We were in Wendy’s the other day – the place was almost empty, and as we approached the cash register, a man appeared on my left. He had that depraved look of a lost cause – sunken eyes, ragged clothing, stooped posture. He asked me for money. My initial reaction was to avert my eyes. We ordered my food, and I collected my change, and then I went over and gave him some money.
Whadda guy, eh? My initial reaction bothers me. But I suppose I’m like everyone else, secure in my little nest. And he did take me by surprise.
Some would say I was wrong to give him money. I know what he’s going to do with it – he’s either going to buy some food, or some liquor. Food first, but by midnight of that day I know he’ll be passed out in an alley. In the not-too-distant future, he’ll turn up dead.
There exists in conservatism a strain of social Darwinism. They deny it. If someone says to me one more time “teach a man to fish…”, I’m going to get physical. There are lost causes on this planet. They only need comfort – food, shelter, the warmth of human compassion. We can do no more for them. Maybe they’ll come out of it, but what if they don’t? Is it so wrong just to give them shelter for one night without pestering them about Jesus? Is that a bad use of public funds?
But the Darwinism operates on a higher level than the pitiful poor. In the conservatives’ mind eye view, all of us are working away on a ladder, all of us are upward bound. To reach down and help anyone below us is wrong, as it robs them of incentive. To reach up and take anything from up above is wrong, as it punishes success.
It’s ice cold, heartless. And it’s wrong. We’re not like that. We are connected, each to one another, by a firm hand grip. Some, like George W. Bush, are born high up, and very dependent on the hand up. He’s been bailed out of trouble more times than Paris Hilton. But he removes his own hand from those below. His dad was the same way, scarred by lavish inheritance, a sense of entitlement and mythical achievement. As Jim Hightower so famously said of W, he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
It’s that sense of entitlement that bothers me, the idea that we should never involuntarily offer a hand down. Conservatives have a misshapen view of the privileged classes, that they will extend the necessary generosity to bring the lower classes along. And if they don’t, well, that’s how it works. If a man turns up dead in an alley, well, it’s probably best he never reproduced.
In the view of most of us, we’re all in it together. We can all use a break, whether it is help putting food on the table in hard times, or overcoming unaffordable illness. The best solution for most of us is education and job training. Private charity will never provide enough to help those who can use the help, because too many of the wealthy are like George W. Bush – “I’ve got mine. Screw you.”
Yes, there will be those who form a sense of entitlement to public resources. But they will be a minority. We should not all be punished for a few miscreants. Most people want to be self-sufficient, and only need help overcoming the early hurdles. So we eliminate some of them.
In other industrialized countries there is a much higher degree of public service to one another, and these countries have healthy economies, but more than that, happier people. In various measures of happiness, like this one, countries like Denmark, Canada and Sweden consistently outscore the U.S. Here we are tempered to hard-boiled competition, and can be wiped out by medical hardship. Our kids go deeply in debt to get an education and are chained to the wheel when they leave school by the need to service that debt. It’s a constant strain. We are hyper-busy, irritable, strained and insecure. We work harder, take fewer vacations, and have fewer public benefits. For all of those reasons, we Americans are very good employees.
How much better, how much more sensible, to use our resources for mutual aid. Conservatives say that no one should ever be forced to help another. But most of us recognize a duty, and see the tax system is the most efficient way to do it. Private charity, while important, is too small and selective to be as useful.
There are those among us who recognize no duty to one another, have no sense of fellowship, who want only to live in splendid isolation. They collect the bounty of all our labors and pretend that they created it. They are the strident voice of selfishness. They need to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, into humanity. Otherwise, they are safely ignored.
Piece of Mindful 
Yes, we are all in this together. I got to know a number of the homeless ones in the first half of this decade. I was one of them. Between a divorce and a bout with a nasty health issue I was suddenly broke and homeless. I didn’t actually live under a bridge or anything — I got an old RV and moved it around various parking lots here in town — but I was essentially homeless for 5 years. And I was shocked to see, every night, how many people around me were living in their cars. I was lucky. I was able to bring myself back to a semi-normal life, but not everybody is able to, or has the chances to do that. I’d share food and coffee and money with these folks — men and women — when I could, and most would offer the same when they could. Some were indeed crazed and needed some serious help. Most were much like the rest of us and needed a bit of assistance to get back on their feet. A few were downright dangerous. They were predators, and were best left alone. You have them in all levels of society.
