Order of operations and dismantleing the welfare state

[Glock Glockler]

For those of you not familiar with the Poland Spring commercial where the tourists are looking for the place where they bottle the water, they ask an old Mainer if it's close and he replies "Yes, but you can't get there from here". That statement, IMO, sums up the problems we face in wanting to reduce govt in our life, and it seems to be something that no one wants to address.

Many libertarians want to end the 'war on drugs', but how do you do so? It's a lot easier to said than done, as there have been other factors added to the situation that might actually harm our interests if we proceed in a haphazard manner.

For example, suppose we remove all the drug laws tomorrow and any adult can buy anything they want, will we have scores of people then taking full advantage of the socialist welfare and healthcare system? We might rid ourselves of one evil only to create another, or maybe 3 others.

Suppose we ditch govt licensing laws, will medical and dental practicioners be more vulnerable to frivilous lawsuits since they don't have the protection of the state in doing their job? I know of a case where a women wanted the dentist to remove several of her teeth, teeth which he told her were fine and didn't need to be removed, but she insisted that he do it. Doing what the customer wanted, he removed them, and she then sued him and the court sided with her. Apparently, as a professional, he should have known what the proper thing to do was, which was not to remove good teeth, but he did so anyway.

Must of us would agree, if someone wants a perfectly good bodypart removed, and they're a sane adult, they should be able to do so and the doctor or dentist should not be penalized for doing so. If licensing laws are removed, will we have such a glut of lawsuits with our court system as stupid as it is?

You probably know how silly our legal system can be from personal experience, or you can just go to www.stellaawards.com for some entertainment, but it is a problem that nees to be addressed, but how and when?

You all know that if you do not solve an algebraic equation in a certain order (PEMDAS) you will get an incorrect answer. So let loose folks, what are the first steps we need to take in order to successfully take our country back? Is it the legal system, education, welfare, voting laws, etc?

 

[Soap]

what are the first steps we need to take in order to successfully take our country back? Is it the legal system, education, welfare, voting laws, etc?

Meme propogation. Laws/voting/whining in the gunshop/etc. will do NOTHING for this country. It has to start with changing people's attitudes and outlooks.

Find something in a person's life that they value. Then teach them that they wouldn't have that thing if it were not for freedom. Or, teach them that they are doing the thing they value a disservice by not supporting pro-freedom measures. Once you find what people value, attack. The attack can be gentle and subtle, or it can be a full on assault on their perception.

Another thing that works fairly well is just letting people know that gunowners are not a bunch of crazy hilljacks. One important detail is to not throw it in their face at all. If you throw it in their face, you'll come off as a crazy hilljack. I mention that I'm on Purdue's Pistol Team very casually to my associates or aquiantances. This works very well because it is subtle and credible.

So in short:

Step #1- Build credibility/reputation
Step #2- Find what people value/become friends with them
Step #3- Casually slip in a gun or freedom related idea or activity <--- Make sure this is credible and uncomplicated.
Step #4- Use what they value against them to propogate freedom-based memes
Step #5- Take them to the range
Step #6- Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Dan,

What you mentioned is something like a shotgun approach, and it certainly won't hurt, but I'm thinking of something more specific.

Take alcohol prohibition for example: the idiots who wanted everywhere to be dry never had a majority or even a very large portion of the population behind them, but they did weild the resources they had in a very effective manner. They used the sniper approach. Both have their place in trying to instigate change.

The specific thing that I'm looking for is the order in which we dismantle the state: what do we do, how do we do it, and when? Suppose you get a lot of people behind you, great, but what do you do once that is done? Which part of the welfare state goes and in which manner?

Suppose you want to legalize marijuana, it would be prudent to include a clause in that law that would forbid users access to the public healthcare system as well as testing welfare rats for regular use, or maybe we should abolish welfare first?

When do you want to get rid of minimum wage laws, during a good economy or during a bad one? I think you'd have less riots and backlash on your hands if you do it when times are good and when you'd have a labor shortage rather than a surplus.

See what I mean, we need to figure out many specifics before we charge like a sailor on leave to a brothel. What is the least destructive way of accomplishing our goal?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Suppose you want to legalize marijuana, it would be prudent to include a clause in that law that would forbid users access to the public healthcare system as well as testing welfare rats for regular use, or maybe we should abolish welfare first?

I think you'd want to do it piecemeal -- start with legalizing marijuana, and go to the next step.

The problem with the above is that the medical problems associated with marijuana are much lower than those associated with alcohol, or tobacco use. Why kick someone out of the system everyone else is using because they're using a substance that the government has a history of maligning?

 

[Soap]

GG-

Take alcohol prohibition for example: the idiots who wanted everywhere to be dry never had a majority or even a very large portion of the population behind them, but they did weild the resources they had in a very effective manner. They used the sniper approach. Both have their place in trying to instigate change.

Excellent point.

When do you want to get rid of minimum wage laws, during a good economy or during a bad one?

During a bad economy. It is a simple illustration to explain why minimum wage laws lead to unemployment. During a good economy, do-gooders may feel bad for those who are not enjoying the fruits of a good economy. Whereas in a bad economy, you can explain to people that either they can gave a job that pays $4.50/hour or no job at all. But before you dismantle minimum wage, you have to dismantle government cheese. Otherwise, it will be more profitiable to be jobless than to take a skill-less job which pays market wage.

 

[TallPine]

Even if all federal drug laws were immediately abolished, there would still be state drug laws. Which, in a way, is good - because it wouldn't make that big a difference at first (except for getting the feds out of something they had no business in the first place).

Then some states would start looking around and saying, "hey, why are we doing this?" A few would back off their drug laws (which of course is easier to do at the state level - some already have) and other states would see that no great harm resulted - except possibly for high unemployment in the LE profession.


Does anyone realize what a truly whirly-twirly crazy world we live in?

What if ... the Supreme Court had ruled in 1973 that states could not enact/enforce laws against drug use and possession because it would violate the individuals "right to privacy" ...?

 

[Glock Glockler]

Why kick someone out of the system everyone else is using because they're using a substance that the government has a history of maligning?

Because the goal is to dismantle the system, not to build it in a more fair and equitable manner. If we have one more idiot on the public healthcare dole, that's one more idiot who has reason to vote socialist.. I want to cut them off and then cut everyone else off as well.

Whereas in a bad economy, you can explain to people that either they can gave a job that pays $4.50/hour or no job at all.

Dan, that is logical, but think spin for a minute. The economy is bad and those evil capitalists are now able to further exploit the working class by reducing the amount they pay them. The economy is bad so people will be open to scapegoating, and the socialists capitalize (ironic, eh?) on the backlash created as they are elected in waves. Think California after the Hispanics voted the Democrats in after they passed prop. 187.

Ever hear the saying "Recession is the midwife of protectionism"? I think these changes would go over smoother, and with less potential backlash, when times are good.

But before you dismantle minimum wage, you have to dismantle government cheese. Otherwise, it will be more profitiable to be jobless than to take a skill-less job which pays market wage.

Bless you, lad. This is exactly what I'm looking for.