasn&#039;t enough economic activity to keep all the English lads employed, so they set out to make their fortunes in other parts of the world, taking advances in western civilization right along with them.

He postulates that if it had been China or Russia that had beaten infant mortality first then the world would have developed in a decidedly different manner because it would have been flooded with a different type of people from a different civilizational makeup.

So we then look at the present birth rate map and discover that a good many of these western societies are poised to get older than they&#039;ve ever been before because of the demographic imbalance imposed by the facts that people live longer and more people are choosing to have less babies. The countries at the bottom end of the birth rate curve are in a death spiral. Countries like Russia and Japan with decidedly low birth rates are literally depopulating themselves in front of our eyes.

Countries that are barely maintaining birth rates at replacement levels like the US are doing a little better; holding their own. The future, it would seem, would belong to the countries with the highest birth rates. Go ahead and look that one up and the challenge becomes clear. Most of the countries with the highest birth rates also share another more ominous trait; they are mostly decidedly Muslim. Go ahead and turn that around in your mind for awhile. All the countries that have exportable populations also, by coincidence, have an &#039;exportable&#039; decidedly non-assimilating religious philosophy. When a Jew marries a Christian one or the other may convert, or not. If a Christian marries a Muslim, well let&#039;s just say that the chances of that Muslim becoming a Baptist are somewhere between slim and none while the conversion of that Baptist to Islam is almost assured.

As populations get older, and more unable to reproduce on their own, they must import surplus population in order to survive. It usually makes for interesting times when population fluctuations cause the pendulum to drift right or left on the political scale. What happens when a country goes from a decidedly western style social democracy to a majority Shira Law, Islamic type of mentality. We&#039;re fixin&#039; to find out as more and more western european countries import more and more Muslims from other countries. Interesting times indeed</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read Mark Steyn&#8217;s book &#8220;America Alone&#8221;, It portends a world wide disaster; and the disaster is the shrinking world population. He begins by posing a question; &#8220;Why is most of the world the way it is? The answer is that once infant mortality was pretty much defeated in the UK in the 18th century there wasn&#8217;t enough economic activity to keep all the English lads employed, so they set out to make their fortunes in other parts of the world, taking advances in western civilization right along with them.</p>
<p>He postulates that if it had been China or Russia that had beaten infant mortality first then the world would have developed in a decidedly different manner because it would have been flooded with a different type of people from a different civilizational makeup.</p>
<p>So we then look at the present birth rate map and discover that a good many of these western societies are poised to get older than they&#8217;ve ever been before because of the demographic imbalance imposed by the facts that people live longer and more people are choosing to have less babies. The countries at the bottom end of the birth rate curve are in a death spiral. Countries like Russia and Japan with decidedly low birth rates are literally depopulating themselves in front of our eyes.</p>
<p>Countries that are barely maintaining birth rates at replacement levels like the US are doing a little better; holding their own. The future, it would seem, would belong to the countries with the highest birth rates. Go ahead and look that one up and the challenge becomes clear. Most of the countries with the highest birth rates also share another more ominous trait; they are mostly decidedly Muslim. Go ahead and turn that around in your mind for awhile. All the countries that have exportable populations also, by coincidence, have an &#8216;exportable&#8217; decidedly non-assimilating religious philosophy. When a Jew marries a Christian one or the other may convert, or not. If a Christian marries a Muslim, well let&#8217;s just say that the chances of that Muslim becoming a Baptist are somewhere between slim and none while the conversion of that Baptist to Islam is almost assured.</p>
<p>As populations get older, and more unable to reproduce on their own, they must import surplus population in order to survive. It usually makes for interesting times when population fluctuations cause the pendulum to drift right or left on the political scale. What happens when a country goes from a decidedly western style social democracy to a majority Shira Law, Islamic type of mentality. We&#8217;re fixin&#8217; to find out as more and more western european countries import more and more Muslims from other countries. Interesting times indeed</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mickey G</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82283</link>
		<dc:creator>Mickey G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82283</guid>
		<description>While you ponder the need to add population take a step back and recognize that a declining population could be a very good thing leading to a much superior life experience EXCEPT in situations where you have a nanny state running on unfunded Ponzi schemes where the contributions of the current payers is used to pay off those who paid before.  Hmmm sounds almost like social security which would not have been a Ponzi scheme but when it turned into a welfare program paying out a much higher inferred return on investment to those putting in the least in contributions it was almost dead.  The real death knell to social security was the use of funds to provide for general operations of the regular federal budget, of course the lovers of government will say that social security funds were just a loan...hmmm, no sinking fund was set up to pay it off so where will the money come from to pay it off?