I’ll not ramble anymore here, but I will say that the people I got to know and talk to shared one common thread. They all wanted to connect with other humans, they all sought some form of community however meager, and they all wanted to tell their story. Above all they all wanted someone to listen. I wish now that I had taken the time to write some of their stories down. Our perception of the homeless, and their actual reality are more often than not far different. My hope is that we can create a society that will accept responsibility for the well-being of all, and will willingly and cheerfully help those who need when they need it. And you know what? I don’t really think that’s asking too much. Once again, a fine post Mark. Happy new year.
LikeLike
What a story! It is nice to see that you recovered, and that you are not totally hardened by the experience. Welcome back, and happy new year to you.
LikeLike
That is a great story! Happy new year? It’s not looking very good for an awful lot of people on this tiny, overcrowded planet!
LikeLike
This is perhaps the most arrogant thing you’ve written. You’re assumptions are wrong on so many levels.
First, your assumption about the guy who asked you for the money are specious and elitist. How pathetic are you? It appears that this guy was so mush less of a human to you that you didn’t even bother to talk to him – ask him what he needed money for. You assume that he’s destined for a lonely miserable death. Next time it happens I hope you ask the panhandler what he needs. I do this always and more often than not I’m compelled to give them money. But maybe I have an advantage over you. In my many years in Narcotics Anonymous I’ve gotten to know and love many people who are discarded by society as inferior – many homeless off and on – and all of them humans. Some panhandlers are drunks and dopers, many of them are mentally ill, some are down on their luck while some chose to be homeless. But your lack of curiosity and your immediate desire to ascribe this person to a stereotype tells me your no better than those you accuse of being heartless. Did you really give him money out of compassion or to assuage your sense of guilt and lack of self-respect?
Secondly, how dare you assume that conservatives are less generous or compassionate then you. What pompous tripe.
Next, your ascribing Social Darwinism to the right is way off base (actually the concept predates Darwin by a century – but let’s not let the facts – or Hegal – or Hobbes – get in the way.)
Listen, if you what to help these people I suggest you understand them as opposed to proffering a “solution” first. Is it a waste of public funds? In some cases it is for sure. In some cases it’s not. But for you to propose it is demonstrates that you don’t understand the issue nor are willing to take time to get to know the people.
LikeLike
Hobbes was a dick. Just because there wasn’t such a catchy name for it back then doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
LikeLike
Been waiting for you, Dave. It was like red meat… too much to pass up?
I knew the guy was an alcoholic becuase of his appearance and nationality – he was native American. The eyes were sunken and face were bloated and badly weathered – it’s not rocket science, and that particular group has a much harder time processing alcohol than the rest of us. It is truly their demon.
Why didn’t I sit down and talk to him? Didn’t want to get to know him. Much easier just to give him some cash. I’m far from perfect. You have a valid point.
As Steve says, the concept of Social Darwinism is the important thing – the idea that there are policies we need to adopt to prevent inferior people from reproducing is at its core, but Hitler discredited it for all time. We’re more subtle now – we don’t talk about reproduction – we say incentive. It’s coded language, that’s all.
I don’t know that conservatives and right wingers are any more or less generous than the rest of us, but I do know you’ve institutionalized your worst characteristics. You’re working right now to tear down our social safety net – what’s left of it anyway. What’s to take its place? Your individual generosity, I suppose. Problem is, it’s not enough. But your philosophy, no matter how inadequate, is all you’ve got, and you’re not going to offer anything more to us.
Your intellectual arrogance, the constant name-dropping, is rather off-putting, by the way. I mentioned this over at your blog – I’ve wondered now and then, but not too often, why intellectuals align themselves with the powerful in our society. The answer was given to me by someone I don’t remember – I read it in a book and the guy is famous. If I remember his name, I’ll drop it on you. It’s the idea that you cannot stand the thought that you are merely one of us, not better or smarter – you’ve got to separate yourself from the rabble, and so seek to identify with the wealthy and powerful, and offer your services to them. There are a few intellectuals who work for the common good, but they are rare. The overwhelming tendency is to work in service of power.
Anyway, that’s a real turnoff about you.
LikeLike
Thanks for the pigeon holing, Mark. As I said on my site, I have never considered myself an intellectual and I hardly identify with the rich and powerful. But your definition of “the common good” is but yours and to assume that my concepts of it are skewed to the upper class is rote nonsense. You’re going to have to prove that to me by anything I’ve ever written or said.
As for name dropping I have to ask the question: when is it inapporpriate to call upon the corpus of intellectualism that has been agrigated in the ethos of civilization? You quote Mencken from time to time, are you too “name dropping?”
