Monday, April 16, 2012

It's Not Fair!

Equality of Outcomes is Un-American.  It would require enforced unfairness and a violation of our personal liberties...
Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different, but are in conflict with one another; and we can achieve one or the other, but not both at the same time. (F.A Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, pg 150)
We are all different people, with different goals and behaviors.  Enforcing an equality of outcomes would require a tyrannical government imposing its vision on us all and treating each of us very unequally under the law.

Thomas Sowell echoes Friedrich Hayek as he punctures the chimerical argument of forced equality:
The latest example of this hoax is the joint crusade of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice against schools that discipline black males more often than other students. According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, this disparity in punishment violates the "promise" of "equity."
Just who made this promise remains unclear, and why equity should mean equal outcomes despite differences in behavior is even more unclear. (Sowell – The Big Hoax)
Sowell goes on to explain that it would be wrong to unfairly single out a particular group, but there is no evidence of that in the case of school punishment.  But why let facts get in the way of a feel good crusade?

Inequality really bugs some people:
It is not fair that LeBron James has a 40-inch vertical leap, and we have a 4-inch vertical leap (combined). It is not fair that some have high IQs, and others are below average. It is not fair that Christie Brinkley is beautiful, that some people are born with photographic memories, that one person gets cancer and the next one doesn't.

We Americans were born in a land of opportunity and wealth, while billions around the world are born into poverty and squalor. We won the ultimate lottery of life just by being born in this great and rich country. Where is the justice in that? (The Poverty of Equality)
What is the definition of "Fair Share?"
As for fairness, the wealthy already pay more than a fair share (the top 1 percent of income earners make 16 percent of income but pay nearly 40 percent of federal income taxes) ... (Let's hope that Obama doesn't start getting technical about "fairness," because the plutocrats would be in for a huge tax break.) (Harsanyi - Obama's "Fairness" Fiction)
Misguided do-gooders among us claim that if we could just make the "haves" of this world pay their "fair share," we could achieve "social justice." The OWS agitators claim that everyone should receive a wage regardless of whether they work or not, and it would presumably be funded by doubling the tax on "the rich."

 They talk of "equitably distributing the wealth," as if it were in a big community pot that belonged to all of us, or the government, depending on the propaganda narrative.
"THIS IS WHY it is wrong to even speak of the "distribution" of income and wealth. Income and wealth are not distributed. Income and wealth are created, and in a fair society they come into the world attached to the rightful owner that produced them." (The Poverty of Equality)
A quick lesson from the real world:
During the era of communism in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, when all land was cultivated for the "common good" and food was evenly distributed to all, regardless of how much one worked, China produced way too little food, and many millions of people, including children, starved to death.
But then, starting in the 1980s, agricultural reforms began to emerge that allowed farmers to take a small plot of land and keep the food they grew. An amazing thing happened. Production of food on these very small tracts surged multiples higher than the output on the communal lands. The Chinese farmers saw output double and even triple from the previous arrangement where all food was put in a communal pot. Private ownership of the farms led to a green revolution, and China quickly became a food exporter. (The Poverty of Equality)
It's axiomatic. Free-market meritocracies work; spread-the-wealth autocracies do not. Capitalism has lifted over a half-billion Chinese out of poverty since 1981. But like water and electricity, human beings will take the path of least resistance. Envy, "that most anti-social and odious of all passions," is now easier to traffic in here in America than legitimate economic free-enterprise that has proven time and again to elevate one's station and to enrich societies.

What we're wanting in America is not some nebulous "fairness," "fair shares," "social justice," or, heaven forbid, equality of outcomes.  We are wanting economic liberty, equality before the law, and a permanent wall of separation between government and the rent-seekers of all stripes, corporate or otherwise.  Given a level playing field, mom and pop could compete with Walmart.

For a short and surprisingly snarky take on economic equality in America, read former FDIC chairman Shiela Bair's modest proposal to fix income inequality.

See also Winning the Fight on Fairness

52 comments:

Ducky's here said...

Thomas Sowell is a freaking stooge.

