« An economic analysis of the bike commute | Main | Oh Frabjous day! Calloo! Callay! She chortled in her joy » The lives of others22 Oct 2007 08:18 am I don't know why Matt should find this remarkable: Still, the main psychological point remains that there's a remarkable tendency to equate advocating that others engage in risky acts of physical violence with the idea of possessing courage and strength as personal characteristics. After all, we've already internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity. Comments (67)
I don't, personally, think that paying taxes is analogous to charity. I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out, however, that paying taxes actually does include some personal sacrifice, whereas just advocating for military action does not. I think a better analogy would be if someone thought that advocating that people pay higher taxes was analogous to giving to charity. Don't you think? 
Freddie... she did say "advocating" and also said "taxing other people". I see an odd desire in opponents of the war to link support for military action with some kind of deep-seated psychological defect. I guess, since they are opposed to the war (in Iraq, on terror, etc...), they can't believe that supporters of the war might have actual reasons for their support. Writing them off as overcompensating or bigots or whatever means that opponents of the war don't have to engage in an actual debate about it. EI
Whoops I misread that, you're absolutely right.
Personally I find that people who advocate the physical destruction and mutilation of hundreds of thousands do have some pretty serious psychological flaws, such as being huge assholes. Incidentally, way to imply some level of equivalence between murder and taxation!
Supporting some wars, the one in Iraq for example, is indeed a form of defect. It's called stupidity. It requires believing shaky evidence about weapons of mass destruction and ignoring what happens in ethnically divided countries - the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union, and for that matter the former Hapsburg empire - after regime change. It requires ignoring the advice of Baker, Scowcroft, and probably of the first President Bush. It requires arrogance, ignorance, and recklessness. I don't know if these count as pyschological defects, but defects they certainly are.
Also, I think what Megan's saying here just fails in the sense that a problem with people thinking "that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity", if it exists at all, is nowhere close to as prevalent as the one that Matt complains about. The tough-talking war supporter-- or, more often, the weak-willed war critic-- is a dominant meme out there.
I don't, personally, think that paying taxes is analogous to charity. I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out, however, that paying taxes actually does include some personal sacrifice, whereas just advocating for military action does not. I agree. I would add that taxation has more to do with the idea of a social contract than it does with "charity." Taxes are the dues everyone in the society pays to lift up the group as a whole. We can apply this to military service as well. Under the social contract model, any military action should involve sacrifice by the entire nation, for the good of the nation. I think a lot of the Iraq war supporters, though, aren't big fans of the social contract. They see taxes as "charity" and the war as something other people ought to sacrifice lives and safety for. I'm not saying Megan's one of these people on the war, but I am suggesting that her view of taxation is as flawed as the neocons view on warfare, for the same philosophical reason.
Sort of like, when certain people in Hollywood stand up courageously for free speech in American. And then they have the gall to speak in front of their narcissistic peers on national tv proclaiming their courage and solidarity with all those freely assembled in the hall in keeping free speech from being threatened in America. As if they are going to be locked up for speaking ill of the government. Unlike some countries in the world where free speech is not a right, and where dissidents do get locked up by the government.
So, how many people are flying to Darfur, Myanmar and various other places to stand as a force against the violence. I mean, doesn't anyone believe in non-violence enough to put themselves between hostile factions and try to negotiate a settlement? Or baring that, in actually doing something to better the lives of those effected by the violence, you know, like the Peace Corp and UN workers do? If you oppose military intervention, and are unwilling to do this, does that make you a "chicken-dove?" Aren't these people, leaving it up to others to do the real work in helping the people effected by the violence that they oppose?
Megan totally ignored Matt's point in the passage she quoted. What Matt finds "remarkable" is the tendency of equating mere advocacy for war with personal bravery and strength, just as though one were in fact going to be out there fighting it. In that context, Megan's point is...what? If bloviating on blogs in favor of war is an example of personal bravery and strength, bloviating on blogs about increasing taxes is an example of shrewd fiscal responsibility? Really?
