Less Accountabilty= More Steeples

("Passion of The DeLay", About.com)
My commie mother used to say that where government fails, religion inserts itself into the void. Responsive and appropriate government should be the primary goal of ANYONE wishing for AUTONOMY of the mind, body, community... A society can have huge but unresponsive bureaucracies that amount to effectively the same 'unmet needs' scenario, only with a higher price tag for the people. Small but efficient government gives one more 'personal' resources to expend on their own needs, like healthcare. Big government that provides little constitutes a socially oppressive cost-benefit ratio while simultaneously leaving, AGAIN, the void. Indeed, what we have at present offers neither the 'savings' of small government nor the 'quality of life' provisions one would expect from such bloated bureaucracies. And on this, liberals need to be clear if we are to set our identities straight regarding the stereotypes about our 'vision'... because it is one of pluralism and need- responsiveness, it is often hijacked by even our own into a vision of 'confused messages of hippie potheads who want to spend your money on touchy-feely projects'. THIS VIEW MUST BE CHALLENGED...(continued)
I return to my ramblings last week where I attempted to describe my irritation with careless labels, and the confusion that people have about them- and of course my contention that WE are not what OTHERS say we are on the 'left', THAT is a power we give up unnecessarily... I revisit these things because it seems glaringly important that we on the left understand and explore the implications of what we purport to believe, stand for. Argue about. It ain't anarchy and satanism, contrary to the wingnuts that attack 'freedom'.
Those that think their sloppy adherence to 'isms' qualify them to spew bullshit in our general direction need to be challenged. Those who cannot answer questions, but are very good at the How Things Should Be Speech should have their preachiness held up to the light.

That post last week provoked yet another pissing contest- only this time not with the ‘you must hate god because you read the Constitution’ folks. But with a colleague who frequently touts the virtues of his own peculiar brand of Libertarianism. By peculiar, I mean uses government services and lives in a ‘community’ with rules on everything from grass length to house color, hardly the image of a free wheeling individualist... I indulge this armchair pundit on his 'hypotheticals' from time to time, because paradoxical/dichotomous belief systems intrigue me as the product of a commie mother and libertarian father...

I am not new to the debates on individual vs.societal good and the types of exchanges that ensue. My commie mother approached it as an epidemiologist, with her argument for bureaucracy hinged on public health matters. My father began his antics when he decided to defiantly grow pot at our suburban home, believing many of the 'criminals' he treated to be participants of 'victimless crimes'. Who the fuck was the government to tell a woman she can't perform oral for money, anyway? "Who does that hurt?" Would be the discussion of the unrelated drifters that seemed to move in and out of our house. Damned if I knew.
But getting back to this guy, some of his examples of the libertarian world view included letting New Orleans flood victims “suck it up and stop looking to the fucking government” and “Parents should not be forced to use seatbelts, thats an intrusion on parenting”. On the surface, I understand these arguments and how they relate to individualism and self determination, but maintain that such matters were the impetus for expansive government in the first place. I mean, you gotta love those freak-ass libertarians, but while they interact in fine form in the hypotheticals, why is it so hard to get answers to basic questions like “If your platform opposes treatment for those incapable of self determination due to being mentally incapacitated, what happens to the person who does not have a proxy or default designee but who is in need of healthcare services? Do they linger on indefinitely in limbo? Who pays for their care? Not the government, you say. Perhaps the Church? Who?”
Suburban Libertarian says that they just fucking die, is all. On seatbelts?
"Darwin. If you are too stupid to buckle your kids, who needs more stupid fucking people around?" He says, like he expects me to slap him.
Then the matter of the victims of Katrina. “Communities should be in charge of their own rescue, their own relief.” “Who can coordinate such a massive relief effort? Who, in the absence of a responsive government (which is not what we have) would have the resources to pull that off? The local corporation? Again, another vote for the Church. By default. He had no idea on WHO could coordinate large scale relief but had many ideas about how neighbors could band together to feed the shut in elderly with a casserole rotation. When pushed, he answered "Well, Non Profits then". "Many non-profits would be crippled without a governmental funding stream as in cash cow programming" "They could get grants." "Yes, grants from those that dictate how to use the money. Like churches and agenda- thumpers?"
"No, from secular libertarians."
"What are the reveue profiles for them like? And do they tithe?"

There are many who believe we should go back to the 1800's version of charity.
But we know that the mandate of most churches is not an explicit statement of existing to ‘provide for the general welfare, ensure the blessings of liberty, common defense, etc.”
Who DOES have that mandate? Clearly, the fuckups who get our money to uphold it, whether efficient or not, corrupt or not, responsive and participatory or not- one cannot confuse matters of regime ineptitude with the basis for eradicating governmental bureaucracy. One cannot point at the failures of government and presume to remedy them with a Libertarian view. The fact that we permit our individual rights to be stripped is not the architectural flaw of our ‘liberal’ welfare state, but rather the fact that the ‘participatory equation’ is a near absent variable and transparency is not commanded. The law can remedy much of the criticisms, if favored over the perpetuation of an elitist status quo.

This guy claims to oppose all violations of the separation of Church and state. And on this, we agree on principle. I am not anti-religion, I am anti STATE religion. STATE media. STATE propaganda. STATE for its own SAKE.

He believes that the erosion of civil liberties is the result of the coffers of the religious right. Is it not ironic that the minimalist model proposed would effectively nudge more people to the church to fill the gaps by his vision of smaller government? Hence, more coffers, less civil liberties? Power to the pious and all that?
After all, for many years the churches were the providers of relief, and the criticism was made that this places an undue burden on recipients to subscribe to their dogmatic offerings ostensibly ‘in exchange’ for the favor of being viewed as ‘worthy of relief”. Is that what we should return to?
Social welfare was a response, not an invention. It is a fluid idea that shifts, but must not be eradicated. Liberals are protective of this feature because it is the best mechanism for a more open autonomous society.