Here's my definition of fair share. A progressive system in which you pay in relative proportion to the percentage of the wealth you control.

In other words, the idiot right wing sock puppets whine about the wealthy paying 60% (or whatever) of all taxes without:

1. Distinguishing that the figure refers only to income tax which is only about half of Federal revenues.

2. Mentioning that these poor put upon souls control 80% of the wealth and pay less in proportion.

3. Failing to realize that the lack of a progressive system means that the upward income transfer continues and the tax system aids that transfer.

I don't much care. If you stooges want this system to work in my favor, fine. Idiots.

And it's not going to change,
It's not going to change,
It's not going to change,
'til you wise up.

Always On Watch said...

Utopianism, a huge part of which is equality of outcome and "social justice," has NEVER worked in practice. Why? Because of human nature.

Thousands upon thousands of years, and human beings are what they are. We look out for our own interests first.

I will say that looking out for number one has become more intense over the past several decades. Extreme selfishness is the new ethos.

I recall a few decades ago something that my father said as all the mega-mansions were going up all over Northern Virginia (paraphrase): "The middle class is making a huge mistake. They're trying to live like the very wealthy. And they're not saving for that rainy day that always comes."

BTW, Mark Levin's new book Ameritopia begins with a discussion of equality. I haven't gotten very far in the book because I've had quite an upsetting weekend: one of the homeschool moms in our group died on Saturday morning after a long battle with breast cancer; the funeral is on Tuesday morning. I counted this homeschool mom as a friend and have taken one daughter under my wing for the past couple of years as this futile battle with breast cancer was waging. I'm so very sad right now: this lady's death leaves behind as orphans two daughters as the father died in 2006. I'll be mostly off the grid for a few days as I continue to mentor one daughter through this terrible, terrible time.

Silverfiddle said...

Calling people idiots... Great argument Ducky, so astute!

Essentially, you want a tax on wealth, not just income. You could have said that in one sentence, but I do find your quacking humorous...

Ducky's here said...

Things should be called by their names.

This whole argument on taxation proceeds from inaccuracies and skirts the question of what happens to a culture when the wealth discrepancy becomes too large.

Tough to define too large ? Absolutely. But we still have to try and we don't leave it to a clown like Thomas Sowell sitting there in one of his ill fitting jackets spouting nonsense.

What you are seeing in the wake of this recovery is the addition of a large number of people to the underclass. But just lower the taxes on the job creators (LMFAO) while a fool like Thomas Sowell powders your ass.

Now do you think you can dismiss my argument out of hand?

Always On Watch said...

a tax on wealth, not just income

The definition of "wealth" is relative.

As I've learned from terrible personal experience, one does need a "wealth" when severe illness strikes to prevent one from immediately being on the dole "courtesy" of other taxpayers.

It is worth noting that some 80% of residents of nursing homes today are on Medicaid. Many in those 80% entered longterm care quite "flush" by most people's standards -- to the tune of 1/2 to 1 million dollars! Within two or three years, that "wealth" is gone, and many live well beyond that 2-3 years.

You know what one of the HUGEST problems is with our economy right now? To a large extent, the drivers of the economy are aging and cutting back. Let us now kid ourselves: for decades, the Boomers drove this economy. Well, that particular driver has started to come to an end. The situation will only get worse over the next two decades.

Bunkerville said...

Why humans are unable to learn anything from past history continues to amaze me. The dangerous thing now though, it is no longer just a polite conversatin to debate. Killer weapons now can destroy our planet, and a hungry mob sooner or later will no longer be willing to stsrve to death.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, these words make me feel paralyzed with dismay -- a deep sense of the inevitability of impending Doom.

Never a day goes by that I don't feel grateful -- and relieved -- I never brought children into this wretched world.

The U.S.S. Titanic is headed straight for the iceberg, and the "captain," despite knowing this full well, has tied the wheel and turned away from considering any other course.

WHY, you ask?

Because there aren't enough lifeboats to save every passenger, and it wouldn't be fair to save some and let others drown, so in the interests of Fairness and Equality ALL must DROWN.