"we've already internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity." What you mean "we," paleface?
BTW, it's totally bizarre to consider taxation as a form of "charity." NOBODY thinks of taxes this way. Taxes are the membership dues one pays to be a member of society.
I don't think there's anything at all sissy-like in opposing a war before it's begun. After all, there's no incentive for any evil-doers to reform if there's no audience for anything but war. But it does seem weak to me to protest a war once it's begun. I see nothing noble in that at all. Once the decision is made to engage these Islamo-nutters in the only dialogue they understand, you cannot turn back. I'd think that would be pretty apparent to sissy-boys and meatheads alike. It seems to ne this chest-beating war advocate Y erects is nothing more than a cartoon figure, some liberal myth being passed around as sop to more tender sensibilities. But if he does exist, do you not see any use for him? Shall we be a nation of equivocators? There's no point in reform among evil-doers if there's no audience for victory.
While I'm sure that there are people out there who advocate war out of some misplaced desire to prove that they are manly, many others do not do so. The fact that some are acting out some kind of macho fantasy does not bear on the vailidity of other arguments for war. Those overcompensating macho types exist whether or not there is a war and they will do what they will do. They should not be held up as a reason not to go to war, they should be ignored. Oh, and thank you for demonstrating my point, Stan. EI
Taxes are the membership dues one pays to be a member of society. That cracks me up. So if you don't pay any taxes, can we push you out to sea on an ice floe?
So if you don't pay any taxes, can we push you out to sea on an ice floe? Why don't you give it a try, and report back what happens.
But it does seem weak to me to protest a war once it's begun. I see nothing noble in that at all. Once the decision is made to engage these Islamo-nutters in the only dialogue they understand, you cannot turn back. Uh, so no war can be retreated from, ever? Once you commit forces somewhere, you can't withdraw, even if it is clearly in your national interest to do so? That's very weird. Protesting ongoing wars that are not in the national interest is one of the most basic duties of a citizen of a democracy. And, of course, Saddam Hussein, the Baath party and the Iraqi army, whatever their sins, were no "Islamo-nutters". But you knew that.
Megan totally ignored Matt's point in the passage she quoted. What Matt finds "remarkable" is the tendency of equating mere advocacy for war with personal bravery and strength, just as though one were in fact going to be out there fighting it. In that context, Megan's point is...what? I always think it's funny how some people can't even understand arguments against their own position, so twisted is their worldview. liberalrob: Megan_McArdle drew a parallel between the following claims: a) advocating that other people perform risky military acts = courage of the advocate and b) advocating that other people be compelled to pay taxes for the poor = charitability of the advocate. The point is: a) advocating that other people put their lives on the line for you is not equivalent to courage. and b) advocating that other people's money be taken for the poor is not equivalent to charity.
Except, Person, that nobody argues b), while plenty of people implicitly argue a), as Matt has documented many times in his blog. (I'd link, but my comment would get eaten by the comments thingy.)
So if you don't pay any taxes, can we push you out to sea on an ice floe? I'm told that without a gas tax, there may not be any ice floes left. ______ I make no claims to courage or charity, but I thought in 2003 that the Iraqis deserved a honest chance to be free. I was sadly unaware that this administration had no intention or ability to make that happen. So I suppose I'm defective.
Saddam et al were their own kind of nutters, but we are fighting Islamo-nutters there now. Those are the guys we have to demostrate resolve to. We pretty much disposed of Saddam et al pretty easily so resolve never really was the issue there. And I don't even credit your argument about ever retreating ever since nobody who's against this ongoing war ever, and I mean ever, gives the slightest value to resolve, to demonstrating stamina as a creditable argument for continuing. It's like you people don't even understand the concept, which is why there may be such a disjoint between keyboard Neanderthals like myself and you enlightened Eloi. I don't think you are going to convince many people when your conception of what's in the national interest doesn't even confront the consequences of retreat.
