1. Laffer Curve. High taxes incentivise high gov't spending. That, and Fiat. Get us back on the Gold Standard, stop spending so much, and the tax rate can fall to a place that is hopefully somewhat justifiable. Though I think we should be less concerned on how to spend other people's money and more concerned about just how willing we are to put up with being enslaved to the State.  
2. The premise is certainly faulty; it implies that at least 50% of State funding is lost to fraud and waste. 50% is a level of corruption that would be far too obvious to be swept under the rug. I'd say the utopian and counterproductive nonsense that is funded is the real place to cut waste. That being said, what's wrong with having a protocol and enforcers in place, that tell us just how inefficiently the State spends your money? So long as it's eliminating any significant waste and fraud, it seems well worth the funding at least to keep up the facade that the State cares where they toss their percieved infinite money bag.  
3. There are too many variables to consider here and I won't go over them. Important to consider is that the amount of potential homicides prevented by the deterrent of a firearm is completely incalculable. But there are several variables that are; for example, Suicides make up more than half of that gun-related death rate, per capita. People who seek lethal means of self-harm (disproportionately men), will choose the most lethal means available to them. So the means don't matter, they'll likely achieve their ends regardless of means. Besides, comparing per-capita *deaths via gun* is not a useful metric. Let's compare two microcosms in the U.S.. Vermont and Mississippi both have \~50-55% gun ownership. If more guns make everyone *less* safe, then the conclusion would be that they both have a high gun homicide rate. The exact opposite is true. Vermont's culture and the consequences thereof (along every level of analysis) seem to have resulted in extremely low homicides, let alone gun homicides, which are \~0.6–0.8 per 100k. By contrast, Mississippi's state of existence has resulted in \~18 per 100k gun homicides. Considering that politics and socioeconomics are downstream of culture, the only rational conclusion is that the culture of Mississippi is not conducive towards a stable society, let alone responsible gun ownership. Though to be fair, the state is better off than most less-developed nations in the world. Overall, there seems to be no correlation between safety and gun ownership in either the positive or negative direction, which stands to reason. The remaining question is: when you are surrounded by those with lethal means, what right does the state have in punishing you for matching such lethality to protect yourself? And, more importantly, how is it morally justifiable for the State to have a monopoly on lethal force?  
4. Again, many factors. Relevant to life expectancy in America is obesity, among other cultural choices and their subsequent consequences, which are tough to correct for. But If you want an accurate example of what universal health care gets you in a mixed economy, look to the NHS in the UK, and Canada's system. The wait times are abysmal, and their pharmaceutical markets produce hardly any of the most essential drugs required by their populace. It's no wonder Canada has been pushing voluntary euthanasia; it's literally more cost-effective than the tax burden it requires to keep a chronically ill or suffering patient alive. This is the reality of healthcare: there are three facets. Universality, Affordability, and Quality. Your political system can only pick two. You can choose Universality, and also Quality, but the tax burden is going to lead to inevitable austerity, and you lose the other two. The balance is tentative, and the only way to keep it is to ditch Universality. What America did was choose Affordability and Quality, and then tried to sneak in Universality. The further that facet is forced, the more the other two wane and wither. The driving force behind this push, and the main factor keeping health costs high, is the utopian sentiment that the moral burden of one's life is the responsibility of the collective, which, in effect, makes one's life, and the triumphs therein, not their own, but that of the collective. What are the consequences? The federal gov't incentivises the States, insurance companies, and hospitals, to weave local networks that monopolize the entire health market. Competition is what drives innovation, which decreases prices. There is no competition in this mixed economy. So the utopians will blame the businessman, pushing the State to bully him into cutting some sort of deal that increases his foothold. Which, in a free market, he would have absolutely no right to. In a free market, if your endeavor fails, it ceases to exist. In a mixed economy, if your endeavor fails, all you have to do is fail less than everybody else, then cut a couple sweetheart deals, nab a couple earmarks, and you can gain a state-incentivised, and often state-funded, monopoly.  
5. Yes, the establishment clause clearly doesn't state that the nation is Christian, *legally speaking,* and yes, the moral foundations and system of law in America transcend the Judeo-Christian ethic. But that doesn't mean that a Judeo-Christian ethic wasn't required in order to forge her. The Protestant influence was so heavy that Jefferson, arguably the most Deist of the founding fathers, held overtly Christian meetings in the Capitol and the White House. They were non-denominational, but they were going off of the most common systems of worship that were present, which were largely Protestant, albeit a little tangled and confused. The letter of the law is objectively defined, but the spirit of the law is inherently Protestant. I say this with very little personal bias; I'm an agnostic Mormon (thx Peterson).

