Megan McArdle (October 23, 2007) - From your lips to God's ears

Is "Liberal Rob" a satire? He seems to be such a self-refuting example of liberal sanctimony, that I have to wonder if he's not a libertarian out to discredit liberal ideas. In any case, he's assuming facts not in evidence. Specifically that libertarian philosophy does not serve the interests of society as a whole.

Now Rob is allowed to believe that if he wants, but we're allowed to call that assumption into question. Isn't it more productive to debate that rather than accusing people of being "selfish" or brainwashed" or the like?

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | October 23, 2007 1:44 PM

A good first step would be to make some good investments in the DC foreclosure market...

Posted by Dr. Manhattan | October 23, 2007 1:49 PM

It's always great to hear that there's no other explanation for a logically consistent policy than brainwashing or selfishness.

I typically lean to the charitable explanation that the arguer and I simply disagree about fundamental assumptions or valuations (or that there's a hidden logical flaw, which the arguer is probably not even aware of).

This has the dual advantages of being almost always correct, and not being insulting - even "you're wrong about your most basic assumptions" is not inherently insulting (given human fallibility), whereas "you're brainwashed or lying" can't help but be.

(I'm not going to argue about the policy's correctness or even whether or not it "helps society as a whole", not because I don't believe it, but because that's irrelevant to my point here and because Cheerful's already done it.)

Posted by Sigivald | October 23, 2007 1:55 PM

I also believes sometimes that LR is a parody.

I'd like to see a response from the morally superior left to the fact that public assistance has a dismal record of actually reducing poverty. Very much the opposite, in fact. But if one objects to continuing to fund this suckhole, then they are selfish.

Posted by spongeworthy | October 23, 2007 1:55 PM

Whenever I hear this "give back" rhetoric, I know I'm in the presence of one who doesn't understand liberty.

Posted by Brett | October 23, 2007 1:58 PM

"I'd like to see a response from the morally superior left to the fact that public assistance has a dismal record of actually reducing poverty. Very much the opposite, in fact."

Really? So that's why poverty rates dropped to their lowest levels ever following the war on poverty? Now, I won't even claim that this decline (from levels in the high teens in the late 50s and early 60s, to the low teens in the decades since) was entirely caused by anti-poverty spending. But to claim that public assistance increases poverty, when poverty rates declined substantially? How do you justify that?

Posted by Dan Miller | October 23, 2007 2:09 PM

I'm reluctantly coming to the satire conclusion as well, having been sucked down the rabbit hole. I don't think it's possible to maintain that level of irony with a straight face.

consider this comment

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 2:09 PM

If I may offer an example for LR, the 10th commandment commands us to not covet. Perhaps said libertarian is simply religious enough to live that commandment.

Posted by Half Canadian | October 23, 2007 2:10 PM

Facts please, just the facts, I'm not perfect at keeping emotions always in check, but I at least admit that it's an influence. No problem with LR's arguments before they become too emotional. I understand them and can politely disagree (most of the time, but not always!) with them...unlike with certain other commenters.... At least LR doesn't start off with a Fundamental Attribution Error with each post.

Posted by Michael W | October 23, 2007 2:26 PM

You have got to stop wasting your Sunday mornings with Face the Nation and start watching more infomercials. My punditry earns me up to $2000 a day OR EVEN MORE!

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | October 23, 2007 2:30 PM

At least LR doesn't start off with a Fundamental Attribution Error with each post.

He doesn't? "wannabe pundit millionaires", "there can be no explanation but selfishness"?

OK, some of those aren't at the beginning.

The funny thing is that the people coming back with envy attribution are aping him but he doesn't seem to get it.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 2:32 PM

I am currently earning roughly said five digits right now as a "struggling writer". But previously, and far back as I could lift my own body weight, I've worked manual labor. This included unloading trucks, rubbish removal, electrical transport and maintenance, etc. Now that I have moved up somewhat (and making significantly more than I have ever before) and have moved across the country from working class NJ to Hollywood CA, it comes as no surprise to me that most of my compatriots in the arts who have the same anti-tax attitude as I do come from a similar working class background. We know what it is to work for our money, and thus know that it is not society which is owed "tribute", as it is called in organized crime, for our gains, but our own efforts. In the case of writing, it becomes no different. I suppose certain people who have experienced lives of ease and privilege feel guilt regarding their income, due to the fact that they've never had the experience of really needing to work, thus they feel not only the need to espouse a philosophy of self-abusing charity, but do so without the understanding the working class develops of property earned by labor.

Posted by Peter | October 23, 2007 2:56 PM

Having met too many actual people who believe as Liberal Rob does in my town, I can say that unfortunately his views are not satire. He really believes as he does.

I had some cross-posting with Kate, Megan's NYC friend, about the war on terror a while back. We both came to the conclusion that her set of life experiences and mine were just too far apart to ever persuade the other of the "correctness" of our respective viewpoints. That's just the way it goes.

Some people just never get mugged by reality.

Posted by Rex | October 23, 2007 2:58 PM

This is comically petty. Reminds me of an Ann Althouse post.

Posted by brad | October 23, 2007 3:04 PM

Dan:

But to claim that public assistance increases poverty, when poverty rates declined substantially? How do you justify that?

Well, I mangled the whole post in my haste.

The initial gains in the 60's have not continued. Meanwhile, dependency has increased, so the underlying reasons for poverty haven't changed. Simply handing people money and patting ourselves on the back for our generosity means only that our transfers alone elevated people (mostly elderly and some children) out of poverty. That's not a success.

My prior post reads (sort of) like I believe the percentage of people living under the poverty line has increased rather than decreased. That isn't the case and I apologize for the confusion.

What is the case, and what I was trying to get across, was that increasing resources to assistance has had no effect on the poverty rate in years.

Posted by spongeworthy | October 23, 2007 3:07 PM

LOL...ok Mindles, yes he started one with the "wannabe pundit millionaires", but, hey, AFAIK Megan DOES want to be a "pundit millionaire".