I'm sure wingers have lot of reasons for advocating war. "You know, in this world there's one thing that's terrible, that everyone has their reasons."
Nobody should equate paying taxes with giving charity. One is voluntary, the other is coerced. It is interesting though that some studies show that those who favor using the government to redistribute income, are less inclined to give to charities.
Well, if Megan's point about the taxes and charity are not valid, or are strawmen, then I suppose I should never again hear the refrain about how selfish I am for not wanting to pay more taxes to give to the poor, or the the children of the middle class. Somehow, I think the silence will be less than deafening.
Of course, what 'libertarians' really want is to tax other people in order to give it to yet other people to engage in violent behavior on their behalf. Which, it should be pointed out, is neither charitable nor brave.
Well, if Megan's point about the taxes and charity are not valid, or are strawmen, then I suppose I should never again hear the refrain about how selfish I am for not wanting to pay more taxes to give to the poor, or the the children of the middle class. Only if you assume that charity is the only example of non-selfishness. If you take the view that taxes are part of the social contract (as I do), then advocating against taxes for the sheer sake of being against taxes is, to put it bluntly, an example of anti-social free-riding. You want your cake for free. Now, this isn't to say that it's bad to reduce taxes. Whenever we can afford to, we should cut taxes. But the word "afford" is the key phrase here - tax rates should be tied to what we value as a society, not to some fantasy land notion where all the benefits of society are free.
Bo, uh no. You are describing conservatives, not libertarians. Libertarians are more anti-war than leftist liberals. Libertarians don't support intervention in Afghanistan, Darfur, and didn't support interventions in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia. The left and the right battle over whose wars get support.
Actually Keith, that's not "interesting" nearly so much as it's obvious and logical. The reason to advocate systematic taxation and redistribution is that it works much better than charity. Charity is impossible to depend on, it doesn't actually generate much revenue to use for the poor, and it collapses when the economy does poorly -- in lean times, nobody gives what they don't have to give. The government, on the other hand, can deficit -spend in such times, allowing social programs to continue when we need them most. One might also note the economic connection between being rich enough to give charity and being a conservative in the first place. I've done almost no charitable giving in my life because I've always been in the lower classes. But it's appropriate to discuss this study you've cited in more ways than are initially obvious -- conservatism is indeed the ideology of conspicuous charity designed to demonstrate the quality of "goodness," just as it is the ideology of advocating war to demonstrate the quality of "manliness." I went to a charity dinner a while ago that gave impressive-sounding but actually meaningless sums of money to good causes. It was a deeply frustrating, and deeply conservative, affair -- adjoined to the auction room was a capitalist propaganda center for children, a model town with streets called "Supply" and "Demand."
Perhaps a general statement of the point made here is that one cannot infer that a person possesses a virtue necessary to actually doing an action that they propose others perform. For proposals related to public policy this should be practically self-evident, since the proponents need not internalize the costs of their proposals.
Peter, All you mean is that giving to society is good, and my not wanting to give more makes me selfish in the views of those who think I should give more. You are making a distinction without a difference. Megan's point stands. As for what we afford or not, I am not the one passing spending without the taxes to pay for it, and from my viewpoint, I am doing my part by fighting against the funding.
Libertarians are more anti-war than leftist liberals. Uh, no. I don't feel the need to get into an argument over who the true libertarians are. I used the small-l form to indicate I was referring to the general group of people who describe themselves as libertarians, not a particular subculture. That group overwhelmingly supports massive tax-funded military spending. I mean, we're commenting on the blog of someone who describes herself as a libertarian and who supported the invasion of Iraq; do we really need to play pedantic games over who a libertarian really is?
Yancey, In real life (meaning, in the case of the actual politicians who people actually vote for), conservatives tend to cut taxes with far greater zeal than they cut spending. Now, you can argue as much as you like about the ideal solution, but, based on the actual actions of real-live conservatives, they look like a bunch of freeloaders to me.