BTW, the term Social Darwinism cannot be ascribed to the right wing in any sense. Most “right-wingers” – in your words – have rejected the notion entirely. Ludwig Von Mises, the father’s of modern libertarian economics (oh, there I go name dropping again) thought the idea of eugenics was antithetical to liberty.
In fact, the first practical application of social Darwinism seems to be in England in the ealy 1900’s where, social Darwinists came to believe that the lower class were not lazy and stupid but could not, in fact, lift themselves up by their own work. Accordingly the term “Diserving Poor” was coined by England’s Liberal Party (which included Winston Churchill at the time) and earned them the name of “Father’s of the Welfare State.”
This largely came from the writings of Herbert Spencer (Jeeze, I just can’t stop name dropping) who implied that the evolution of society (survival of the fittest being ascribed to society rather than individuals) produced and ever evolving society better getting ever better. The adaptive charateristics bing that of compassion and kindness. So, one school of thought is that Social Darwinism is owned root and branch by the left.
But it’s easy to confuse it with the idea of eugenic manipulation in a post Hitler world. That said, the use of the term has become, as you might say, a tool of propaganda against the right. The history and etimolgy, however, contradict that.
But if you’re really interested in the concept it’s worth some study and, like the Theory of Evolution, it’s development was set out by scientist as a critical view of humans. It was never intended as a precription but an investigation of “why.” For the most part it has been coopted and bastardized by the left to riducule the right. I can find no modern conservative (classical liberal) who ever endorsed it and if you can I would love to read about it. Richard Hofstadter, who really gets credit for popularizing the term from his 1944 book Social Darwinism In Amerca railed on as obstensible proof about American Social Darwinists by invoking Spencer’s influence on the libertarian minded William Graham Sumner (the author of the famous essay The Forgotten Man. The problem was that Sumner rejected entirely and noting of the use of eugenics to better the human race but rather, used Spencer’s work to look at sociatal evolution.
Oh, and don’t get me wrong. I’m sure there are lots of assholes in the world that lack compassion. but that makes them assholes not right-wingers. In fact, it would seem that Christian conservatives would reject the idea out of hand inasmuch as they reject Darwinism.
LikeLike
“Conservatives have a misshapen view of the privileged classes, that they will extend the necessary generosity to bring the lower classes along. And if they don’t, well, that’s how it works. If a man turns up dead in an alley, well, it’s probably best he never reproduced”
That last line sounds like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a supporter of negative eugenics and was no conservative. Shall I unfairly lump you in with her as well? There are good and bad people of all persuasions in our world. I have contributed both time and money to charities. Don’t try to lay a guilt trip on me.
I am not against a safety net for those who can’t help themselves. I’d even support short term support for the able bodied. That support must have limits though. There must be motivation to move ahead. I’m also for more education funding. College is way too expensive. It should be either free or low cost. A better educated populace would benefit us all.
I think your hasty judgement on conservatives was either poorly thought out, or the very “red meat” by which to spark comments.
LikeLike
Conservatism today is hell-bent on removing the social safety net from under us. The strategy is well-thought out. First you set up the military as an untouchable that gets as much money as it wants for whatever it wants, no questions asked. Then you divvy up the rest for the remaining programs – an ever shrinking pie. Grover Norquist summed up the strategy best – to make government so small that you could drown it in a bathtub. (Of course, he doesn’t think of the military as being part of government – odd, but accepted parlance on the right wing.) Oddly, the Democrats are playing along with this strategy – they call it “paygo”. It’s hell being a liberal – we have no friends.
The idea is to get rid of programs that assist the lower classes. The underlying theme is that these programs rob those classes of their incentive, that we create parasites, and that these parasites reproduce, and that before long you have the very best people in society using their accumulated wealth to support people who don’t work.
What to replace these programs with? That’s never really made clear – there’s some lip service paid to helping those permanently in need even as you try to end those programs. The solution must be private charity. But private charity is hardly adequate – never has been – it’s what gave us the society that Dickens recorded.
I never said that you openly advocated Social Darwinism. But what is it when 47 million of us are uninsured, have inadequate medical care, and you refuse to do anything about it? Isn’t the underlying theme that these people have not produced enough to justify care? If you insist on doing nothing, are you not advocating letting nature take its course?
You’re far too clever to come right out and say what you want, probably too self-deluded to admit it to yourself. You’re afraid of the underclasses – that they will grow and multiply. It scares you when people take more from society than they put in. That’s a monster, in your view, a world where the wealthy have to hide out – where John Galt rides off in resignation. That’s your world view. I call it Social Darwinism – fear that the underclasses will come to dominate.
