[Vision2020] Social Security Time Lime

Thu Feb 10 08:39:28 PST 2005

David Budge addresses the problem of a group being painted with a broad 
brush, in his case libertarians.  There are a lot of self employed painters 
across the spectrum presuming to know what color to paint the "other side".  
As a left of center type, I'd like to address some issues regarding some 
perceptions of liberals, or as some would call us, Moscow's Leftists.  
Presumably, we're all supposed to be terribly upset that elections in Iraq 
apparently went well. Not at all.  I don't know a single person who wanted 
the elections to fail.  Obviously, only time will tell how ultimately 
successful they were.  Presumably, we show great hypocrisy in opposing the 
appointments of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and Alberto Gonzales 
as Attorney General.  Not to mention the possible elevation of Clarence 
Thomas as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Why?  I reserve the right to 
approve or disapprove such appointments regardless of race or gender.  
Presumably, if one is a liberal, or "Leftist", one loves everything about 
Michael Moore.  Nope.  Presumably, if one is a liberal, or "Leftist", one 
approves of wingnut Ward Churchill's statements regarding the victims of 
9/11.  Again, nope.  No one on the left, or right, or middle marches in 
lockstep, do they?  Now, if I may, another movie rental recommendation for 
the weekend.  "Shaun of the Dead".  I double-dog dare you to not like this 
movie.                                                                       

                                                     Carl Westberg Jr.