Welcome to the tyranny -- and insanity -- of ENVY-INSPIRED EGALITARIANISM.

_________________________

The fault in Ducky's logic -- and that of others who share his beliefs -- lies in his assumption that all the hugely expensive things the government does are 1. worth doing, and 2. should continue to be done regardless of the cost.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

@ Ducky: But we still have to try and we don't leave it to a clown like Thomas Sowell sitting there in one of his ill fitting jackets spouting nonsense.

... said the ignorant little boy in short pants.

It's amusing to see a little beantown quacker slip and fall as he tries to kick an eminent and serious scholar in the shins.

I can understand disagreeing with him or rebutting his arguments, but casting aspersions upon him just shows your stupidity and lack of education.

Take your argument seriously? I will when you make a serious argument.

Ducky's here said...

That's for another day, freethinker.

The question is whether we want a tax policy that allows the most idle among us like hedge fund managers to pay a reduced rate.

Ducky's here said...

serious scholar? Because you say so?

What original research or riting has Sowell ever doe?

Silverfiddle said...

Here you go, dumbass...

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Sowell/e/B000APQ7EI

Now, what original research or "riting" have you done, professor?

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky:

http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-living-economists/

The list includes some lefties as well.

Pull you head out of your msnbc and breath some fresh air. Everyone you disagree with is not stupid.

Grung_e_Gene said...

Oh goodness, this would only make sense if everyone started at the same starting point. But, instead conservatives seem to ignore that not everyone is at the starting line for a 100 yard dash. Some "earn" a $100,000,000 dollar advance while others only have a hoodie, a can of tea and a bag of skittles.

Silverfiddle said...

No Gene, you are wrong. The references I cite absolutely acknowledge we don't all start out at the same point.

Back to the topic at hand, do you support forced equality? How would we achieve it?

viburnum said...

Speaking, apparently as an idiot right wing sock puppet, I have a hard time rationalizing a tax system rooted in envy rather than equality. Treating everyone the same is the ideal, since making everyone the same is impossible.

For an example of the absurdity of trying, I highly recommend the Kurt Vonnegut short story, "Harrison Bergeron" which you can find in his collection "Welcome to the Monkey House"

Z said...

bunkerville...amen to that.

Inequality is part of human nature...until some people (i.e. 'misguided dogooders') wake up and realize we don't all fit into the same sized gray Mao jacket, we'll always have those who try to fix human nature. Good luck with that.
And God bless those who see through it and want the best for their families and their neighbors and work hard to help both.

"Given a level playing field, mom and pop could compete with Walmart". bravo

Pressie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jersey McJones said...

"You know what one of the HUGEST problems is with our economy right now? To a large extent, the drivers of the economy are aging and cutting back. Let us now kid ourselves: for decades, the Boomers drove this economy. Well, that particular driver has started to come to an end. The situation will only get worse over the next two decades."

AoW, you're on the right track, but your conclusion is makes no sense.

We have a evo-generational problem here. We have a large number of Baby Boomers, 76 million, who control a disproportionate share of the wealth, because they were lucky enough to be born when and where they were, they are living longer and longer and healthier and healthier, again, because they were lucky to be born when and where they were, but there's a problem...

Given today's realities, they are discovering that in order to live the kind of retirement they'd like, and because we do not have a reliable pension system in America, they are working far later into life than did their ancestors. So now, rather than people in their 30's, 40's and 50's being in their economic prime, we have people in their 50's, 60's, and 70's doing so. The opportunity economy has skipped a generation, and all in the span of just a couple.

The good news is that this won't last. The Boomers will age and dissipate over time. In ten years their numbers will begin to reduce, and in thirty, they'll be a vanishing breed. As they age out of the system, so to speak, they will divest their wealth, turn their jobs over to the next generation (finally!), and themselves become less and less a burden on the younger generations.

The shift is permanent and destined. There's no changing that. But the recovery from the shift will come - starting very soon.

As for these silly rightwing arguments that incorrectly assume the positions of the left, like "equal outcomes," they are pointless. To say the wealthy are somehow being abused by the rest of us is fucking stupid beyond belief. You'd have to be a fucking retard to believe such stupidity.