You have to be kidding Bo. Libertarians are far more anti-war than either Dem or Rep. To see this look at The Cato Institute So is Megan the voice of libertarians or are these groups?
I mean, doesn't anyone believe in non-violence enough to put themselves between hostile factions and try to negotiate a settlement? Or baring that, in actually doing something to better the lives of those effected by the violence, you know, like the Peace Corp and UN workers do? That's why I'm not a pacifist. The pacifists I do know do tend to live what they preach, which merits quite a bit of respect, but I personally am not comfortable advocating others either take up arms or insisting that they do not, hence I tend to be neither a pacifists nor advocate of violent struggle.
conservatism is indeed the ideology of conspicuous charity designed to demonstrate the quality of "goodness, So giving charity isn't good??? Not sure where you have come up with "conservatism is indeed the ideology of conspicuous charity." The reason to advocate systematic taxation and redistribution is that it works much better than charity. Yes, our publicly funded schools are doing so well. And the War on Poverty has been a resounding success as well, even though it's been going on for 4 decades. Talk about a quagmire.
You have to be kidding Bo. Seriously, this is like discussing whether Mormons are Christian. Everybody understands there are two groups of libertarians, lots of small-l libertarians, i.e. people who call themselves libertarian, and a tiny group of big-L Libertarians, who belong to the Libertarian Party, oppose foreign intervention and want to put us back on the gold standard. If it wasn't clear the first time, I was talking about the former.
Actually, to the main point of Megan's, I really find such talk cheapens the debate over all. Calling people of an opposing political viewpoint, chicken-hawks, ,unpatriotic, dumb, in-human, defective, or the enemy, isn't really helpful. In fact, it shows a laziness in arguing ones point. Now, I do think there is reasoned debate, and reasonable dissension. One can and should dissent if you think the actions of our government are harmful to our national interests. However, there ought to be some care in such dissent to not at the same time hurt the effort we are engaged in.
And the War on Poverty has been a resounding success as well, even though it's been going on for 4 decades. In the first 4 years of the War on Poverty, the poverty rate dropped from 18% to 13%, the equivalent of the entire population of Florida becoming un-empoverished. Obviously, then Nixon became president and that was that. Compared to the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, under both of which the abstract target increased in incidence, the War on Poverty was in fact a resounding success.
Keith -- giving to charity is good, but it is in no way a substitute for paying your taxes, which are much more useful. Public schools are a mixed bag but education is really hard, especially in a society with huge inequality, and I'd like to see a charity successfully fund education in times of plenty, let alone lean times. (Hint: This will never happen.) The "war on poverty" would probably be doing better if it weren't for people like you holding back the main things that could make it a success, such as universal health care. As for how I got "conservatism is the ideology of conspicuous charity," take a look at the top post at my place -- or, for that matter, look at your own comment. You conspicuously made a point that conservatives give more to charity in an attempt to bat down claims that we should use taxes to help the poor -- and that's exactly what I'm talking about. You demonstrated my point with stunning perfection.
This is really kind of weird. We've gotten this far in without getting to the basic point here? 1. Everyone pays taxes. Someone who advocates that taxes be higher is advocating raising the joint contribution we all make to government. When a platoon leader raises his arm and calls "follow me!" to lead a charge across a field of fire, does Megan think this isn't really bravery since he's calling on other people to risk their lives? No, obviously not; he's risking his own, too. Similarly, people who advocate raising taxes in order to pay for social programs are advocating that all of us, together, pay more taxes in order to buy more public goods. When those public goods seem sufficiently necessary, liberals' feelings about those who refuse to contribute to paying for those public goods is that they are analogous to soldiers who refuse to leave their bunkers and fight. Liberals don't feel they are virtuous practitioners of charity; they feel they are willing to go ahead and pay the price for joint activity to improve our society, while conservatives are selfish spoil-sports who won't do their part. Megan's post is silly on the face of it. It's weird that people are accepting the terms of the analogy at all.