Nothing wrong with that. She's even volunteered to give up 40%.

Posted by Michael W | October 23, 2007 3:10 PM

having achieved wealth, they do not want to be obligated to give any part of it (or as small a part as possible) back to the society in which they have succeeded

I always love this tack. Who but a really selfish jerk could be against "giving back"? Otherwise you're just take, take, taking! Selfish jerk! That you have to assume that "society," and not, say, your own hard work, is primarily responsible for your success, and that your success itself contributes nothing to "society" in the first place, to argue it is a small price to pay to feel right, I'm sure.

Posted by Matt | October 23, 2007 3:23 PM

I wonder if there is a level of wealth transfer to which it would be "unselfish" to object?

Similarly, must the pettiness of a comment be judged in relation to the pettiness of the post, or can it be petty by some absolute standard? And does dedicating an entire blog to the bumbling detraction of a single pundit rise to the aforementioned levels of pettiness?

Or is it pundit envy.....

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 3:32 PM

I wonder if these same liberals who believe that the rich and successful should give back to the society that enabled them to be come rich and successful would take the same approach to copyright...

Artists of all kinds do not create art in a vacuum... instead, their society enables them to create the art. So they should give back (to the public domain) so that others can benefit from their art...

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 23, 2007 3:32 PM

Evil! Evil on the front page!

My nefarious plans come to fruition at last.

Megan: I didn't even know there was an elite millionaire pundit class, outside of Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, but gosh, how do I join?

Just keep doing what you're doing, you'll get there. You're a shoo-in. You share their values and are an articulate writer.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 3:40 PM

Are all libertarian communities such a mutual admiration society? I mean the comments around here never seem to rise above the level of "Oh that naive liberal! We're so right. Really. What you said was great, Guy-Who-Shares-My-Views-On-All-Things. Can you believe the idiocy? Let's talk about the Fountainhead." I mean I understand it comes from being an embittered minority, but come on. Do you have to be so relentlessly insular?

Posted by Freddie | October 23, 2007 3:46 PM

There are three reasons I come here and now read Andrew S only once/day (maybe):
- Megan allows a lively discussion on her comments and folks like LR make it interesting.
- There's a libertarian sensibility with real-world seasoning on the side in most posts.
- I wanted to read about something in addition to Iraq.

Posted by Michael W | October 23, 2007 3:47 PM

I also believes sometimes that LR is a parody.

There being no possible way for me to convince you otherwise, short of compromising my beliefs, I say go with it.

So, we seem to have gotten past the "first they ignore you" stage and are now well within "then they laugh at you." When it gets to "then they fight you" I suppose I'll be banned. Let me just say, I've enjoyed the discussions (even when they've grated on me).

I do hope Megan gets to be a millionaire pundit. Just remember bike crashes are going to play havoc with appearing on Meet The Press.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 3:48 PM

Rob, I suspect that getting past the "then they laugh at you" stage is going to be a slow business.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | October 23, 2007 3:52 PM

Freddie,

Huh? You really think there is a lack of disagreement around here?
Now about The Fountainhead...

Posted by JasonC | October 23, 2007 3:53 PM

I mean I understand it comes from being an embittered minority, but come on. Do you have to be so relentlessly insular?

Virtually all online communities are like that, Freddie. This one is more open than most. At least the level of discourse is far above that to be found on redstate and freerepublic. Usually :-)

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 3:53 PM

Rob, I suspect that getting past the "then they laugh at you" stage is going to be a slow business.

Neverending, in some cases. Well, villains often have more fun than the heroes...but they don't get the girl, alas.

She's even volunteered to give up 40%.

Top marginal rate is 35%, Michael.

Or is it pundit envy.....

Oh, absolutely. Pacific Green envy. Lincoln Green. Forest Green.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 4:01 PM

The Tom Friedman / Marty Peretz way is easiest. Marry rich!

Posted by Chris | October 23, 2007 4:01 PM

Freddie, there's an element of truth to what you say, but consider what has happened since Megan came here. There was this huge influx of people who cackled and danced on her every typo and accused her of any number of things (discuss the Fountainhead? I must have missed that). One troll, who weighs in above, started a blog called 'fire Megan McArdle'.

Our old site, janegalt.net, had what I considered to be one of the best comment communities on the web. I think many of us are frustrated at what's happened here.

Now for the Tu Quoque part - which blogs don't have insular comment sections? I would argue the problem is far worse at many of the more left-leaning blogs. One of the nice things about libertarian sites is that we generally overlap with both right and left populations and agree on something.

LR came in here and made a blanket generalization that the only explanation for a huge class of beliefs was essentially a personality defect. I cannot think of a better way to provoke a group response than such a fundamental attribution error (again, I'll compare it to Ann Coulter's "Liberals just want to kill babies" comment). The facts that he both requests and ignores all arguments to the contrary and cannot see his own reasoning in the mirror are just the icing on the cake.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 4:05 PM

Don't split hairs with me LR...you forgot to add State and/or City tax (for those lucky NYers). After all if she's a zillionaire, she may want to get a place in Greenwich Village.

Posted by Michael W | October 23, 2007 4:05 PM

ei: "I wonder if these same liberals who believe that the rich and successful should give back to the society that enabled them to be come rich and successful would take the same approach to copyright"

Do you mean that copyright protection should be abolished? Or merely returned to the length it was prior to the lobbying of the Disney Corporation (i.e., life + 50, or something shorter)? If you mean the latter, I'm all for it--and you might consider me one of those "same liberals" (I don't) because I don't believe that the wealth of (most of) the rich in America would have been earned in the absence of the American system, which needs to be funded somehow. Sure, there's a lot of spending, especially at the federal level, that isn't useful and a lot that's wasteful, but that's not the same issue.