JMJ

Always On Watch said...

Jersey,
The Boomers will age and dissipate over time. In ten years their numbers will begin to reduce, and in thirty, they'll be a vanishing breed. As they age out of the system, so to speak, they will divest their wealth, turn their jobs over to the next generation (finally!), and themselves become less and less a burden on the younger generations.

You are assuming that any wealth will be left to turn over to the next generation.

Many Boomers will need expensive elder care; if that care is expensive enough, they will go into medical bankruptcy.

The fact is this: if you live long enough, you will need elder care. It ain't cheap! Not by a long shot!

My aunt who recently died of pancreatic cancer had enough to pay for the last 6 weeks of her life; that care cost $600/week, and hospice, usually a benefit in most insurance policies as it was in my aunt's policy, does not pay for the grunt work involved in caregiving: diaper changes, baths, potty transfers, doing the patient's laundry, handing meals to the patient, etc.

As for retirement, well, the very concept is relatively new. The generation before my father's generation didn't have such a thing.

Retirement is not a right, you know.

Always On Watch said...

If we accept that the Boomers were the driving force of our economy, what will happen as Boomers die off and the tax base shrinks? We'll have fewer individuals to try to soak up all the government programs that the Boomers actually did pay tax monies into. I'm thinking of Social Security and Medicare, of course.

Now factor into the above the unemployment rate.

There is an economic tsunami coming!

We always knew in our heads that this tsunami was on the way. But our elected leaders and many of us as citizens did not prepare for it.

So, the generation growing up now cannot POSSIBLY have the same opportunity for a better lifestyle than previous generations.

Some days I'm so very glad that I'm as old as I am.

Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: As for these silly rightwing arguments that incorrectly assume the positions of the left...

I refer you to Ducky's comments.

Lisa said...

This is purely political because as we remember President Clinton's Tax on rich started with incomes of $33,000 per year.

Anonymous said...

AOW said, "I recall a few decades ago something that my father said as all the mega-mansions were going up all over Northern Virginia (paraphrase): 'The middle class is making a huge mistake. They're trying to live like the very wealthy. And they're not saving for that rainy day that always comes.'"

Your father right, AOW, but he forgot to mention that all those pretentious, overblown McMansions are built out of papier maché and plastic. Not only are they poorly constructed, they are ugly, badly-designed pieces of non-architecture -- flamboyant examples of bad taste that clutter up the landscape with abundant evidence of how stupid we've become and how low we've sunk in the past 40-60 years.

Houses started to get ugly and cheaply-built way back in the 1950's with the advent of the "Spilt-Level."

It's interesting to note that the good suburban houses built in the nineteen-teens and just into the mid-nineteen-forties, even though smaller, and with fewer so-called "amenities," are still more sought after by discerning home buyers with money to spend than any of the McMansions now filling barrenbarren fields all over the country.

Houses and apartments may have had fewer bathrooms, smaller closets and smaller kitchens way back when, but they were also solidly built, had architectural integrity, authentic, cohesive style, and many charming features that included beautiful woodwork, real plaster walls, fine masonry fireplaces, built-in bookshelves, panelled wainscoting, niches, arches, cove ceilings, beautiful, multi-paned windows thoughtfully placed to look attractive from the outside as well as the inside. Flagstone patios, terraced gardens, beautiful shade trees -- you name it.

And all that was available to middle-class wage earners in families where only the father went out to work, and no child needed to be sent to "Daycare."

None of that exists today with the major part of new construction. Today's McMansions have all the warmth, charm and civilizing influence of airplane hanger or the lobby of a modern motel.

Abundant physical evidence of our long, slow, steep descent is present all over the eastern half of the United States. I don't know the western half well enough to comment.

But I do know this: The lower-middle class started out in apartment buildings designed with architectural grandeur. Practicing thrift they could once afford to buy these modest-sized, good quality houses I've been talking about.