---
reply

Most of the premises you originally listed had a slight grain of truth to them, and I wanted to explore the nuance contained therein, for at least 3, 4, and 5. I didn't outright agree with most of them, but you seem insistant on attempting to force my perspective into your frame of reference on 'conservative dogma' when the bulk of my response was trying to ascertain the truth or falsehood of each claim. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to explore the issues with dogmatic thinking without necessarily attributing it to me directly.

1. Reckless spending doesn't disprove the Laffer Curve, it merely destroys its utility. It doesn't matter if you tax at whatever the theoretical optimal level is, if you spend everything you recieve and more, you blow out the deficit no matter what. It seems we agree on this and the semantics are getting in the way.

2.   
> the conservative dogma is really a dog whistle  
Less buzzwords, please, idk what anyone means anymore with foggy statements like this.

I see what you mean; representatives beholden to their constituents don't cut programs when it would be political suicide to do so. You could interpret it cynically, that everyone is just playing tactical games, deflection & smokescreening, etc. But I don't think it's fair to say that universally, those concerned with fraud and waste aren't genuinely concerned with it. It's more productive to take the activism at face value. Would it be dogmatic to say that I don't want my taxes funding foreign propaganda across the globe via USAID? Sure, we shouldn't overstate the issues, but I reckon the less of that that is allowed, the better. Even if we take the Pathologically Agreeable approach that any problems at the individual level are to be solved by the collective. "Our" money could be better spent here.

I don't necessarily care how much people *want* the government programs. Far be it from me to tell others how to vote, but I'm not particularly pleased that I was born into a contract that I could never have agreed to, that enslaves me (a % per whatever tax bracket I'm in) towards the end of subsidizing collective irresponsibility for my peers. I don't care how much other people want the fruits of my labor to be spent to achieve their goals, a moral society wouldn't allow for that.  
3. Unnecessary deaths are the responsibility of the individuals who caused them. Their moral failures are not mine, nor that of other responsible individuals. If dangerous, irresponsible people decide to demonstrate how little they value life, that is their moral failing and theirs alone. It has nothing to do with the means, and everything to do with the culture(s) that encourage carelessness with those means.

4. The question isn't so much how much is being spent in total, the question is whose money is being spent without consent. Medicare is very efficient at siphoning *my* earnings via the IRS. I don't care if it would cost less overall, because analyzing this on a collective level is morally bankrupt. The system charges the *wrong people* for the transaction. With anything else that is of value, one is expected to pay for themselves. Yet I am impelled that if I don't enjoy being enslaved to help out strangers, then I'm a bad person. It is not within the legitimate purview of gov't to force me to take up the burden of somebody else's life. I'd prefer to pursue my own rational self-interest, a much simpler goal if not for the utopians determined to rob me blind. I could talk about my financial difficulties but it'd be pathetic to portray myself as a victim.

Your point about binary choices is universal to dogma as a category, not just the conservative flavor, just thought I'd point that out. Either way, mixed economies are miserable, and I'd rather we stop pretending the solution to any given problem is to divide the responsibility thereof 50/50 between the gov't and private business. This creates the incestuous, perverse incentive system we know and love.

> making decisions for the good of all

I don't believe in making top-down decisions from the level of analysis of the collective. If you want what's best for everyone, focus on what's best for the individual first, and it'll follow. What's best for the individual is best for everyone. When you try it in reverse, at best, you forget the individual. At worst, you kill him in cold blood.