Posted by zaleriana | October 23, 2007 4:08 PM

Horribly OT, but since this isn't a very serious thread anyway...

The first time I saw "Mindles H. Dreck" I thought of Blank Reg from Big Time Television (on the Max Headroom TV series). Big Time's slogan was "filling your empty lives with mindless dreck." That was a great show.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 4:08 PM

I think many of us are frustrated at what's happened here.

All Megan has to do is say the word, and I'll never darken your towels again.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 4:11 PM

LR came in here and made a blanket generalization that the only explanation for a huge class of beliefs was essentially a personality defect.

Rather, a philosophical defect. I'm hopeful that reason will prevail and show you why you are misguided.

You say "came in here" like I'm a newbie. I've been here for months. I admit I only found the site from when Sadly, No started ragging on Megan; I had to come over and see what they were laughing about. I stayed to try to participate in the discussions and the "marketplace of ideas" that blogs represent. My intent is illumination, not obfuscation.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 4:31 PM

So illuminate us, LR. If I object to funding the welfare sinkhole because it doesn't get results, that it appears that my money is actually perpetuating a problem rather than getting rid of it, where is the "philosophical defect"?

Stop ducking this one. That's obfuscating.

Posted by spongeworthy | October 23, 2007 4:37 PM

But to claim that public assistance increases poverty, when poverty rates declined substantially? How do you justify that?

The poverty rates had been declining for fifteen years BEFORE the War on Poverty was even declared. It had nothing to do with the declines in the late 60s. That was merely a continuation of the previous trend.

However, that trend stopped and then began to reverse at just about the time the Great Society programs would have been up and running. That's how you justify it. LBJ changed the incentives that low income people faced, and they reacted to those incentives.

Posted by Patrick R. Sullivan | October 23, 2007 4:45 PM

Well, as the first guy to link her when she started at "Live from the WTC" and her co-blogger for many years, forgive me if you seem like a newbie.

There you go again - "misguided". As for reason, this is something with which you have yet to become acquainted. When your arguments go beyond the personal attributes of your discussion partners, and begin to acknowledge others' duly noted points, we will get to reason.

For instance, I have noted in several posts that opposition to social programs can be based on social or religious norms, ranging from not killing other people, to behavior regulation, to drug use to religious opposition to birth control. You never acknowledged these and continue to assert that there are no counterexamples to your generalized selfishness postulate. This isn't just one example, it is, in fact, an enormous class of counter-examples. The essentially utilitarian points others have made about incentives and general wealth have also gone unanswered. And most recently, Graham points out that you completely ignored the argument in the post you responded to. I'll restate it here:

The other argument (the conservative argument?) is that many social programs and entitlement programs don't actually benefit society or even the individuals they purport to help in the long run. Or they hurt more than they help.

On the other hand, the generalization you have made, far from "illuminating", may not be worthy of discussion in the first place. it seeks to de-legitimize all disagreement rather than address it on the merits. Kind of like a religious missionary, you seek to convert people to an ideological rather than factual way of thinking - opposition to social programs is simply selfish. While you insist you are opening debate, your 'reasoning' suggests you actually seek to close it.

But your reaction to the No True Scotsman example is still ROTFLMAO-hysterical. So we sort of love you, don't go.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 4:47 PM

Do you mean that copyright protection should be abolished?

If I may make a feeble attempt at hijacking this thread... yes, _I_ tend to think pretty much that way. Maybe not so much abolished, as not enforced through legislation.

I have nothing against contractual enforcement of the copyright: e.g. let Microsoft proclaim that they will sue for me for running a second copy of Windows I bought from them and do so if I violate the license. Hold on... presumably that's exactly what happens now! :-)

Why should there be anything above and beyond that? To further inflate Hollywood margins? Not on tax money, I say. If they want to make me sign a restrictive agreement as a condition of buying one of their cherished Blu-Ray DVDs -- fine! (I won't of course; and hopefully my business will go to someone with better sense and, with a bit of luck, with better movies). But why should I pay for US Attorneys to spend their valuable time on that?

I realize that the same exact argument can be brought up against the patent legislation. I do not have a strong opinion which way the cost/benefit scale tilts for the traditional patents (machinery and industrial processes). But I see very little public benefit from legislative copyright protection, even from my POV of a [lifetime] software development professional.

Posted by ...Max... | October 23, 2007 4:57 PM

By the way, I propose a new government program that pays former co-bloggers for their time playing whack-a-mole in the comment sections of journalistic blogs. All opposition to this program is clearly selfish, therefore no debate is necessary before including this item in the 2008 budget.

Pleased to illuminate you huddling masses yearning to be altruistic.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 5:01 PM

"Selfishness" is the only explanation for any and all deliberate human behavior. I thought that was old news. (Note: Not a Randroid. Think "von Mises".)

Posted by Noah Yetter | October 23, 2007 5:24 PM

was about to respond "self-interest", but you're right - vM does use the term selfishness.

Under such a socialist mode of production all personal incentives which selfishness provides under capitalism are removed, and a premium is put upon laziness and negligence. Whereas in a capitalist society selfishness incites everyone to the utmost diligence, in a socialist society it makes for inertia and laxity.

But I think he still means enlightened self-interest. And he certainly isn't describing it as a personality or 'philosophical' defect - in fact-

With all the regard due to the sublime self-effacement of saints, we cannot help stating the fact that the world would be in a rather desolate condition if it were peopled exclusively by men not interested in the pursuit of material well-being.

or exclusively by men...

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 5:40 PM

spongy: If I object to funding the welfare sinkhole because it doesn't get results, that it appears that my money is actually perpetuating a problem rather than getting rid of it, where is the "philosophical defect"?

-you haven't proven that welfare doesn't get results. You have simply assumed we all agree that it is a failure. "We" do not.