Bo, Just because someone calls themself a libertarian does not make it so. If you are going to slander libertarians, then use the correct terms. Even faux-libertarian would have been preferable to looking like an ignoramus. Peter, Who are the freeloaders, again? Unless liberals are ponying up the money from their tax cuts- which they aren't, then the whole bunch of us are freeloaders by your definition of the word. I have yet to see a politician of either party actually do the hard work of matching taxes to their desired spending, or their promises regarding either.
brooksfoe: You must have missed all those left/liberal proposals to raise the taxes on the wealthy while giving middle class tax cuts. Those are not calls for increased shared scarifice; it's decidedly a call to make someone else to sacrifice for their benefit.
Just because someone calls themself a libertarian does not make it so. And just because some group calls themselves the libertarians doesn't make it so either. You can call your little political cult nestled between the Green and Natural Law parties whatever you want, but you don't get to kick everybody else out.
brooksfoe, No, you and others keep missing the point, an uncomfortable one for liberals, I am sure, considering the denial that is ongoing here- especially in light of the following, self-contradictory quote: Liberals don't feel they are virtuous practitioners of charity; they feel they are willing to go ahead and pay the price for joint activity to improve our society, while conservatives are selfish spoil-sports who won't do their part Now, how, exactly, does one go about reconciling the first clause of this quote, with the last two? If you think conservatives are "selfish spoil-sports" for not supporting your desired level of social spending, then how can you claim that you don't feel yourself to be more virtuous?
Bo, Then, can I call you a commy?
Everyone pays taxes. Someone who advocates that taxes be higher is advocating raising the joint contribution we all make to government. If it turns out that Brooks isn't one of those higher-tax advocates, I'll accept an answer from anyone who is: How much should we raise the rate for, say, the current Federal 10% bracket? How much are the various Democratic candidates in favor of raising it? Incidentally, the effective federal income tax rate for the lowest quintile is negative. We're going to need a mighty big ice floe!
Yancey, The Democrats aren't the ones trying to extend Bush's tax cuts permanently. Allowing those tax cuts to expire restores a lot of funding necessary for many of the programs they are proposing. Yes, everyone loves to talk about cutting taxes, but the empirical evidence is that one party is about spending and tax cuts and one party is about spending. As long as we're going to have the spending (and Americans keep voting spenders in), I'll pass on cutting the funding, thanks. Spending WITH tax cuts is just free-loading irresponsibility.
1. Everyone pays taxes. Someone who advocates that taxes be higher is advocating raising the joint contribution we all make to government. This is not the case when you are talking about income taxes...
You conspicuously made a point that conservatives give more to charity in an attempt to bat down claims that we should use taxes to help the poor -- and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Gee, I missed where I said we shouldn't use taxes to help the poor. Of course, my definition of "helping" and "the poor" may be different then yours. And it's really about using MORE TAXES to help the poor. As there seems to be a never ending list of what we need to do for the poor. And again I'll state, there are things the FEDERAL government ought not be involved with. I've not advocated eliminating every program that helps the poor. What do I care if the government of California wants a high tax rate in order to provide every service under the sun to everyone but the rich. I don't live there, and I choose not to live there. It is far easier to influence the choices of local and state government, and deal with the consequences of those choices, at the local level. And it couldn't be that, hmmm, I was responding with a bit of interesting trivia to this: After all, we've already internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity. But your argument seems to be, that charitable giving isn't efficient, so we should tax rich people more.
Sure, the list of stuff the poor needs seems endless at times. It's because people like you have fucked them over. People who are fucked over need lots of different kinds of help! Fundamentally capitalism creates a large and suffering underclass, and we need to take money from people who benefit from capitalism and give it to the suffering poor. I'll tell you a secret: at the heart of the liberal movement is the belief that we should take money from rich people and give it to poor people until the class structure has been flattened as much as possible. And I think that's cool. And I think it's going to be funny when you try to explain what's wrong with that. I think my work here is done.