Medicare is a similar scheme but with no attempt to pretend that the funds were really set aside.  Why do we send white collar criminals to jail but not white collar criminal politicians?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While you ponder the need to add population take a step back and recognize that a declining population could be a very good thing leading to a much superior life experience EXCEPT in situations where you have a nanny state running on unfunded Ponzi schemes where the contributions of the current payers is used to pay off those who paid before.  Hmmm sounds almost like social security which would not have been a Ponzi scheme but when it turned into a welfare program paying out a much higher inferred return on investment to those putting in the least in contributions it was almost dead.  The real death knell to social security was the use of funds to provide for general operations of the regular federal budget, of course the lovers of government will say that social security funds were just a loan&#8230;hmmm, no sinking fund was set up to pay it off so where will the money come from to pay it off?</p>
<p>Medicare is a similar scheme but with no attempt to pretend that the funds were really set aside.  Why do we send white collar criminals to jail but not white collar criminal politicians?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hvance</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82282</link>
		<dc:creator>hvance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82282</guid>
		<description>Bill Wavering: The entitlement states are either at the tipping point or have already tipped over. I took a look at the map of the world and the replenishing chart that you left a link to. With the exception of Africa and a few countries in southern Asia, the rest of the world is either in decline or at best, a status quo on birth rates. This will cause political unrest and Greece is the point man of this unrest. As for Africa, its birth rate and its ability to feed itself is another huge problem. While the rest of the world is in population decline and is trying to keep the entitlement state afloat, Africa will be at a perpetual state of starvation. The eventual result for the entire world will have to be a cultural change brought about by necessity, not desire. Africa will have to cut population growth and do away with the petty tyrants that impede its very survival. Europe and the Americas will have to go back to work and realize that the only way to have a higher standard of living will have to be through technology and innovation, otherwise we just don&#039;t have the population to slug it out with Asia&#039;s cheap labor. A higher birth rate is mandatory for the aforementioned continents. Asia led by China and their disregard for human life will economically be the big dog on the street. This too will, in time, go the other way when the peasants rise up against their masters. It will be a repeat of the serfs in Europe taking from the kings, the slaves and beat down under class of the Americas rising from poverty and wanting their piece of the pie. History has this habit of repeating itself. It&#039;s sometimes difficult for us to see as it takes centuries for these things to happen and we don&#039;t have the luxury of seeing it happen. In summation, things will pan out in the long run, the short run will be difficult but change will come to all. The absolute answer? Christ.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill Wavering: The entitlement states are either at the tipping point or have already tipped over. I took a look at the map of the world and the replenishing chart that you left a link to. With the exception of Africa and a few countries in southern Asia, the rest of the world is either in decline or at best, a status quo on birth rates. This will cause political unrest and Greece is the point man of this unrest. As for Africa, its birth rate and its ability to feed itself is another huge problem. While the rest of the world is in population decline and is trying to keep the entitlement state afloat, Africa will be at a perpetual state of starvation. The eventual result for the entire world will have to be a cultural change brought about by necessity, not desire. Africa will have to cut population growth and do away with the petty tyrants that impede its very survival. Europe and the Americas will have to go back to work and realize that the only way to have a higher standard of living will have to be through technology and innovation, otherwise we just don&#8217;t have the population to slug it out with Asia&#8217;s cheap labor. A higher birth rate is mandatory for the aforementioned continents. Asia led by China and their disregard for human life will economically be the big dog on the street. This too will, in time, go the other way when the peasants rise up against their masters. It will be a repeat of the serfs in Europe taking from the kings, the slaves and beat down under class of the Americas rising from poverty and wanting their piece of the pie. History has this habit of repeating itself. It&#8217;s sometimes difficult for us to see as it takes centuries for these things to happen and we don&#8217;t have the luxury of seeing it happen. In summation, things will pan out in the long run, the short run will be difficult but change will come to all. The absolute answer? Christ.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Wavering</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82280</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Wavering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82280</guid>
		<description>Deleeuw,

I&#039;ve been pondering your post, and I&#039;m not certain I agree with it. It&#039;s a slightly different take on the original Barry Goldwater quote; “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take everything you have.&quot; isn&#039;t really true. Look at Greece. I think it was Mark Steyn who said; &quot;A government big enough to give you everything you want, apparently isn&#039;t big enough to get anyone to return an entitlement once it is granted.&quot; or words to that effect.

His meaning was that Europe, a long time ago, opted for butter over guns. They offloaded their defense to the US and started loading up the entitlement train for their people. Now the only real functioning economy in the EU is Germany; and all the other EU states are trying to figure out how to offload more of their stuff on Germany. The real issue is that any entitlement state must also be natalist.

You require a large working population in order to pay the taxes required to allow others to retire at 55 with a generous pension and medical entitlement they can enjoy for the next 30 years. Not to mention the 6 weeks of vacation, the 30 hour work weeks, and the other generous benefits that unionized workers have demanded of their employers.

