<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
Here, here!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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." <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
1) Nutbag<br>
2) Blatherskite<br>
3) Pompwheeler<br>
4) Asshat<br>
5) Douche Bag<br>
6) Nimrod<br>
7) Numbnut<br>
8) Troll<br>
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.)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I, on the other hand, will attempt to maintain my decorum knowing my
superior ability to always find a way to piss people off.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Dave Budge<br>
<br>
<br>
Carl Westberg wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midBAY18-F29897DFA8CC5FB155ACE03EE760@phx.gbl">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. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">From: "David M. Budge"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dave@davebudge.com"><dave@davebudge.com></a>
<br>
To: Donovan Arnold <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:donovanarnold@hotmail.com"><donovanarnold@hotmail.com></a>
<br>
CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Social Security Time Lime <br>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:30:32 +0000 <br>
<br>
Donovan, <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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: <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
So now that we have a bit of context, let me address your (with all due
respect) somewhat screedy diatribe. <br>
<br>
You said: "First, they assume that everything is somebody's stuff
(money or wealth) regardless of how they got it. " <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=137">http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=137</a>
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. <br>
<br>
Next you say: "...most taxes go to benefit the rich, not the poor or
those that don't have wealth." <br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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 (<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www/reason.com">http://www/reason.com</a>),
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.) <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I like the discussion and encourage more. I promise to keep the
hyperbole to a minimum. <br>
<br>
A relevant quotes to close: <br>
<br>
"Man's fatal flaw is taking what he thinks to be correct as the truth."
- anonymous <br>
<br>
<br>
Dave Budge <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_____________________________________________________ <br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
<br>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>