-you further assume that all money going to welfare is "your money." My money also goes to welfare, and I don't see perpetuating it as a problem. In fact I see it as a benefit. Until you convince me that there is a problem, and I think that's going to be mighty hard, I'm going to continue to demand that "your money" be spent on it.

-you further assume that "your money" is actually still yours even after you pay it to the government in taxes. It is not. At that point it is best described as "our money," to be spent in (notional) accordance with "our" wishes. We elect representatives for this purpose. You may suggest that "our money" not be spent on programs you personally perceive as a "sinkhole," but again you need to convince the rest of us (or enough of us) that your view is the correct one, not merely assert it and expect compliance.

That's three philosophical defects on your part. The fourth is your assumption that because you think society should not exact taxes, the fact that it does so is evil. It is evil to YOU. Not to me.

Stop ducking this one.

Hard to stop what never started.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 5:53 PM

Mindles, thanks for linking to LR's response to the No True Scotsman example. I had given up on that thread and would not have noticed that unintended irony without your helpful signpost. Wow! It was almost worth wading through the rest of the comments just to read that one.

Posted by David Walser | October 23, 2007 5:53 PM

The New Deal policies were directly inspired by those being implemented at the time by Mussolini, Hitler, and the Soviet Union.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it LP!

Posted by Peter | October 23, 2007 6:15 PM

Dreck: Graham points out that you completely ignored the argument in the post you responded to. I'll restate it here:

No need. And I just replied to Graham in that other thread (poorly blockquoted, unfortunately).

On the other hand, the generalization you have made, far from "illuminating", may not be worthy of discussion in the first place. it seeks to de-legitimize all disagreement rather than address it on the merits.

My assertion is that positions such as "many social programs and entitlement programs don't actually benefit society or even the individuals they purport to help in the long run[, o]r they hurt more than they help" are not based on the merits either, but from a priori assumptions about efficacy and efficiency that stem from selfish principles. If you want to deem that "not worthy of discussion" I can't force you. But that's what I believe.

If I am to defend my position I must actually, you know, defend it. I'd be interested to know of any assertion of truth that doesn't try to "de-legitimize all disagreement." Isn't that the point?

But your reaction to the No True Scotsman example is still ROTFLMAO-hysterical.

Hysterical how? Like a clown, I amuse you, I'm here to make you laugh, what?

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 6:18 PM

-you haven't proven that welfare doesn't get results. You have simply assumed we all agree that it is a failure. "We" do not.

This is not a philosophical or moral issue, it's a factual issue. Disagreement does not represent a defect as proving that welfare programs is a failure is not a trivial exercise. Suffice it to say that many believe that you are wrong.

-you further assume that all money going to welfare is "your money."

-you further assume that "your money" is actually still yours even after you pay it to the government in taxes.

Wrong. I understand that money going to entitlement programs is taken from all taxpayers and is doled out by our representatives theoretically in accordance with the wishes of the electorate.

As citizens and taxpayers, though, we have a right and a duty to discuss how tax money is spent. Taking our discussing how tax money should be spent as evidence that we think it's ours is a little perverse.

So, your first "failing" is really a matter of factual disagreement and your second and third "failings" are really just made up by you.

The fourth is your assumption that because you think society should not exact taxes, the fact that it does so is evil.

Um... I don't believe this to be true and I doubt most poeple where belive this to be true. I believe that the government should levy taxes to pay for necessary government services (courts, police, military, etc...). The problem comes when the government takes money for the purposes of wealth redistribution or transfer payments to people who don't necessarily need it...

By my count, you're 0 for 4.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 23, 2007 6:25 PM

would not have noticed that unintended irony

I'm starting to suspect I've missed the punchline. That's what I get for playing it straight.

What'd I miss...

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 6:28 PM

I believe that entitlement programs and welfare programs don't work (when they don't, some do work) because they don't help society as a whole or their supposed beneficiaries. I am interested in the welfare of everyone in society and want to see the government implement policies that make us all better off. How is selfish? By that standard even the most altruistic person is selfish because they feel good when they help other people... so your "selfish" argument is meaningless.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 23, 2007 6:28 PM

Suffice it to say that many believe that you are wrong.

OK, but many believe I am right as well. spongy's assertion was categorical: "welfare is a sinkhole." If it is NOT a sinkhole, then I am justified in supporting funding it with his tax dollars.

I understand that money going to entitlement programs is taken from all taxpayers and is doled out by our representatives theoretically in accordance with the wishes of the electorate.

So tell spongy that.

Taking our discussing how tax money should be spent as evidence that we think it's ours is a little perverse.

Not when spongy says he shouldn't have his taxes go to finance welfare.

So, your first "failing" is really a matter of factual disagreement and your second and third "failings" are really just made up by you.

Only because you are taking them out of context. Do you disagree with spongeworthy's premise that your tax dollars should not be spent on welfare?

The fourth is your assumption that because you think society should not exact taxes, the fact that it does so is evil.
Um... I don't believe this to be true and I doubt most poeple where belive this to be true.

Do I have to go back through the threads and recount every time this statement (or words to that effect) has been made?

--------------
Whenever I hear this "give back" rhetoric, I know I'm in the presence of one who doesn't understand liberty.

Posted by Brett | October 23, 2007 1:58 PM
--------------
I always love this tack. Who but a really selfish jerk could be against "giving back"? Otherwise you're just take, take, taking! Selfish jerk! That you have to assume that "society," and not, say, your own hard work, is primarily responsible for your success, and that your success itself contributes nothing to "society" in the first place, to argue it is a small price to pay to feel right, I'm sure.

Posted by Matt | October 23, 2007 3:23 PM
-------------
I wonder if there is a level of wealth transfer to which it would be "unselfish" to object?

Posted by: "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 3:32 PM
--------------

That's just in this thread alone.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 6:52 PM

EI, I want to focus on your last point:

The problem comes when the government takes money for the purposes of wealth redistribution or transfer payments to people who don't necessarily need it.