Yancey: Sorry -- did I say liberals don't think they're more virtuous than conservatives? No, I didn't think I said that. Of course liberals are more virtuous than conservatives. But it has nothing to do with viewing taxes as a form of charity. It's because, on the issue of taxes, we consider ourselves to be all part of America, and we want to do our part for the country along with everyone else, while conservatives want to shirk. Similarly, a soldier in a platoon who thinks the whole platoon should suit up and head out on mission, taking the fight to the enemy, no doubt considers himself more virtuous than the soldier who argues that the unit should just stay on the base where it's safe, and that any soldier who wants to fight the enemy should go do it on his own time.
Keith Indy: the overall tax structure in the United States is close to flat. Counting payroll taxes, only the lowest quintile pays substantially less. Everybody else pays somewhere in the high teens or low to mid 20s.
If America is a platoon, who's the company commander issuing its orders?
It's because, on the issue of taxes, we consider ourselves to be all part of America, and we want to do our part for the country along with everyone else, while conservatives want to shirk. And here I thought conservatives wanted to be frugal with government entitlements and handouts, and other peoples money. So, should we get rid of corporate handouts that prop up failing companies? I mean, the companies employee people, so helping the company helps the people stay off the dole. No matter that otherwise, the company would have to fold. I'll tell you a secret: at the heart of the liberal movement is the belief that we should take money from rich people and give it to poor people until the class structure has been flattened as much as possible. Well, that's never going to be achieved. The poor in this country have more opportunities to make something of themselves then 90% of the people in the world. How much should the rich pay for people not taking responsibility in their own lives. Should we subsidize health care for smokers and fat people? I mean, they are choosing to smoke, not eat properly and exercise. Shouldn't we require them, for the good of the nation to shape up, so that their cost on society is lessened? If rich people are to be taxed to even out the burden, shouldn't poor peoples behavior be monitored and modified to lessen their need.
It's because, on the issue of taxes, we consider ourselves to be all part of America, and we want to do our part for the country along with everyone else, while conservatives want to shirk. So the only reason to argue for lower taxes that you can conceive of is that conservatives are shirkers who don't want to do their part for America? Do you really lack the ability to understand why some might think a more limited governmental role would be better for the nation? Or that history shows that economic growth does more to lift people out of poverty than government programs and there is empirical evidence that suggests that nations with lower taxes have greater growth? Or that there might be some skepticism that more government spending will improve the situation? Or that the opportunity costs of the taxation is greater than the benefits derived from the spending? And as an aside, when did it become acceptable to question someone's patriotism?
2. People who are not part of the military don't have to go to war. Someone who is not in the military who advocates going to war does not seem to be making any contribution to the activity he is urging. Depends. Is he paying his taxes?
Megan! Bravo! A beautiful, precise shot, right between the eyes. The Atlantic did very well in picking you for its blogger stable. It's a pity you have to put up with such a preponderance of unintelligent and poorly educated clowns in your comments section. There's even one pathetic fellow who keeps insisting he's the "real economist". Never mind. It's inevitable in these highly wired times that the talented will be subject to the envy and spite of the untalented as never before. Well, never mind old girl. Keep up the good work!
In the first 4 years of the War on Poverty, the poverty rate dropped from 18% to 13%, the equivalent of the entire population of Florida becoming un-empoverished. Obviously, then Nixon became president and that was that. Actually, if you track data before and after, poverty was coming down until the War on Poverty, at which point it bottomed out (long after Johnson left office); it has been cycling up and down ever since. A similar thing happened at the same time to the Gini index (a measure of income disparity); it has been increasing ever since. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
Does anyone here believe, really, that people who advocate fightin' and dyin' but aren't going out doing a little fightin' and dyin' are actually brave and heroic? That's just stupid. The false equivalence that Megan leads with doesn't change that fact at all. In fact, it reads like Robert Heinlein at his trollish, most mischevious worst. Which, come to think of it, makes me suspect that she and a lot of people actually do read the ignorant lout . . . and agree with him. Probably think he was some sort of prophet, one half ot the twin fonts of wisdom.