Today with both parents working -- one mostly to support "Daycare" -- they live in sterile, cheesy looking apartment buildings with all the aesthetic appeal of an army barracks or the wind up packed in like rotting sardines in a trailer park.

We ain't goin' nowhere but DOWN boys and girls. Been that way for a long long time.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

AoW, wealth does not just vanish. Your example that they will need medical care is a perfect example - they will spend their money - their wealth - on their medical care. That money comes to the younger generations as we car for them. Yes, their care will be more expensive than most can afford, and the tax payers will be stuck with that, but that too will end. Eventually, they will die, and as they had fewer kids than their parents, and Gen-Xer's even less than them, the burden of caring for the elderly in general will reduce, because there will be less of them. And their houses, their jobs, their money, their investments - all that has to go somewhere! It doesn't just disappear with them!

You do know the old saying - You can't take it with you!

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

Well, Silver, a couple things. If you state that the goal here is forced equality i would like to know where you ever got that asinine idea.
In fact you're either lying or your comatose, one or the other.

What we want is a game matrix that is cooperative. Trying to maximize the payout for a certain class in this little laissez-faire contest has rather nasty consequences for the rest.
The goal is to cooperate and guarantee a reasonable pay out for all.

Now you may disagree but you really should realize that one things leftists are wise to is the way you and the rabies radio brotherhood command the language and define the talking points even if they are bullshit.

Forced equality? What the bleep is that all about?

And Thomas Sowell seems to be a sage by self proclamation. One of these mediocrities that is known for nothing more than being known.

No, repeat after me, "when the payout is maximized, I ain't gonna be one of the winners." Repeat as many times as necessary till you wise up.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: You need to elaborate on this "reasonable pay out" theory of yours.

I stand by my conclusion:

economic liberty, equality before the law, and a permanent wall of separation between government and the rent-seekers of all stripes, corporate or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Ducky,

As you ought to have realized by now, you and I are not as far apart as most would think. We disagree not so much on the nature of our problems as on the methodology that might help move us above and beyond The Slough of Despondency we currently inhabit.

I do wish you could understand -- you and Jersey -- that repeated insults and vehement denunciations of everything you you disagree with are not an adequate substitute for thought.

If by any chance you sincerely want to enlighten, inform and persuade, you can't do it by calling your opponents silly, insulting names.

Frankly, the tone is reminiscent of Junior High -- at least as it was in my day.

Can't you argue without calling someone a freaking imbecile?

~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

It is a difficulty, but we can construct a matrix that is superior to pure laissez-faire (unless you consider the days of the robber barons a success, laissez-faire has always failed whenever it's been tried).

A culture where the payout allows for a decent diet, basic medical care, education and housing is he start. We've got a way to go but this is doable and we will have a more productive society when we succeed.

Strange game? You cooperate and you win, imagine that.

Silverfiddle said...

We have a matrix, it's called the US Constitution. If government would follow it we wouldn't have Wall Street moles on the inside and corporate parasites permanently attached to the host.

laissez-faire has always failed whenever it's been tried

You'll need to define your terms and provide examples. Actually, it's socialism that's failed everywhere it'be been tried.

You think the age of the robber barons was a horror show? Try studying Cuba or communist Eastern Europe.

Ducky's here said...

Failed means that like in the robber baron age the wealth discrepancy becomes so large that you get serious social instability.

The Constitution is a game theory matrix? Please, put it away for a bit.The Constitution is not a blueprint for laissez-faire.

Get those right wingers yammering about the Constitution or the founders and you know they're cornered.

Silverfiddle said...

I'm not cornered. We have a beautiful republic, if only our venal politicians would obey the law.

When people start yammering about "matrices" and they're not discussing mathematics, grab your wallet and be on guard for your liberties.

Jersey McJones said...

"We have a matrix, it's called the US Constitution. If government would follow it we wouldn't have Wall Street moles on the inside and corporate parasites permanently attached to the host."

May I add, Silver, I would love to know how this would be so. How exactly do you propose we, from this matrix of the constitution, get the Wall Street moles out?

How?

What part of the Constitution would you cite?