I understand that. I don't disagree with that. But when others extend that position by saying "since some people don't necessarily need this transfer, and since I can't trust government to ensure that transfers are made only to those who truly need it, I'm going to oppose ALL such transfers," well Houston we've got a problem.

-I don't trust the private sector to adequately distribute aid to all who are deserving. (Either due to lack of resources or willful denial.)

-You don't trust government to NOT distribute aid to those who AREN'T deserving. (Through outright corruption or bureaucratic snafus and red tape.)

-Nevertheless, a great many people DO deserve aid.

So what do we do?

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 7:05 PM

I am interested in the welfare of everyone in society and want to see the government implement policies that make us all better off. How is selfish?

If that were as far as it went, it wouldn't be selfish. It's a very noble position that I wish everyone shared; I think I've said before that it is the essence of liberalism. But we have to go further. Your previous sentence:

I believe that entitlement programs and welfare programs don't work (...) because they don't help society as a whole or their supposed beneficiaries.

Why do you believe this? When welfare money is doled out, even to someone undeserving, how does that not help society as a whole? Maybe an undeserving person has no need of it, but in terms of society as a whole does the money disappear? The only notional harm I can think of is if by distributing aid to an undeserving person a corresponding deserving person is denied it; but I don't think lack of resources is the primary issue, is it? If welfare money is doled out to an undeserving person, is that person harmed in some way? More to the point, are YOU harmed? Seriously now, how does it hurt you? How much of what you pay in taxes goes to welfare that is directly handed over to undeserving people? I'd be surprised if it's a significant amount.

Is your objection really that welfare is often given to undeserving people? Or is it more likely that your objection is that it offends your sense of morality? That far beyond any actual financial harm you suffer, you most object to the very concept that someone may be getting your money (YOUR MONEY!) through nefarious means? Do you see where this is going?

That's what I mean when I say I don't think you've thought your position through, and that really it all boils down to not wanting to cut loose of your money. I don't accuse you of being evil (that's MY gig). I accuse you of basing your policy preferences on what are ultimately selfish principles without realizing you are doing so. I'm trying to show you why I think they are ultimately selfish. And apparently I'm doing a lousy job of it. Sigh.

Posted by liberalrob (Hecubus) | October 23, 2007 7:31 PM

LR, from another thread, here's my objection to welfare as a right:

Suppose a spendthrift gets himself into a bind (as he almost inevitably will), if help is available to him by RIGHT, the spendthrift is much less likely to make the changes necessary to avoid problems in the future. However, if help is subject to the whim of his minister (or Aunt Rita), he may need to humble himself enough to realize the need for change.

You may find my approach hard hearted. I find your approach lacking in a basic understanding of human nature. You want to help. So do I. You want to solve the immediate need. So do I. I also want to prevent future need. Your approach increases the likelihood of future need. I find your approach hard hearted and soft headed. YMMV.

So, my concern, as quoted above, is that welfare as a right makes the problem worse because it makes it more difficult for people in need to make positive changes in their lives. I can see how one would argue that my position is wrong -- based on objective facts that a particular welfare program works. I don't see how one can fairly attribute my objection to selfishness, particularly in light of my behavior in this regard -- my wife and I routinely give between 10% and 15% of our income to charity each year. We have been doing this since the first year of our marriage when our combined income was less than $1,000/month. We also contribute our time.

Posted by David Walser | October 23, 2007 7:50 PM

"I don't think lack of resources is the primary issue, is it?"

Given said resources have alternative uses, I guess 'lack of resources' is only a major issue in determining their allocation if you want to ignore economics.

Posted by DPT | October 23, 2007 7:53 PM

Sorry, that should be "if you DON'T want to ignore economics.

And no, that was not intended as "Econ 101 wins all arguments", nor am I making a position on the utility of welfare.

But assuming that 'resources', aka funding is a non-issue is not a very good position to take on spending.

Posted by DPT | October 23, 2007 7:56 PM

OK, but many believe I am right as well. spongy's assertion was categorical: "welfare is a sinkhole." If it is NOT a sinkhole, then I am justified in supporting funding it with his tax dollars.
...My money also goes to welfare, and I don't see perpetuating it as a problem. In fact I see it as a benefit. Until you convince me that there is a problem, and I think that's going to be mighty hard, I'm going to continue to demand that "your money" be spent on it.

....I'm starting to suspect I've missed the punchline.

This is the gift that keeps on giving!

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 8:32 PM

..and you've introduced one my comment:

wonder if there is a level of wealth transfer to which it would be "unselfish" to object?

As evidence that I "assume" the following:

that because you think society should not exact taxes, the fact that it does so is evil.

As a previous commenter said, "this is amazing!"

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 8:43 PM

Can't leave well enough alone.

Rob it is not necessary for someone to be correct that social programs don't work for them to be unselfish in opposing them, they simply have to believe they don't work (setting aside, for the time being the very legitimate arguments about efficacy). That's the core problem with your argument. You define a disagreement about facts and outcomes (or norms) as a personal defect (or 'philosophical error', an undefined term you have tortured without mercy above).

It would certainly be easier to define everyone's motives if we all agreed on norms, facts and a priori assumptions, but we don't.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 23, 2007 9:37 PM

"I didn't even know there was an elite millionaire pundit class, outside of Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh, but gosh, how do I join?"

Gosh, Megan, you aren't that dumb, are you? Do you really believe that George Will isn't a millionaire, that Bill O'Reilly isn't, that Chris Matthews isn't, that David Broder isn't, that Eleanor Clift isn't, that Michael Kingsley isn't? You aren't that dumb, are you? Or are you a, you know, a liar?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | October 23, 2007 9:45 PM

Dan Miller --

You're looking at a way, way too short time period.

