Like two shits in the night

Whoa there Paul. Like I said before, attacking 'motives' isn't fruitful here. (In response to your statement 'I don't think you want to understand'.)

Actually, that's a deep issue. Why the hell do people argue? When has anyone ever radically reversed their position on a major issue, after intellectual debate? I don't think it really happens. Mostly what we do here on Table Talk is just yell to make ourselves heard.

It's not just us. I've seen it all my life, and I'd guess you guys have too. See it all the time in science. People take positions, and then do experiments to support their positions. Scientific revolutions don't occur after someone does a great experiment- they occur when the old guard dies, and the younger crowd is able to champion the new great experiments unopposed.

...

Pell Grants are for education. Not sure about Pells, but with most educational grants, you get more money the longer you've successfully stayed in school. This is what I mean by 'merit-based' funding, and it's short-term funding for a particular purpose: education, so that people can support themselves long-term.

This is exactly the kind of program I fully support, and I wish there were more 'free money' programs like it.

This is very different from Friedman's 'give everyone $24000 every year' program obviously, though, so let's stay on topic.

Likewise, I'm not really sure how the Marshall Plan is analogous. The Marshall Plan also was a short-term boost to reconstruct war-torn Europe. I support giving money to Iraq now for the same reasons.

These are SHORT-TERM programs with specific funding targets.

...

What we're talking about is the government giving LONG-TERM support with its eyes shut. That's the core of Friedman's plan as it is on our Table. From what little I've read, it seems that Friedman in particular really just wanted a simplified welfare system- he rejected his 'free money' proposal when it went to congress as it was tacked on to the existing system. That's an important footnote. Friedman wanted a restructuring of the extant system, not just to give extra money away.

...

In response to your question, Steve, I'm a meritocratic capitalist with progressive leanings. I'm sort of a Horatio Alger bootstrapper in that way: "do it yourself, damn it". But I support state welfare for the sick and disabled and I support nationalistic imperialism. I support Science, and whatever brings money to the science lab. I support free public education through undergraduate levels.

But mainly I think that most issues of policy need to be special-cased. Meaning that I really don't just support the state paying everything for anyone who won't work regardless of the reason. I think that labor unions are a good idea for some endeavors, but I didn't join the union when they asked me. (Because I'm happy and well-paid and have a great relationship with my employer already, so union organization seems like unnecessary bureaucracy that, if anything, might foster a less cooperative relationship.)

...

On that note, I think that whatever sum of money you think every American should get just for being American, it's probably better spent siphoned into the school system.

In short, I mostly agree with Steve. There's a reason why the States are the military and scientific world power. There's a reason why the language of Science is English, and not German (like it used to be) or Russian (like it could have been). There's a reason why the car, the lightbulb, the computer, toilet paper, atomic weapons, and goddamn weblogs were all made right here. (I just checked wikipedia for the toilet paper reference. The others I'm pretty sure about.)