As I emphasized up above, we live in an interconnected world, a mutual aid society, and have found that the best, most efficient way to help one another is through government programs. I don’t care if you give all your money away to charity, I don’t care if you are personally kind, it is not enough, never has been enough, never will be. We have hit on a solution, and those of you who want to live in splendid isolation, pretending you’re not part of us or above us will have to be dragged along kicking and screaming.
Rocky – if you want social programs to help those in need, why do you advocate dismantling those programs? Dave, if you’re not an intellectual in service of power, why does everything you advocate end up favoring those who have accumulated wealth? And isn’t that the function of an intellectual? Isn’t that why we have think tanks sponsored by wealthy patrons?
I quote people now and then – I do so deliberately to avoid plagiarizing. I pride myself on writing my own words and putting forth my own thoughts, no matter how inadequate in the shadow of giants who have thought and written before me. I am but a little guy who takes joy in writing – I think with my fingers. You, Dave, make it a point to organize the thoughts of others and bludgeon others with them. I’d rather hear your thoughts and justifications for your rather short-sighted philosophy.
LikeLike
Mark, your thoughts are not original and, even if you lack the ability to catalog from where they came, you are but reciting the ideas offered by someone else that seem cogent to you. Original thought is very, very rare. I posit that almost no one has an original thought in their lifetimes. I assume then, that either you’re too intellectually lazy to give your poor readers the ability to read on their own the deeper, more expansive explanations of your held views or you’re a narcissist deluded into thinking you’re smarter than you are. Your unwillingness to accept that it’s easier to point readers to those that have influenced one’s thinking is a sign of an intractable unwillingness to learn – a closing of the mind – and ridiculous belief that you have adequate knowledge.
So let me paraphrase (rather than name drop) because I don’t speak Greek. Socrates said that wisdom comes from the awareness of our own ignorance. Hence, I am not an intellectual and I use the thinking of others which I find most logical to form my frame of reference.
Secondly, either you don;t really read me or you read what I said from inside your prejudiced outlook. I asked you to prove with my words where I come down continually supporting the rich and the powerful. Are you also to lazy to support that accusation? Just because you repeat it doesn’t make it true. Show me, use my words.
Last, telling me that I want to dismantle the social safety net is but your parochial view – and I say it’s nonsense. If you doubt me, read this. But I have argued with you on so many occasions about how I think a market based solution to our health care problems might work that it shows, again, your intractability. I have provided arguments in the past regardless of your unwillingness to admit it.
As for the racist and lazy excuse you gave about knowing the motivations of a drunken Indian, why would you use him as an example? If there were ever programs to help a ailing cohort the native Americans have them (and deservedly so in my opinion) in spades. Throwing more money at persons who reject resources already available to them is pure folly.
One last thing. If you feel “bludgeoned” it’s a matter of your own insecurity for not having the defenses to protect your fragile sensibilities – i.e. back-up for your arguments.
LikeLike
Speaking for myself, I learn from “sources” cited by Dave Budge in his home-site postings and commentary elsewhere. I seek out sources (longstanding journalistic habit, perhaps, or just my nature). From those sources, I learn more about what others think, and how they form their ideas, and thus create their versions of “reality.” I then learn more about my own concepts and experiences and my own version of “reality.”
I learn from Mark Tokarski how a self-proclaimed “bleeding heart” experiences his life, and I greatly appreciate that “bleeding heart” and his life. I don’t think a “heart” of any kind (bleeding or otherwise) can define itself “rationally,” although I genuinely enjoy the dichotomy that is exposed by perpetrators of one “heart” or another in attempts to justify one or the other as unique.
I spoke yesterday with a “retiring” journalist comrade here in Montana and I suggested that the blogging world needs more intelligent voices, and asked if in “retirement,” he considered contributing. He responded that, in his opinion, “intelligent voices” are not what blogging is about. In essence, he opined that blogging is a forum for libel and slander (some of “blogging” being oral vs. written), and I tend to agree (as a fellow “old media” guy).
To sum up: Is there any hope for civil discourse in the so-called blogosphere, or has communication between people been technologically relegated to character assassination, as in “talk radio/tv” and other commercial “communications” media? Are the consequences of words spoken in haste no longer recognized?
