Barney Frank's Inconsistencies

[mbburch]

I thought Frank's opening comments at the Financial Services committee were excellent, and he made a lot of good points about individual liberty.

Why doesn't he think these same principles apply to other issues? For the last 26 years he's supported the ever-increasing role of the Federal government (higher taxes, more spending, and counter-productive interference with the free market.)

But all the sudden the issue of Internet gambling comes up and he's quoting J.S. Mill?

I applaud his efforts on this particular issue, but his stance on a plethora of other matters undermines his so-called "libertarian leanings."

Can anyone shed some light on his logical inconsistencies?

[Zele]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone shed some light on his logical inconsistencies?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a politician.

[dorethawsp]

He believes the government should stay out of people's personal lives. However, he believes the government should work to control the excesses of capitalism. He's a social libertarian and an economic liberal.

[Richas]

J S Mill entered parliament on a mission to increase taxes by the way.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/fillebrown_mill.html

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose that there is a kind of income [rent] which constantly tends to increase, without any exertion or sacrifice on the part of the owners: those owners constituting a class in the community, whom the natural course of things progressively enriches, consistently with complete passiveness on their own part. In such a case it would be no violation of the principles on which private property is grounded, if the state should appropriate this increase of wealth, or part of it, as it arises. This would not properly be taking anything from anybody; it would merely be applying an accession of wealth, created by circumstances, to the benefit of society, instead of allowing it to become an unearned appendage to the riches of a particular class.


[/ QUOTE ]

[gurgeh]

Maybe if you can explain the fallacious nature of conservative criticism you'll have your answer. For years it's been a bleating of "bigger government" and "higher taxes" without questioning how much the government spends to support big business, without regard to what any policies hope to achieve, and without (just like in this case) being able to cite any specific examples of why an initiative would be better off changed or terminated. The result of that has been that many otherwise good-natured and possibly even intelligent people allowed themselves to accept a bunch of sacred cows based on fear of taxes, the federalis, the possibility that the British might invade again, and now terrorism. No need to actually examine anything, just put our heads down and sagely complain about big government and taxes.

If you want to finally bring up an issue of substance concerning Barney Frank's past performance, feel free to do so. Otherwise you've already proven my point.

[bekman]

gurgeh,

Well said, without the aggressive move in the last two lines. Coming from an ex-Republican, I cannot agree with you more in the way that the conservatives have let me down since the fall of Newt Gingrich in 1998 and the burying of the Contract with America. You may not be a conservative yourself, but we have the same feelings about the "shepherds" who have led us passive sheep over the cliff.

[WhiteWolf]

This thread belongs in the Politics forum.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Easy answer. He's a Democrat, not a Libertarian.

[mbburch]

Relax buddy, I was not trying to start a huge left/right debate.

It's great to have powerful guy like Frank behind this effort; my point it that it would be nice to have more pols like Ron Paul on our side of the UIGEA issue, who are much more consistent in their support of limited government, than a guy like Frank who seems to be very selective in terms of when the govt should stay out of people's lives.

When I say "big government" I am referring mostly to entitlement programs, corporate/agricultural subsidies, and pretty much all spending that is not authorized by the Constitution. Many Republicans are just as guilty so I'm not saying it's a partisal issue.

All those wonderful programs would be fine if no one had to pay for them. Of course they "hope" to achieve good things, but when Uncle Sam is spending $3 trillion a year (25% of GDP?) that represents a serious encroachment on individual freedom that is rarely acknowledged (even by many good-natured and intelligent people.)

If you want to spend your own money on that stuff, feel free, but taking someone else's money at gunpoint (taxes) is where I have the problem.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread belongs in the Politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "big government" I am referring mostly to entitlement programs, corporate/agricultural subsidies, and pretty much all spending that is not authorized by the Constitution. Most Republicans are more guilty so I'm not saying it's a partisan issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a "limited government" conservative. The spendholic, big government, wanna-be controllers of personal lives in Congress who call themselves Republicans these days bear no resemblance to Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
my point it that it would be nice to have more pols like Ron Paul on our side of the UIGEA issue, who are much more consistent in their support of limited government, than a guy like Frank who seems to be very selective in terms of when the govt should stay out of people's lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with this point. Since the overwhelming majority of American voters think that libertarianism lies somewhere between stupid and crazy, it would definitely hurt our cause to be strictly identified with such a movement. The typical American can probably mention several "big government" programs that they like (student loans) and several "personal choices" that they are glad are illegal (heroin).

Just to be clear, I'm not making any judgments about libertarianism myself here. My point is that the philosophy of libertarianism is so galling to almost everyone that it would hurt our cause if the only people supporting us believed in that philosophy.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the overwhelming majority of American voters think that libertarianism lies somewhere between stupid and crazy

[/ QUOTE ]

Data please.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the overwhelming majority of American voters think that libertarianism lies somewhere between stupid and crazy

[/ QUOTE ]

Data please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you asking because you don't believe it or asking because you don't want to believe it?

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the overwhelming majority of American voters think that libertarianism lies somewhere between stupid and crazy

[/ QUOTE ]

Data please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if there is any specific data. But if you asking most people they don't want government to be super involved in their lives.

[Truthiness24]

A recent poll (I think by Pew, I'd have to check) showed that 11% of Americans identified as libertarian. This was computed by asking people what they thought about issues, not by asking about affiliation.