Entitlement states get lazy in other areas as well. For example, take birth rates. Entitlement states tend to be so narcissistic as to deliberately eschew the raising of children. Instead of opting for three or four, they might, and I stress might, opt for one designer baby at age 35. This creates the opposite of what the nation needs. The population shrinks.

Look at this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map.PNG and you have a real issue. The referenced map will tell anyone at a glance that large areas of the world are going to go out of business because of this entitlement mentality. All of Europe, most of Asia, and large portions of North and South America are not breeding at rates sufficient to maintain population. And this will happen sooner than one might expect as the more intelligent realize that they don’t want to be the last worker in a particular country trying to support an entire nursing home with his tax burden and relocate to another area of the planet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deleeuw,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been pondering your post, and I&#8217;m not certain I agree with it. It&#8217;s a slightly different take on the original Barry Goldwater quote; “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take everything you have.&#8221; isn&#8217;t really true. Look at Greece. I think it was Mark Steyn who said; &#8220;A government big enough to give you everything you want, apparently isn&#8217;t big enough to get anyone to return an entitlement once it is granted.&#8221; or words to that effect.</p>
<p>His meaning was that Europe, a long time ago, opted for butter over guns. They offloaded their defense to the US and started loading up the entitlement train for their people. Now the only real functioning economy in the EU is Germany; and all the other EU states are trying to figure out how to offload more of their stuff on Germany. The real issue is that any entitlement state must also be natalist.</p>
<p>You require a large working population in order to pay the taxes required to allow others to retire at 55 with a generous pension and medical entitlement they can enjoy for the next 30 years. Not to mention the 6 weeks of vacation, the 30 hour work weeks, and the other generous benefits that unionized workers have demanded of their employers.</p>
<p>Entitlement states get lazy in other areas as well. For example, take birth rates. Entitlement states tend to be so narcissistic as to deliberately eschew the raising of children. Instead of opting for three or four, they might, and I stress might, opt for one designer baby at age 35. This creates the opposite of what the nation needs. The population shrinks.</p>
<p>Look at this map <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map.PNG" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate_world_map.PNG</a> and you have a real issue. The referenced map will tell anyone at a glance that large areas of the world are going to go out of business because of this entitlement mentality. All of Europe, most of Asia, and large portions of North and South America are not breeding at rates sufficient to maintain population. And this will happen sooner than one might expect as the more intelligent realize that they don’t want to be the last worker in a particular country trying to support an entire nursing home with his tax burden and relocate to another area of the planet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mickey G</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82263</link>
		<dc:creator>Mickey G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82263</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, once the Constitution was treated as a &quot;living document&quot; to avoid the &quot;needlessly difficult&quot; process of amendments (which were designed to make it a living document with the consent of the governed), we have been running on borrowed time.  Federal government intrusion goes far beyond anything the framers would have considered and truly beyond that any sane person would want.  Congress and the Executive routinely ignore the Constitution supported by the complicit Supreme Court.

What do we need?  That is difficult to answer go watch the show/movie Cabaret then multiply what you see by 1,000 or so to get a view of what Germany was like in the 1920s and 1930s.  Then look around you and note we are far beyond the excesses that existed there.  Past the point of no return?

Our Constitution is in danger, excess is the norm, oh poor me politics is rampant, the country is overrun with illegal entrants, hate crimes legislation protects special interest groups, and we are broke.  The give me more folks held their hands out and voted in their messiah subsequently they are finding out he is as unqualified as his opponents claimed.  What to do, what to do?

Is the USA on the brink of another revolution?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, once the Constitution was treated as a &#8220;living document&#8221; to avoid the &#8220;needlessly difficult&#8221; process of amendments (which were designed to make it a living document with the consent of the governed), we have been running on borrowed time.  Federal government intrusion goes far beyond anything the framers would have considered and truly beyond that any sane person would want.  Congress and the Executive routinely ignore the Constitution supported by the complicit Supreme Court.</p>
<p>What do we need?  That is difficult to answer go watch the show/movie Cabaret then multiply what you see by 1,000 or so to get a view of what Germany was like in the 1920s and 1930s.  Then look around you and note we are far beyond the excesses that existed there.  Past the point of no return?</p>
<p>Our Constitution is in danger, excess is the norm, oh poor me politics is rampant, the country is overrun with illegal entrants, hate crimes legislation protects special interest groups, and we are broke.  The give me more folks held their hands out and voted in their messiah subsequently they are finding out he is as unqualified as his opponents claimed.  What to do, what to do?</p>
<p>Is the USA on the brink of another revolution?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deleeuw</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/07/does-government-have-to-do-everything-2/comment-page-1/#comment-82261</link>
		<dc:creator>deleeuw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7544#comment-82261</guid>
		<description>A government that should do everything is a government that can do anything!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A government that should do everything is a government that can do anything!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