Using the standard, inflation-adjusted poverty level, ~80% of the population was below that level in 1900. There were various short ups-and-downs, but through the late 1920s there was an overall trend of the number of people living in poverty declining by one percentage point of the overall per year. The Great Depression and then the World War II-driven economic boom yanked the numbers around pretty severely, but come the early 1950s, poverty was right where it would have been based on the "Subtract the two digit year from 80 to find the current poverty rate" formula derived from the 1900-1925 trend line.

Suddenly, in the second half of the 1960s, this stopped, and instead of everybody being above the standardized poverty line in 1980 (which is what a naive extrapolation of the 1900-1965 trend line would have caused one to expect), we got stuck with poverty rather persistently in the low teens for the next four decades.

So, ever since the War on Poverty really got going, we've been stuck with a relatively stable poverty rate, instead of the declining rate we had for the previous six decades.

Now, it is quite possible that the poverty rate was due to cease declining, we were left with only the hard-core cases, and the War on Poverty has charitably improved the material condition of the poor. It is equally possible that the War on Poverty programs amounted to a subsidy for poverty, and did what any subsidy program does -- create more of whatever is being subsidized.

But in any case, there is no statistical evidence that the War on Poverty did anything to reduce poverty. Measured in terms of its stated goal, the War on Poverty was and is an utter failure.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | October 23, 2007 10:48 PM

Ask Mummy and Daddy for another credit card.

Posted by Not A Libertarian Wanker | October 24, 2007 2:05 AM

Rob,

I hope you're still checking the comments on this thread, despite its age. First of all, I want to thank you for sticking it out here, and continuing to post what you believe in this clearly hostile environment. As you pointed out to Freddie, the insular, self-congratulating groupthink is by no means unique to this blog or libertarian blogs. It's a typical phenomenon in most Internet forums and blogs that I've seen.

One of the biggest problems I see in "public" debate - by which I mean the public itself forming the debate, rather than specific candidates debating in public - is that you have a vast group believing A, and a vast group believing B. With any vast group, it's a statistical near-certainty that some members of the group will be crazies, or ignorant, or ill behaved. Most people are accustomed to dealing with crazies, ignorant people, or bad behavior in their daily lives, but when it happens in the context of "side A vs. side B", it gives each side a bad sample of the other side's beliefs, and an opportunity to point at someone and say "Look, those who oppose me are crazies!"

When this happens, it makes it difficult for productive debate to proceed. Each side has to make an active effort to filter out the noise coming from the other side. Sometimes, even the stuff that isn't outright noise can still confuse the debate, as there may be multiple legitimate arguments for one position - for example, Megan attempted previously to sort the debate over national health care into moral arguments vs efficiency arguments.

Anyway, my points are:

1. Thank you for continuing to post here. I lack the time and stamina to read most of the major liberal blogs and filter out all the noise, but I don't read this blog and its comments just for the groupthink. I genuinely want to be exposed to differing viewpoints, and I appreciate yours. Please try not to let some of the noise here (people calling you satire or mocking you personally, or repeating simplistic "all liberals want to steal my money so they don't have to work!" crap) wear you down to the point where you stop posting, or stop paying attention to the substantive debate and simply respond in kind.

2. However, in that same vein, surely you must be capable of seeing more to the debate than "all those who disagree with me are selfish and stupid." I believe that even Hitler himself didn't wake up each morning thinking "Gee, I'm a really evil bastard. I can't wait to kill a lot of good people today." The vast majority of people do what they do thinking it's the right thing. Often they lack the knowledge or understanding to really determine the optimal course of action, but not for lack of wanting to. When you simply write off everyone who disagrees with you as being morally bankrupt, you're taking the easy way out and preventing any possible progress. Sure, there are some people out there who genuinely are morally bankrupt, but to ascribe that as the reason for the existence of all libertartians, or all Democrats, or all Republicans, is just weak and shallow thinking. There's plenty of people out there (myself included) who don't expect to rise more than one tax bracket in their lifetime, but can still oppose raising the rates on the top bracket for reasons other than avoiding personal tax burden.

"Always more taxation!" isn't the answer anymore than "Always less taxation!" is. There's some amount which is optimal, which is most effective, and we ought to be able to rationally discuss where that point is, without reducing each other to caricatures.

Posted by Geoff | October 24, 2007 10:57 AM

Rob, Dreck nails this last night around 9:30, when I was at home asleep. There are other reasons people don't want to piss away their money besides being selfish. As he said, if one believes the money is going down the drain and the programs counterproductive (and a great deal of evidence supports this,) then I don't think you can call this selfishness.

I wish there were no poor people. You want to believe that means I want them dead when what I want is for them to be prosperous and productive. I think you have closed your mind to your opponents' true motivations and beliefs so that you may pat yourself on the back for not agreeing with them. So which of us is morally failing?

Posted by spongeworthy | October 24, 2007 11:26 AM

Is your objection really that welfare is often given to undeserving people? Or is it more likely that your objection is that it offends your sense of morality? That far beyond any actual financial harm you suffer, you most object to the very concept that someone may be getting your money (YOUR MONEY!) through nefarious means? Do you see where this is going?

I see exactly where you are going. Your mind-reading skills need some work. You are making up things that I am supposedly thinking, but I am not.

David Walser summarizes my concern about entitlement programs very nicely. Giving handouts to poor people does not encourage them to improve themselves, instead they become dependent on the handouts. We see this on a massive scale in Africa. The developed world ships food and other forms of aid to Africa, putting local farmers out of business. We should be shipping text books, tools, and other means for them to improve their own lives.

Rather than giving money to the poor, I'd like to give them an education, training (in skills, how to get a job, how to balance a budget, etc...), opportunities to work, etc...

I wouldn't care so much of some lazy opportunist got some assistance if I knew that all of the truly unfortunate people got help, first. The problem is that the lazy opportunist is taking away resources that could be used for those who realy need it.

Actually, now that I read through your comment, I'm not so sure what is wrong with not wanting my money to go to people who are undeserving or who get it through nefarious means. How is that selfish? Am I selfish to not want to be cheated or robbed? I don't want people to get anyone's money through nefarious means...