I believe that the data was skewed because if your answers suggested that you identified as "only" fiscally libertarian you were labelled conservative but if you identified as "only" socially libertarian you were "liberal."

But eleven percent! No wonder one side cuts at our wallets and the other cuts at our liberties.

[gurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
Relax buddy, I was not trying to start a huge left/right debate.

It's great to have powerful guy like Frank behind this effort; my point it that it would be nice to have more pols like Ron Paul on our side of the UIGEA issue, who are much more consistent in their support of limited government, than a guy like Frank who seems to be very selective in terms of when the govt should stay out of people's lives.

When I say "big government" I am referring mostly to entitlement programs, corporate/agricultural subsidies, and pretty much all spending that is not authorized by the Constitution. Many Republicans are just as guilty so I'm not saying it's a partisal issue.

All those wonderful programs would be fine if no one had to pay for them. Of course they "hope" to achieve good things, but when Uncle Sam is spending $3 trillion a year (25% of GDP?) that represents a serious encroachment on individual freedom that is rarely acknowledged (even by many good-natured and intelligent people.)

If you want to spend your own money on that stuff, feel free, but taking someone else's money at gunpoint (taxes) is where I have the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxation isn't handed down like an emperor's command. If there's a need or want for spending, it is proposed, considered (supposedly), and voted on by people who we the encroached upon citizenry approved of at one point or another. Taking away taxation in part or in full might sound like extra freedom, but it really isn't; it would simply be an approval of the haves to further flourish and the have-nots to keep failing. There is room for abuse either way, but in the latter case it is guaranteed.

I humbly suggest that Barney Frank is not the least bit inconsistent in this regard. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's contradicting himself, and the distinction he makes between public welfare and private freedom, in my opinion, could not be clearer. I think you should listen to the hearing again where Frank says something like "I spend all my time protecting children from adults, adults from other adults who would do them harm, and everyone from organizations that would abuse the environment we share. I have no energy left to protect adults from themselves" (not an exact quotation, I'm doing this from memory and I don't recall when during the meeting he said this).

He is for the government taking appropriate steps to protect and maintain the health (social, physical, educational, etc.) of its citizenry, and against the government butting in under this as a false pretense. You may disagree with what is best policy for that citizenry, but that doesn't make Frank any less consistent himself.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the overwhelming majority of American voters think that libertarianism lies somewhere between stupid and crazy

[/ QUOTE ]

Data please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you asking because you don't believe it or asking because you don't want to believe it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe the "overwhelming" majority of Americans believe small-l libertarianism is crazy. Many Americans want less government in their lives. I don't know if the "many" I referenced form a majority or not, but I tend to think there are enough of us to prevent those favoring big government from having an "overwhelming" majority. Of course, I don't have data either. I was just curious on what basis the original statement was made.

[Skallagrim]

While my personal makeup is strongly classically libertarian, even I have to agree that the modern age requires more government than was needed a century ago. The poster who referenced folks liking some gov programs (like stuident aid and social security to name 2) and supporting some restraint on personal freedom (no one wants heroin "bars") is correct.

But limiting government as much as possible is still a strong american sentiment and a good one.

My hope is that someday a real synthesis of these 2 positions will come out: a party that realizes there is a role for good efective government, but that that role should be limited to structuring the rules of the game(s) without telling people how to play the game.

Such a synthesis, if it ever develops, would easily command the loyalties of the vast majority of americans.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
But limiting government as much as possible is still a strong american sentiment and a good one.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this belongs in the Politics forum, but I don't think this is fact anymore. If you go to RealPolitics.com, you'll find an article about the results of opinion polls that suggest US citizens are liberal and for big government on the economic issues.

[Leavenfish]

I like Barney...but has he ever proposed any legislation of any importance that ever passed?

---Leavenfish

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Relax buddy, I was not trying to start a huge left/right debate.

It's great to have powerful guy like Frank behind this effort; my point it that it would be nice to have more pols like Ron Paul on our side of the UIGEA issue, who are much more consistent in their support of limited government, than a guy like Frank who seems to be very selective in terms of when the govt should stay out of people's lives.

When I say "big government" I am referring mostly to entitlement programs, corporate/agricultural subsidies, and pretty much all spending that is not authorized by the Constitution. Many Republicans are just as guilty so I'm not saying it's a partisal issue.

All those wonderful programs would be fine if no one had to pay for them. Of course they "hope" to achieve good things, but when Uncle Sam is spending $3 trillion a year (25% of GDP?) that represents a serious encroachment on individual freedom that is rarely acknowledged (even by many good-natured and intelligent people.)

If you want to spend your own money on that stuff, feel free, but taking someone else's money at gunpoint (taxes) is where I have the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You would rather have Ron Paul as the torchbearer than Barney Frank? So you are saying you would like the chances of success to decrease from "unlikely" to "snowball in hell?"

No one in Congress takes Ron Paul seriously. And that the forum.

I hate Barry Bonds. But if I needed a home run hit, I hand him the bat and say, "go get 'em, slugger." Ron Paul is sure to strike out; Let Frank have the bat for goodness sake even if he has a "D" (gasp!) after his name. Criticism of Frank's efforts, because you see some inconsistency in his worldview, is counterproductive.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread belongs in the Politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]