The fact of the matter is that the Constitution was written by, for, and of wealthy interests. Yes, it's a great document - perhaps the "best so far" as they say - but let's not pretend it is a law of physics, or the word of God.

"Wall Street" is the same moneyed class as was around 250 years ago here. The only difference is that today's wealthy interests seem to care a lot more for a life of leisure than building a great nation.

There's nothing in the Constitution to stop this. We have to amend it. Or better said - there IS something in the Constitution for dealing with this, and it IS an amendment.

But you righties would NEVER go for it.

This is my amendment:

"In the need for as incorruptible a government as possible, no person running for public office may accept any money, gift, or favor from any person of value more than ten dollars, and only once ever in the course of their public service."

What we do about after they serve would require yet another, or preferably better worded amendment.

JMJ

Z said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Silverfiddle said...

Actually Jersey, I would support your amendment.

Like a good liberal (please take this with the spirit of charity that I intend) you look at the constitution wrong.

It is a document of negative rights as they pertain to the people. It does not authorize our actions. It circumscribes government's actions against our liberties.

For the federal government, it details positive "rights." If the constitution does not enumerate it, the government may not do it. That solves the problem you posit.

If it doesn't mention it, the government may not do it. Nothing in there allows the federal government to hand out money to wall street, so they are violating the law.

I'll leave it to the father of the constitution to explain it:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Z said...

"In the need for as incorruptible a government as possible, no person running for public office may accept any money, gift, or favor from any person of value more than ten dollars, and only once ever in the course of their public service."

That's a little much; can they be taken to LUNCH? That's part of doing business, getting to know each other.

On the other hand, I hate to agree with you, but I definitely do: there are no lobbyists of our kind in Germany and they also don't suffer from this kind of corruption (they've got their own homemade type, but not this type of corruption)

They also get a set amount for each person running, after having passed a kind of 'test' that shows they're a popular enough candidate to be taken seriously. Everybody gets the same amount. I'm for that but have been screeched at over at my blog for even suggesting it.

Jersey McJones said...

"Actually Jersey, I would support your amendment."

Unfortunately, the moneyed class that have always run this nation would not stand for that, and it may be extremely dangerous.

It would be too much of a change from what we have now.

We're stuck with what we have now.

But we, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, could make a few points that could change things - only people are people, only speech is speech, and bribery is always just bribery. If culturally people could come to find those ideals, with deference to our environment, we could have a much cleaner, more efficient, better government.

JMJ

Finntann said...

Z said: "That's a little much; can they be taken to LUNCH? That's part of doing business, getting to know each other."

Honest answer? NO! Want to get to know each other, go Dutch.

From my past experience (25 years) with the DoD, that's the existing rule for government employees who are not elected. Why should congressmen be treated differently?

Of course the defense contractors generally put out a pretty good spread. In the real world, the way it works is like this...

They cater the meeting.

They put out a cup for contributions.

It's all done on the honor system.

There is seldom enough money in the cup to cover the costs.

Technically, if you take it gratis you've created a COI (Conflict of Interest). In reality, does a free, or subsidized lunch influence anyone? Most likely not.

But the way the rules are written, you not only can't have a COI, you can't have the appearance of a COI.

Over the past 20 or so years, the rules have become more restrictive not less.

The company I currently work for deals with a variety of clients. For company to company interaction, business development usually foots the bill if it is catered and warranted. For any interaction with state or federal government, there might be coffee and donuts (which the company has daily anyway)...still a contribution cup goes out for the government employees.

Anything more than a cup of coffee, we either break for lunch, take individual orders off an a la carte catering menu, or charge a conference fee if fully catered.

For example, the Department of Interior's rule is as follows:

An employee may accept unsolicited gifts having an aggregate market value of $20 or less per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts received from any one person under the authority of this paragraph shall not exceed $50 in a calendar year. This exception does not apply to gifts of cash or of investment interests such as stock, bonds, or certificates of deposit. Where the market value of a gift or the aggregate market value of gifts offered on any single occasion exceeds $20, the employee may not pay the excess value over $20 in order to accept that portion of the gift or those gifts worth $20.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

The false premise in Ducky's logic is that anyone is entitled to a portion of somebody else's wealth or labor that they did not earn by mere virtue of their existance.