5. Again, I think you're reading dogma into what I said, because it's the lens by which you're viewing this conversation. I didn't say the U.S. is a Christian nation per se, I'm saying that Christianity's influence on the founding of this country is not to be understated, and that many of the values "universally" held here today were discovered via Christian religious processes. I certainly wasn't being disingenuous about that, even if others are. This ethic is woven into every aspect of American life, whether we recognize it or not. No, it's not a theistic or theocratic gov't, I don't think that's what people mean when they say it's a Christian nation.

I'm enjoying this discourse, hopefully not too much.

---
final reply?

You're correct in your observation; I'm somewhere between a Classical Liberal or Objectivist in a good day, and a Social Darwinist on a bad one. I grew up as somewhat of a Christian Fundamentalist, so I used to be far more conservative. I think consuming Peterson awoke my Openness/Liberalism, but I still have mistakes to make and much to learn. You almost certainly are more seasoned than I so I think I'm gaining something quite worthwhile from exploring your perspective, so thx!

> Without those guardrails, we would have chaos.

You won't hear much disagreement from me or other Petersonian acolytes, lol

> If I decide my value is in my net worth then without those guardrails it would make logical sense to kill all my neighbors and take over their possessions.

Hard disagree; one who acts in their own rational self-interest will quickly realize that conducting themselves this way will bring more enemies to his doorstep than if he had kept to himself. A tyrant on any scale will inevitably face an alliance for his overthrow. In a modern context, the law will have good reason to destroy you. That destroys any and all logic supporting this line of inquiry. The posessions of his dead neighbors will be useless to him when he joins them.

> the real success of the individual relies on the societal structure under which that individual resides.

This much is true, but I would add that the societal structure is generated and revitalized by the collaboration of each individual within it. This is why we need each other; comparative advantage is a fact of life. If I can invent/manufacture the wheel better than anyone else in the village, I should do that, while those who are good at hunting, hunt. So long as each of us is efficient enough at what we do, and we don't demand more than we are owed or gain entitlement complexes, we can trade. Thus, each individual involved benefits.

Within a tribal group, it's fair that those who can afford to, support those who haven't found their profitable talent yet. But this has drastic consequences when the State regards all subject to it as one singular tribe. Within a tribe, charity is seen as a loan you pay back by becoming the best you can be. It is in the individual's best interest to ensure that all those around them live up to their full potential, but it's an investment in the future. If the existential value of the charity is not multiplied, it is withdrawn. In a nation as large and compartmentalized as ours, you cannot guarantee that your charity will cause the recipient thereof to become as great as they can be. I don't have a problem with charity within a localized in-group. I have a problem with *compulsory* charity via social programs that hold none of their recipients to account.

Yes, I'm in a health insurance network, but only because politicians throughout the years have decided that we ought not regard healthcare as we do any other thing of value. I'm fine with paying for services. I'm not okay with paying for services for people outside of my tribe, who do not share my values, who I have no hope of benefitting from in the future, with no way of opting out even if I wanted to, and being told I'm evil for wanting to be done with the entire thing.

Pragmatically speaking, the State has no incentive to provide anything resembling a decent service in anything it does. It has no profit incentive, especially when the economically illiterate political class regards gov't revenues as effectively infinite. It can guarantee a monopoly in any sector it wishes, so long as enough people think it's important. It can then trade with private industry, creating its own perverse incentive structure where it can pick winners and losers in its incestuous game. Only in a mixed economy is a corporation guaranteed profit even if it repeatedly shoots itself and its customers in the foot. If we were to treat it like any other service of value, we would reward good service when recieved, and punish poor service when recieved (or not recieved at all).

If my hospital, insurance, and/or network are bad at their jobs, they keep them forever, because the State willed it. In a free economy, anyone who is bad at their job is quickly out of it, and they must work harder to gain the faith of their clients, or else be outperformed by their competitors. I'm sick of the State incentivising poor business in multiple sectors with my tax dollars. I would much rather take the 18% I earned from my employer and join a subscription with the corporation that gives me the best deal as I and everyone else on the market judge it to be. I would have much more left over to invest in my future. Or to spend it on vices; if a man is not entitled to the sweat of his brow, he is not entitled to his being. This is why I refer to my enslavement as such.