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 24, 2007 12:32 PM

Given the variety and enthusiasm of the arguments here on just about every post, I don't understand how anyone can think this blog is home to an echo chamber or groupthink. The fact that a few people who post here appear to agree with each other and/or the hostess on some issues hardly constitutes evidence of an echo-chamber.

Personally, I've disagreed with Megan on some things and agreed on others. There are a group of liberals and a group of conservatives who post here. There are a few who seem to have developed Megan Derangement Syndrome as well.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 24, 2007 12:36 PM

The "give back" arguement has always somewhat bemused me. In a system of voluntary exchange, if you earned your money you have already "given back" that which you did to earn it. Society has benefited from the desired activity/service/product you provided. The arguement that we owe something for the system which allows this to occur has merit, and is provided for by taxation to enforce the structure of society: police, defense, etc. That those who provided the most (and were paid for it) THEREFORE need to provide still more seems perverse.

Now, if there are cases where people get rich through extortionate means like, say, copyright extensions or other government enforced monopolies, then perhaps they should be taxed more. Wait, they already had to pay the graft, so that probabaly covers it. Voluntary contributions to government.

Posted by rafinlay | October 24, 2007 1:11 PM

BTW, since there seems to be some risk here, I must point out that the last paragraph above was intended to be funny. I know, I know....

Posted by rafinlay | October 24, 2007 1:14 PM

Dreck: .and you've introduced one my comment[s]...[a]s evidence that I "assume" the following

Your comment implied an attitude. In the context of a heated discussion of taxation for social programs, you floated out a sarcastic-sounding question of whether I (and I am assuming you were addressing me, since I was pretty much the only guy on my side) believed in any limits to taxes at all. That sounded to me like the words of someone who didn't believe in taxes going to social programs.

I'm having a hard time pinning you down; do you believe in paying taxes to support social programs, or not?

'philosophical error', an undefined term

It's trying to find a nice way of saying "I believe you are mistaken." People keep thinking I'm saying they're stupid or evil for not believing what I do. That's not it at all.

you have tortured without mercy

Oh please.

It would certainly be easier to define everyone's motives if we all agreed on norms, facts and a priori assumptions, but we don't.

So what basis for discussion does that leave us? You have your assumptions and I have mine, we disagree and that's the end of it? Wow, that's going to make for a real vibrant comments section. You give the Libertarian view, I give my conception of the Liberal view, you call me an idiot, I call you a jerk, and we go on to the next topic. Fun!

What is the point of a comments section, again? Is it not to explore different points of view?

Posted by liberalrob | October 24, 2007 5:25 PM

Geoff: However, in that same vein, surely you must be capable of seeing more to the debate than "all those who disagree with me are selfish and stupid."

Never said "stupid"...my theory is that objections to paying taxes, both for social programs and in general, stem from what I call a selfish desire not to give back to society. Maybe this is the wrong forum in which to explore proof of my theory. People seem to be having a hard time getting wrapped around the concept of unconscious motivations. They much prefer to hoot and catcall at the nutty liberal over there than actually try to think about what he is saying (or trying to say). Frankly, I'm disappointed. Not entirely surprised, but disappointed.

There's plenty of people out there (myself included) who don't expect to rise more than one tax bracket in their lifetime, but can still oppose raising the rates on the top bracket for reasons other than avoiding personal tax burden.

Why is that? What is your rationale for believing something that directly hurts you in terms of reduced government services? Do you believe that government services themselves are a bad idea? Do you have some kind of moral objection to paying taxes? What is it?

Like I said, maybe this is the wrong place to try to get into this kind of thing. Maybe I should go back to school (ugh) if I want to get into the basic philosophical arguments underlying people's beliefs.

Posted by liberalrob | October 24, 2007 5:45 PM

spongeworthy: Rob, Dreck nails this last night around 9:30, when I was at home asleep. There are other reasons people don't want to piss away their money besides being selfish. As he said, if one believes the money is going down the drain and the programs counterproductive (and a great deal of evidence supports this,) then I don't think you can call this selfishness.

If your objection is purely that the programs are counterproductive and the money is going down the drain, then you should be open to discussions of how to adjust the programs to be productive and efficient. If your reaction is to insist on shutting down the programs without trying to fix them, I have to wonder if you truly thought the programs justified in the first place; it appears you would think such programs to be morally wrong.

If you feel that the programs are morally wrong, I have to ask why you believe that. My default answer, my assumption, is that you object because you do not want to have your resources taken from you. If you didn't mind your resources being taken from you, then there should be some basis on which we could agree your resources would be used. If there is no such basis, then your objection becomes indistinguishable from selfishness.

That's all I'm saying.

Posted by liberalrob | October 24, 2007 6:14 PM

liberalrob, you keep coming back to asserting that people's motives are venal. That's not a good faith argument, it's an insult. You continue to insult those who disagree with you yet you wonder why you are insulted in return. I'll try again, but if you won't interact in good faith then it's back to the insults.

I believe that there are some people who require assistance, and I have no issue whatsoever with providing that assistance. Voluntarily even.

But I also believe there are people who do not require assistance, at least not permanently. Society is improved, along with the individual, when those who are able provide for themselves. There's an innate human dignity that's lost when an able bodied person lives off of the work of another. It reduces them to the status of children. It's demeaning. Some (not all, but some) social programs do that. There are multiple generations of inner-city families who've never provided for themselves. This is a failure, not just of the individuals involved, but of society to have allowed that to occur.

It's not that social programs are inherently bad, but they're not inherently good either. They exact a cost, not the least of which is from the recipient. Yet you argue that social programs, need to be enlarged and this is indisputable except for venal reasons.

Name a program, define the beneficiaries, determine the qualifications and cutoffs for receiving benefits, and then we can have a meaningful discussion about societal good (or harm) that the program does. After that (and only then) can we have a meaningful discussion about how best to fund the programs that are found worthy.