Having started at the bottom, working dawn to dusk, with nothing from nobody... I'll say this:

No, I don't have a right to or vested interest in say the proceeds of Vanderbilt estate. The fact that Cornelius made a ton of money and gave it to his kids is completely irrelevant. It was his money, earned and taxed under the laws at the time. Now, if you can prove malfeasance or illegality (under the laws at the time)...have at it.

Now, I have no problem paying for the governments enumerated powers, defense, infrastructure, state, etc. But the fact that the government seizes a portion of my labor to put food on someone elses table, cover the costs of their drug rehab, or put their kids through college, is just plain immoral.

You wouldn't expect me to come buy and mow your lawn, why do you think your entitled to a more abstract form of my labor?

As it stands now, I toil away on the pyramids for about three months a year for mighty Pharoah while a significant portion of my fellow countrymen sit back and enjoy the view. Yeah, I just paid Pharoah his annual tribute so he can go out and buy votes this fall and I'm pissed.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

No grand, gesture, no expertise, no achievement, however great is worth a tinker's dam, unless it is imbued with the spirit of Charity.

Without morality -- as defined by seminal concepts of the Judeo-Christian tradition -- freedom quickly turns to Chaos and the The Law of the Jungle obtains. Life becomes "nasty, brutish and short" as it was in the Beginning.

Existence is a paradox. One of the greatest paradoxes within that paradox is that we cannot enjoy the blessings of freedom without subjecting ourselves to rigorous forms of discipline and self-denial.

Brazen selfishness with no regard for the needs and feelings of others is not only immoral, it's uncivilized. What's more it's just begging for trouble.


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.


~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

Submitted by FreeThinke

Z said...

Finntann....I suppose you're right.
I never did government work. And, though I spec'd a lot of very high-end products, I never was approached with "here's lunch, buy my product." I guess they knew I specified what was best for the job.

KP said...

Im am trying to decide where to apply -- the GSA or Secret Service.

viburnum said...

FT: "...unless it is imbued with the spirit of Charity."

Charity is an act of volition. Charity mandated, collected, administered, and distributed by the government is communism, or as it's known in today's lexicon, "Fairness"

Always On Watch said...

FT,
...flamboyant examples of bad taste that clutter up the landscape...

When the faux Victorians first appeared here in my neighborhood in 1982, a newspaper said something like the following:

"These houses have burst upon the quiet neighborhood like a group of gaudy cancan dancers."

And, yes, they are poorly built. The porches were built with unseasoned wood and warped like crazy within a few years. Some of the siding was also incorrectly made and popped off.

And the maintenance required! All those colors of paint! These houses scream, "Look at ME!"

These houses are still standing, but not very marketable as the faux-Victorian style is no longer the fad. Also, they are considered too small. Go figure.

Always On Watch said...

Jersey,
they will spend their money - their wealth - on their medical care. That money comes to the younger generations as we car for them. Yes, their care will be more expensive than most can afford, and the tax payers will be stuck with that, but that too will end. Eventually, they will die...

The bulk of that money isn't going to those who actually do the hands-on care. Most nursing home are run by corporations. In addition, Medicare and Medicaid fraud is rampant. I saw that for myself when Mr. AOW was in a nursing home.

Many Boomers are expected to live into their 90s. "Eventually" will be a long time coming: 30-40 years, I think.

With fewer children from the Boomers, there will be a glut of houses. Well, unless immigration makes up that difference.

Yes, the wealth will go somewhere. But I don't think that wealth will go where you think it will. I believe that a great deal of the inherited wealth will be spent on the college education of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the Boomers. Furthermore, once the Boomers are gone, the medical-care industry will suffer a serious downturn -- more people out hunting for work.

I do wonder what will happen to all the shopping malls and strip malls that were built specifically to provide services for Boomers.

In any case, within this century, America will undergo one hell of a demographic upheaval.

Finntann said...

Charity...What viburnum said!