I think it's clear that government-loving liberals represent all that is good and noble while everyone else is teh sux0r.
Except, Person, that nobody argues b), while plenty of people implicitly argue a), as Matt has documented many times in his blog. (I'd link, but my comment would get eaten by the comments thingy.) Except that this is false. All of the left argue B. All you have to do is go read the nitwits at Sadly No/FireMegan and the liberals here who equate being a leftist with compassion and being a low tax guy with lacking compassion. That's the argument: that supporting higher taxes on other people -- rich people -- makes you compassionate.
When a platoon leader raises his arm and calls "follow me!" to lead a charge across a field of fire, does Megan think this isn't really bravery since he's calling on other people to risk their lives? No, obviously not; he's risking his own, too. Similarly, people who advocate raising taxes in order to pay for social programs are advocating that all of us, together, pay more taxes in order to buy more public goods.But that's not true. For instance, leftists aren't calling to reverse Bush's tax cuts on those in the lower brackets; they're calling to reverse Bush's tax cuts on the upper brackets. In other words -- on other people, not on themselves. We know the vast majority of these leftist bloggers, journalists, and pundits -- just like the majority of conservative and libertarian bloggers, journalists, pundits -- aren't making $200,000 per year. And once again: very little of what the government does consists of "public goods." That term doesn't mean what leftists think it means. Fundamentally capitalism creates a large and suffering underclass, and we need to take money from people who benefit from capitalism and give it to the suffering poor.Well, I'm glad you admit that liberals, despite their denials, really are communists. But what's wrong with that is that your basic premise is completely wrong. Capitalism does not create a large and suffering underclass. Capitalism eliminates the large and suffering underclass, which existed before capitalism. Poverty is the state of nature. Capitalism creates wealth. Wealth, obviously, does not make people poor.
So the only reason to argue for lower taxes that you can conceive of is that conservatives are shirkers who don't want to do their part for America? SG, of course I understand that conservatives don't see it that way. But I'm really trying to explain the difference between people who view society as a communal project and people who view society as a collection of individuals. That's how a moral difference comes into play when talking about the tax issue. People in neighborhoods who cut their lawns neatly also view themselves as morally superior to the neighbor whose yard is a mess, bringing everyone's property values down. If they call for everyone to put a little more effort into their yards to make the neighborhood nicer, and the neighbor says, no, he considers that unimportant, then obviously they're going to view the neighbor unfavorably, in a moral sense. The better analogy is to societies like the 18th-century Netherlands or China, where dike-keeping was a vital communal responsibility. Anybody who advocates less work on the dikes is threatening everyone's welfare; someone who advocates more work on the dikes is justified in feeling like a better member of the community, even though most of the work will come from other people.
People in neighborhoods who cut their lawns neatly also view themselves as morally superior to the neighbor whose yard is a mess, bringing everyone's property values down. That was pretty much Rudy Giuliani's attitude when he ran New York City. How liberals loved him for it! The dike thing is more analogous to the widely held conservative belief that once the collective decision to go to war has been made, the individuals who argued against it ought to swallow their objections and support the (ahem) communal effort.
Brooksfoe: Interestingly enough, I think your analogy works in exactly the opposite direction. I view the productive members of society as the ones that keep their lawns mowed, and you and others are calling on those people to mow everyone's lawn. Now, surely there are some people who can't mow their own lawn and I don't have a problem helping out (In point of fact, one of my neighbors has lung cancer and all of our neighborhood takes turns mowing his lawn for him). But there are other people who are perfectly able to perform upkeep but simply don't want to. It's simply unfair and immmoral to force the people who are already keeping their own lawns neat to maintain the lawn of those who are capable of doing it themselves. Note: this argument is purely moral and doesn't address the utilitarian concern. Property values very well might be improved if the all the lawns were maintained, but it's the basic unfairness of it grates.
Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo |
Why do you and President Bush hate sick children?
Posted by y81 | October 22, 2007 8:45 AM