> So why wouldn't I, as an individual, want to chose the one that is better in multiple ways?

I would want to choose the better one. I don't GET the choice, and nobody else does, either. The only reason the State is supposedly the "better deal" is because they have ensured that there is no alternative. Zero competition = zero incentive to improve. I daresay that we have no idea whatsoever just how much better things could be if we could become disillusioned with the Utopian notion that the State is anything but incompetent.

> And as long as I have an option to pay more for better service on top of the basic service provided, I still have the personal choice that you suggest is so important.

No, you don't. If I can pay to watch HBO, but the state forces me to fund PBS, the market is not reflecting consumer choice, it is recognizing the will of those in power. You wouldn't have to pay for the same service twice if the shitty service actually sufficed. Private healthcare wouldn't exist if the State were actually better at creating goods and services. No rationally-self interested creature would choose that. That's why it's not a choice. If I could opt out, I would. Hell, so would everyone else! And then the system would fail, just as it was destined to without a profit incentive, and I wouldn't be forced to shoulder the burdens of the irresponsible.

> IMO individual freedom is only as broad as the societal structure around them.

We see a little more eye to eye on this than you might have thought, but I formulate this differently. I believe individual freedom is absolute, but it's near worthless unless everyone decides to play the same societal game. e.g. some people live off the grid, and they have to labor to provide every single basic necessity for themselves. The upside of this is that your existence is your moral burden, and yours alone. The downside of this is you have nobody to trade with, thus comparative advantage is impossible and all of your existential resources are spread quite thin. Also, if chaos meets you at your doorstep, you may have no assistance in ensuring it does not prevail. So yes, the great father needs the individual and vice versa. But the State as such, requires revitalization via the individual, and it's a lot harder for him to do that when the State has such compassionate reasons to be crushing his shoulders with its burdens.

> And in a perfectly rational world, without emotions, we could rely on the individual to make the right decision each time.

I'm not advocating that the individual is always correct in the way he conducts himself. I'm arguing that there is no moral justification for limiting the freedom of the individual before he has done any harm.

> and that's why we need laws to prevent things from happening

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that laws exist to prevent bad decisions on the behalf of moral actors. It is not within the legitimate purview of gov't to dictate to the people how they ought to live. The State ought only to step in once the consequences of such decisions are brought upon the heads of the peers of the moral actor. i.e. if I have a firearm and I harm nobody with it, the State has no moral justification for taking it away from me, because I am being responsible, or perhaps responsible *enough*. Otherwise, the State could disarm me, or impede on my existence to a degree that is counterproductive to its purview.

> creating an environment for people to think better of doing them.

Better, I'm much more friendly of incentive systems than punitive systems that presume guilt of the individual on statistical evidence from the collective.

> relatively easy access to tools that are designed to kill

Relatively compared to the rest of the world, yes.

> the COST of their poor decision is termination of a life.

I see your point, but I think this borders on allowing your fears to compel you to embrace tyranny. The cost of individual moral failure is great. The cost of collective moral failure is catastrophic. The only way our nation has any hopes of not becoming either a totalitarian or a fractured state within the next 50 years, is if the rights of the people to keep and bear arms remains uninfringed. Your fear that malevolence can consume your children is well-founded. Your assumption that the same malevolence cannot infiltrate the State that proports to protect them, far less so. To attempt to baby-proof reality is a fool's errand. The chaos outside the walls of the city will have tendrils within. The only hope anyone has is being prepared to meet it when it arrives.

> with a gun the likelihood of failure is much lower.

That's why they do it. But determined people still opt for the most efficient method available for achieving their aims. You need not remove their means if their ends are inevitable. It's far easier to disuade them of any reason they may have of pursuing their ends.