And I might add Charity under threat is extortion.

Welcome to the Gimmees!

Finntann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Charity...What viburnum said!

And I might add Charity under threat is extortion.

Welcome to the Gimmees!"


Neither of you have the faintest idea of what I tried to say, or you wouldn't have reacted as you did.

Communication is all-but-impossible when everyone is talking a different language.

That's what the upheaval of the Sick-sties has done to us -- widen the Generation Gap to the point where bridging it may no longer be possible.

Divide and Conquer rules again.

I will, however, keep trying to get through. One never knows who's looking and listening.

It's a shame that feelings are running so high that just about everything that's said is used as a stimulus for opposition.

In simplistic terms we now look only for the "bad" and never for the "good" in what others offer.

Too bad!

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

So what exactly did you mean by:

"No grand, gesture, no expertise, no achievement, however great is worth a tinker's dam, unless it is imbued with the spirit of Charity."

Standing alone is a wonderful statement, made in the context of the present discussion of progressive government and entitlement seems to come out as more of a rebuke to more than just I.

Cheers

viburnum said...

FT: "Neither of you have the faintest idea of what I tried to say, or you wouldn't have reacted as you did.

Apparently we're both capable of misapprehending each other, as my words were posted in support of what I though was your point. Given the topic of 'fairness imposed from the top", I took "No grand gesture, no expertise, no achievement, however great is worth a tinker's dam, unless it is imbued with the spirit of Charity", to be referring to the fact that the motives of our modern day levelers are something less than pure. Spelling out what their idea of 'Charity' amounted to was my sole intent.

"Communication is all-but-impossible when everyone is talking a different language"

I think we're speaking the same language, with perhaps a different accent. I just can't help thinking that when the barbarians are at the gate, what's in order is the strident blare of trumpets, not the subtleties of fugues.

Anonymous said...

I meant exactly what I said -- nothing more -- nothing less. It was, of course, a paraphrase of some of St. Pauls' most famous words from Second Corinthians. [I'd have to look it up to give you Chapter and verse, and would if asked, but it ought not to be necessary.]

I also said, "It's a shame that feelings are running so high that just about everything that's said is used as a stimulus for opposition.

"In simplistic terms we now look only for the "bad" and never for the "good" in what others offer."


I try to write according to principles I believe in, and rarely within the narrow confines of a particular discussion. When principles are ignored, besmirched or violated, someone needs to defend them.

So often oblique commentary is taken as some sort of "attack" by those who disagree -- or simply don't understand -- what an interlocutor driving at.

As far as I'm concerned these discussions are not about you, or me, or Kurt, or Z, or Ducky, or any one of us, or if they are, they shouldn't be,

It ought to be about exchanging IDEAS -- and the ramifications thereof -- good, bad and indifferent.

Making things personal is petty and counterproductive -- a waste of time. Must disagreement or skepticism always be couched in terms of accusation? Why not curiosity instead?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Thank you for that last post, Viburnum. I'm afraid I was probably guilty of the same thing I just accused Finntann of doing -- being defensive and taking things too personally.

You may not be aware of it, but I usually see eye to eye with just about everything you contribute to these pages. I was, therefore, surprised when it looked to me as though you thought I was defending "coerced charity" when in fact I have inveighed against it forcefully in exactly those terms hundreds of times.

I'm glad to learn I was wrong, and thank you for clarifying without taking umbrage at my misunderstanding.

Not to belabor the point, but what I meant, of course, was that all the "do-gooding" in the world is worthless unless it stems from heartfelt sincerity. As we all should know by now, heartfelt sincerity is scarcer than hen's teeth among those who stalk The Corridors of Power.

I know you understand, but I'm saying this for the benefit of others who may not grasp that money, fame and power are less-than nothing unless those so endowed are loving, caring, honest, unselfish human beings.

A tall order. Almost impossible to find, but The Pearl of Great Price, nevertheless. Something for which we should never stop searching.

Unfortunately, ROBAMANEY ain't it.

Naturally, I'd prefer to be wrong. Only time will tell ...

~ FreeThinke