>From: "David M. Budge" <dave at davebudge.com>
>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold at hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Social Security Time Lime
>Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:30:32 +0000
>
>Donovan,
>
>You put up a good argument filled with reasoning of conventional wisdom.  
>Conventional wisdom, however, has inherent flaws, of which I will address 
>one at a time.
>
>First, let's begin with the personal.  I am not abjectly against the 
>redistribution of wealth.  Having said that, perhaps my innocent daughter 
>was reflecting my general disdain for government.  I can assure you, 
>however, that I do not talk about political philosophy with her as eight 
>year-olds tend to care less about politics, the tax structure, and the 
>balance between efficiency and equity.  But we'll get to that later.  I was 
>so struck by her comments because of their naive innocence, not because I 
>was a proud "indoctrinater" of a malleable mind.  Directionally, however, I 
>agree with her broader notion.
>
>Secondly, one must be cautious in confusing Libertarians with libertarians, 
>as one can be catholic in  faith while being a Protestant, if you get my 
>drift.  I am a small "l" libertarian, and I reject the radicalism of the 
>Libertarian party on pragmatic grounds.  The party attracts more anarchists 
>than it does libertarians and political parties are not ideologically pure. 
>Let's take an example:
>
>Libertarian Party members would suggest that property rights are supreme 
>over community interests.  You are correct in that assumption.  But, the 
>notable godfathers of libertarian economics, Ludwig Von Misses, Freidreich 
>Hayek, and Milton Freidman all acknowledge the existance of "pubic goods" 
>such as air, water, defense, roads etc. Accordingly, in the extreme, a 
>Libertarian would say "this is my land and I'll construct a nuclear reactor 
>on it if I choose" while a libertarian ideologue would "Hell you are, that 
>will potentially infringe upon my liberty."  Accordingly, libertarians can 
>take strong environmental stands without violating the tenets of 
>libertarianism.  Ownership is important, but it does not usurp anyone's 
>liberty.
>
>So now that we have a bit of context, let me address your (with all due 
>respect) somewhat screedy diatribe.
>
>You said: "First, they assume that everything is somebody's stuff (money or 
>wealth) regardless of how they got it. "
>
>Not so, we've already addressed the issue of "public goods."  Also, 
>libertarians would impose the full burden of remedy on anyone who would 
>cause damage to such goods.  If you ruin my community's water, you must 
>remedy it. Obviously, there is debate on the definition of "damage" and the 
>ensuing disputes need to be addressed in the "common law" constructs of 
>society, also a libertarian tenet. Additonally, if wealth is gained through 
>means that infringe on anyone's liberties, such as theft or fraud, 
>libertarians would demand justice both in the form of compensation as well 
>as punishment.  Ergo, libertarians are not economic anarchists and well 
>understand the need for government and the rule of law.
>
>Addressing your concern on the exploitation of workers.  Indeed there have 
>been abuses, but capitalism portends the better trade-off between equity 
>and efficiency than do engineered economies.  I trust, by your writing, 
>that you have studied Trotsky and Marx but I would recommend (if for 
>nothing else to give you grounds to argue your point better) reading "The 
>Road To Serfdom" by Hayek if you have not.   I'm not insisting that 
>capitalism is a panacea and, although I can empirically prove that 
>socialism fails, it defies logic to say: if socialism is wrong capitalism 
>is right.  The failure of test A has no bering on the outcome of test B. 
>There may be a third way but I have yet to find it. Yet, we can argue 
>shades of gray all day long and we'll end up at the starting point I'm 
>afraid. The extent of socialism in our society will remain debatable 
>through time.  I would suggest that, regarding the redistribution of 
>wealth, we do find cause for supporting those who cannot support themselves 
>such as the infirm and the insane.  It may be construed that certain people 
>qualify as "public goods" (if that's not too coarse) and thus need 
>appropriate husbandry.  I have a related post on my blog at 
>http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=137 to prove that I'm not a heartless 
>ratbastard capitalist. I invite you to both read it and comment on it if 
>you care to.
>
>Next you say: "...most taxes go to benefit the rich, not the poor or those 
>that don't have wealth."
>Your logic falls flat.  The rich and the middle class (or as W would say - 
>the ownership society) pay almost all of the taxes.  One can argue then 
>that the level of benefit from government services is somewhat egalitarian. 
>  If you use more, you pay more.  This, however, is a red herring too in 
>many ways.  The social safety net in our current system benefits the the 
>middle class much more than the rich.  Fully one third of the federal 
>budget goes to non-descretionary entitlements though Social Security, 
>Medicare, Medicaid, and federal pensions.  The recipient's of these 
>programs are the 13% of population  over age 65.  Those who are poor,  
>about 11% of seniors, constitute 1% of the total population.  Seniors' 
>households own fully 60'% of the national wealth. Our scheme of 
>redistribution places the burden on citizens owning 40% of the wealth 
>transferring assets to those owning 60% of the wealth.  It's mind boggling 
>and defies both core objectives of libertarians and progressives. If the 
>objective is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, we're doing 
>a damn poor job of it. In this inefficiency I have to agree with my 
>daughter; that's stealing.
>
>Next you say: "Libertarians forget that the purpose of a society is to 
>exist, grow, and have the highest quality of life possible for as many 
>people as possible in the society." I direct you back to Hayek and also 
>Friedman's "Economics and Freedom" and tell me if you still hold this 
>belief.  Society benefits in the absence of intrusive government - all of 
>us.  But that is not to say that government has no role and this is a poor 
>venue to argue economic theory.
>
>An issue you didn't bring up, and I'm surprised as the topic is usually a 
>hot button for progressives, is corporate welfare.  The current rantings in 
>libertarian think tanks, like the Cato Institution and the libertarian 
>uber-publication Reason Magazine (http://www/reason.com), spend almost as 
>much time criticizing the federal government for corporate welfare as they 
>do arguing about the deleterious effects of over-regulation.  You may find 
>it interesting in that respect.  You will also find that the vast majority 
>of libertarians are against the war in Iraq, pro gay marriage, against the 
>wasteful war on drugs, against the patriot act and ardent defenders of gun 
>rights.   I have many nuanced differences with pure libertarian ideologues, 
>but I agree more with libertarians than I do with either republicans, 
>democrats, or progressives (note the lack of capitalization.)
>
>Lastly, I love a good argument, but I find when the starting point is a 
>broad brush stereotype I become verbose and often times strident.  I have 
>accomplished the former here.  This, however, came about by your unabashed 
>willingness to pigeonhole me and other libertarians into a stereotype that 
>is wrong both factually and perceptibly.
>
>I like the discussion and encourage more. I promise to keep the hyperbole 
>to a minimum.
>
>A  relevant quotes to close:
>
>"Man's fatal flaw is taking what he thinks to be correct as the truth." - 
>anonymous
>
>
>Dave Budge
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net   
>                              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