> unbridled freedoms is the ultimate utopia

I don't believe in man-made utopias. I believe in imperfection in perpetuity, and a constant cycle of improvement & progression. My assertion is that the Order can only improve if each individual seeks its revitalization. We stray into the arms of an Oedipal state if we allow ourselves to be paralyzed by the chaos we were too spoiled to be exposed to. One must seek for the power, responsibility, and betterment of the self, before assuming the state is motivated to do anything but exploit.

> And to bring it back to data, what our system shows is those "freedoms" actually have significantly higher cost to society.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

When one encounters the moral failing of an individual, one might be inclined to ask, "how could he have become so corrupt?" His own question betrays him. One should far sooner consider this: Why doesn't that sort of failure occur constantly? Any semblance of order should be regarded as it is: a complete and utter miracle. The fact that there can be more deadly weapons than people and there exists even *one singular* primate that is responsible enough not to destroy every living thing in sight with it, is indicative of the relative stability of the state of Order in which this phenomenon occurs.

> And the ideal of a "good guy with a gun" does not play out overall.

Calculate for me the number of violent acts prevented by the threat of a deterrent. Again, the number is incalculable. On a more existential level, would you opt to delegate *all* your physical strength to an authority, if that authority had promised to protect those you love? If the answer is yes, your trust of authority borders on suicidal, or perhaps pathological. Better to be an absolute monster, and to be aware of it, and to wield that with the respect it deserves, than to be weak, harmless, and exploitable. If you are weak, you are only incapable of harm, which doesn't make you good. If you are strong, you are capable of harm, and responsible for every bit of it you create. A man can only be good if he can channel his destructive capacity towards that which ought to be destroyed, but only when allowing it to persist would be a greater sin.

I'm not trying to turn this into a game of absolutes, my intention is to question the axiomatic presuppositions necessary to assume that the State is even capable of being responsible with any monopoly on power it is granted.

Over all, the question is not whether the individual can be universally trusted; the answer is no. The question is whether there is any moral justification in the State refusing to give any individual the chance to be trustworthy. And also, how the hell we came to trust the State at all in the first place.

---
reply thread 2

Uh, I sure hope not? I suspect that's not what you wish, nor what you meant. Direct democracy is mob rule, which has neither check nor balance in considering the rights of the individual. A direct democracy can vote to enslave or execute you at will, with impunity. A democracy with checks and balances has limited ability to do the same.

I also take issue with the premise that there's anything 'amazing' about social safety nets and welfare programs. If you read Sowell, I suspect you would be disabused of these notions. Don't be so sure he *doesn't* disapprove of precisely the 'left' you have surmised as praiseworthy.

---
thread 2 reply again i need to sleep

If there are systems in place that prevent such votes, it is not a direct democracy. That's not a thought exercise, that's categorical. Switzerland is a federal republic with a parliamentary system. Referendums and initiatives do not a direct democracy make, and thank God for that.


I suspect you're willing to ignore the downside largely due to the high levels of social cohesion in your nation, which is a point of praise, to be sure. America's melting pot does not allow for this on a federal level, we're too large and culturally diverse. It's a tradeoff; less shared values = less trust = more chaos, but chaos breeds many flavors of innovation. Bureaucracies and authority aren't scary when you have plenty of reason to believe that the people running them have the exact same values and goals as you. It's entirely possible that doesn't work in America, because we decided to ditch centralization of power and cultural hegemony, in lieu of maximal trade between tight-knit cultures. It's a big part of the reason I'm for localism as our solution; no one culture gets to rule over another. Bureaucracy as a form of ruling, inherently requires a shared ethic. America's ethic is fragmented, especially now. We're still a young nation.

> i see how you guys live

And how is that? Loud? Irreverent? Suicidally self-indulgent? Whatever you've seen of America is merely a sliver; we're at least as culturally diverse and spacious as all of Europe with a fraction of the national history.

But I don't blame you for not wanting to swap. We're certifiably mad over here. Though funnily enough, some of my ancestors decided they'd leave Switzerland for America a century and a half ago. Hey, maybe we're related, lol.

edit: i agree that high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners suck ass. but I don't believe that the State is justified in limiting one's ability to indulge in it, even if it kills them. I'm sorry if that's painfully American...