And as an aside, if someone is arguing against raising taxes on those richer than them - they may be selfish, but they are also practicing the golden rule. They're undoubtedly more altruistic than a person who is arguing to raise someone else's taxes.

Posted by SG | October 24, 2007 6:39 PM

EI:

I see exactly where you are going. Your mind-reading skills need some work. You are making up things that I am supposedly thinking, but I am not.

It's called "trying to understand the other guy's reasoning." That's how I approach discussions. If I can understand your reasoning, I have a better chance of convincing you to change your position. I think it's a much better approach than saying you're an insensitive jackass. Which is what you seem to think I'm saying even though that's not what I'm saying (mind-reading indeed), so I tried laying out what I thought your position was. The hope was that you would either agree or correct it. Instead I initially get "you're making s--t up." You could have left out that entire first paragraph and I'd have been very happy with your response.

Speaking of which:

Giving handouts to poor people does not encourage them to improve themselves, instead they become dependent on the handouts. We see this on a massive scale in Africa. The developed world ships food and other forms of aid to Africa, putting local farmers out of business. We should be shipping text books, tools, and other means for them to improve their own lives.

Doesn't shipping testbooks and tools also put local farmers out of business (turning them into something other than farmers)? But getting back to the topic: 1) isn't it possible to do both (send food to keep people alive long enough to learn how to use the tools and read the textbooks)? 2) why do people become dependent on the handouts, and is this something that can't be fixed without terminating the program? 3) are you really prepared to accept the consequences of terminating the program?

Actually, now that I read through your comment, I'm not so sure what is wrong with not wanting my money to go to people who are undeserving or who get it through nefarious means. How is that selfish? Am I selfish to not want to be cheated or robbed?

If you take your fear of being cheated and robbed and generalize it into a reason for opposing ANY program, regardless of whether any actual cheating would occur or the actual harm caused by such cheating, then yes I say you are. It's fine to want to ensure that as much of your money as possible goes to people who genuinely need it. But to object to any program because there is not a 100% guarantee of proper use is simply objection to the program itself.

Posted by liberalrob | October 24, 2007 6:40 PM

SG:

liberalrob, you keep coming back to asserting that people's motives are venal. That's not a good faith argument, it's an insult. You continue to insult those who disagree with you yet you wonder why you are insulted in return. I'll try again, but if you won't interact in good faith then it's back to the insults.

I feel like there is nothing I can say at this point (other than "my God, you're right, I've been so blind") that you wouldn't consider my insulting you.

I apologize for the insulting way I said that, BTW.

Asserting that people's motives are venal shouldn't be seen as an insult. It should be seen as disapproval, and as a request that they should change their motives.

I believe that there are some people who require assistance, and I have no issue whatsoever with providing that assistance. Voluntarily even.

But you do object to doing so through the mechanism of government programs, correct? Even though a government program would leverage your generosity a thousandfold and help people you would never even know needed it.

It's not that social programs are inherently bad, but they're not inherently good either. They exact a cost, not the least of which is from the recipient. Yet you argue that social programs, need to be enlarged and this is indisputable except for venal reasons.

I disagree that social programs exact a cost from the recipient; and I have challenged you and others almost literally ad nauseam to explain why objections to expanding these programs are not based on venality. Finally I am getting some response along that line.

My response to the rest of your post is essentially what I said to spongeworthy, so I won't go back over it. I agree with everything you say, all the requirements you stipulate; but the fact that you are apparently willing to negotiate is in conflict with the proposition I was arguing against, that government social programs financed by taxes are necessarily a waste of money. They don't have to be; we can establish rules and procedures to make them effective and efficient.

And as an aside, if someone is arguing against raising taxes on those richer than them - they may be selfish, but they are also practicing the golden rule.

Proactively selfish...I'm not knocking being disinclined to raise taxes per se. It's when the motivation is this proactive venality (however it is rationalized) that I object to it. If there is a need that could be filled by raising taxes and there is no good argument to not raise them, then they should be raised and the need filled. I don't care if it's my taxes that are raised as long as it's done fairly. It has not been done fairly, the wealthy have gotten far greater tax cuts than I have and the poor have paid the price in reduced services, and I object to that.

Posted by liberalrob | October 24, 2007 7:31 PM

liberalrob

You really don't know how to argue, do you?

I made a couple of assertions about the effectiveness of social programs, 1 moral ("There's an innate human dignity that's lost when an able bodied person lives off of the work of another. It reduces them to the status of children. It's demeaning") and 1 practical ("There are multiple generations of inner-city families who've never provided for themselves."). Your response: "I disagree that social programs exact a cost from the recipient"

I came here for a good argument. That's just contradiction.

Welfare reform has reduced the black child poverty rate from 41.5 percent in 1995 (incidentally, a slightly higher rate than 40.4% in 1971 - 25 years of welfare had not improved the situation ) to 30% in the recession of 2001. The requirement to work has materially improved people's lives and reduced the black child poverty rate to the lowest in the nation's history, whereas the previous practice of making unconditional cash handouts to poor mothers had the effect of keeping 10% of black children in permananent poverty (not to mention fostered a culture where 70% of black children are raised in single parent, overwhelming fatherless, households).

See that? I supported my proposition (social programs can have a negative impact on the recipient) with a series of facts. I invite you to do the same.

Also you simply can not redefine altruism as a negative trait. The end result may not meet the same social goals that you prefer, but altruism in and of itself is positive. The people propounding it have established a developed moral sensibility. If you wish to change minds, you should appeal to that moral sensibility, not disparage it.

Posted by SG | October 25, 2007 8:59 AM

I came here for a good argument. That's just contradiction.

No it isn't. LMAO!

Posted by Graham | October 25, 2007 1:55 PM

From your lips to God's ears

TrackBack

Comments (80)