[Vision2020] Social Security Time Lime

[David M. Budge]

Here, here!

Although I love studying and attempting to wheedle my way through 
various political ideologies, I find stereotypes as unproductive to any 
hearty and worthwhile debate.  In modern vernacular we find many words 
that are used as epithets with little or no understanding of the 
etymology of those words.

The best example is the word "liberal".  In its historical form, 
liberalism is the notion that the government is provided the rights to 
govern only by the governed, ala Locke (English and American 
liberalism.)  A second form is that the majority establishes a 
government which then provides liberties to its citizens ala Hobbes 
(such as French liberalism.)  Generally, however, liberalism was borne 
in the Age of Enlightenment (circa 1600 to 1800) So, although many, if 
not most, of my personal constructs are "conservative" in modern 
nomenclature, I am a traditional liberal of the Jeffersonian ilk. 

Another, and more egregious misuse of a word, is neo-conservative.  
Etymologically speaking, the term "neo-conservative" grew out of a group 
of Trotskyite who became disillusioned with socialist theory.  As Irving 
Crystol puts if "Neo-conservatives are a group of former liberals who 
got beat over the head with reality." (Read Leo Strauss if your 
interested in understanding its origins.) Originally the name was used 
by New York intellectual socialists in the 1940's as a epithet for the 
group that had abandoned utopian idealism for pragmatic realism.  Hence 
"neo-con" - although this group was and is not "conservative" in goals 
of limited government.  George Bush displays a great deal of "neo-con" 
ideology in policies such as No Child Left Behind,  The Medicare Reform 
Bill, and his quest to "liberalize" the middle-east. All of these 
initiatives are contrary to Reagan era conservatism. Disturbingly. the 
term is often used as an anti-Semitic slur against what are perceived as 
"hegemonic Jews."

So, enough with the wrong minded epithets.  I'm quite used to being 
called names, but I would like to make sure that the names are valid.  
So here's a partial list, in no particular order of preference,  of 
epithets you're welcome to use for me.

1) Nutbag
2) Blatherskite
3) Pompwheeler
4) Asshat
5) Douche Bag
6) Nimrod
7) Numbnut
8) Troll
9) and, frankly, (just don't call me Frank) anything else that uses a 
narrow but descriptive brush. (Joan, I need a bit of creative help here 
-  you better take over.)

If you wish to be more formal you may put a "Mr." in front (i.e. Mr. 
Nutbag, Mr. Asshat, etc.)  And while I'm inflicting a screed of 
self-deprecating slurs, don't forget to use colorful adjectives and 
pronouns to add color.  It's always appreciated.

I, on the other hand, will attempt to maintain my decorum knowing my 
superior ability to always find a way to piss people off.

Cheers,

Dave Budge


Carl Westberg wrote:

> 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
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050210/142e229c/attachment-0001.htm