LikeLike
I am neither lazy nor do I overestimate my own intelligence. Far from it. I’m a collection of a lifelong filtering process, books and classes and conversations and arguments, all of which have impacted my thinking. SO I don’t drop names as you do. Your words are generally an overt appeal to authority – Wulfy would point that out to you.
Your fall back on health care – that the market cures all, is nonsense, really. Before we had what we have now, we had a market. That’s why we have what we have now. Your solutions are not solutions, will never be implemented. So now you say I’m rudely ignoring you. Nonsense. You only proffer more of the same that ails us. You’ve got no solution, and people will continue to suffer for so long as you block real progress.
Let’s see – lower taxes on wealth and investments in the hope of trickle down, no taxes on corporations, market solutions to all problems … no , Dave, I don’t see where you support wealth and power. I see that in the end you are desirous of a trickle down effect on ordinary people. That idea is the linchpin of conservative economics, a backasswards view of the world, but one that keeps wealth where it is. What am I missing here?
You’ve no idea of what programs are available to help alcoholic street people of any race, or probably any idea of why they are there in increasing numbers these past many years. We were in Denver for that encounter, and we were in a neighborhood where there were many people in need. What I know of private charity is that they will not comfort these people if they are using. What I know of public charity is that they are stressed. More public dollars are needed for homeless shelters, but that budget and every similar budget is threatened by Grover’s bathtub solution.
I don’t feel bludgeoned. I find you to be utterly predictable, arrogant and condescending. All of that, especially the arrogance, is a sign of an individual suffering from a much deeper insecurity than anything I suffer from. Arrogance is a defense mechanism. My own normal defense when I encounter assholes is to stand back and try to make an honest analysis of what I am up against, and to give credit where it is due. I’ve done that with you.
But you are a person who both argues from a high perch and gets down in teh ditch and has hissy fits. You do attack personally whenever a debate doesn’t go your way. You do call names, condescend, group and generalize – I’ve formed a grudging respect for your abilities, but I’ve no use for your immature qualities.
LikeLike
Bob – what you witness between Dave and I is stress between a rationalist and an idealist. We’re like oil and water – each regards the other’s strength as a weakness. I am the latter though I am not proud of that fact. I depend are more on my intuition than my intellect – I don’t even value intellect much as I don’t see, outside of science, where it has ever done much for us. What good comes of philosophy? In the end, is it any more useful than theology? I see ideas, like this incoherent notion that we have “free” markets, that have power and do great damage, spawned by think tanks and inflicted on all of us. In the end, our best leaders are practical people who eschew philosophy and go for what works. It should come as no surprise that we’ve never had an idealist for a president.
Blogging is alive and thriving despite the protestations of journalists and due in large part to the weaknesses of the profession – I speak on the large scale. By and large journalism has married itself to power and as ceased to fulfill its function of offering a counterbalance to that power. Naturally people self-justify, so it comes down to this: When a journalist acts as a stenographer for someone in power, in his mind he is doing his job. He’s long ago lost any sense of how the profession might serve us better.
See a post down not too far from here – Glenn Greenwald quoting Tim Russert.
LikeLike
Tell me where I’ve ever said that.
Although it’s true that I’ve endorsed lower taxes I’ve never, never done it in a vacuum without calling for lower spending. And you take me out of context when you point that I don’t believe in taxing corporations. My point is that the beneficiaries of corporations (the owners) should be taxed instead of taxing the businesses. I’ve held that for years and I was appalled when the Bush tax cuts for dividends were on the personal rather than the corporate side. But you look too shallowly at the issue. The reason I believe that corporate profits shouldn’t be taxed but distributions should is that it has caused the capital markets to finance businesses with tax deducible debt rather than equity. It’s that tax law that causes the over-leveraging of the monetary system and, accordingly, effects interest rates so when the fed uses the discount rate to stimulate the economy the people that get screwed the most are retired people live in fixed interest rate investments – like CD.’s. Tell me how that supports the rich and powerful?
Bottom Line: Capitalism has triumphed throughout the world. Socialism, what little of it remains, is everywhere in retreat. Why is that a fact of modern life? Because capitalism increases wealth and socialism decreases it. And because most people are smarter than you are, Mark.
LikeLike
Didn’t see the link. It’s the color of the print here at the blog – links look just like regular print. OK?
I accused you of attempting to “bludgeon” other people with third parties when I’d prefer to hear your own thoughts on subjects. You won’t find too many people on the blogs who have read Hobbes and Locke and Smith, and you know it, and this gives you a leg up. You’ve personalized this now, said that I said you were bludgeoning me, as if you have some majestic power. You don’t, so far as I can see.
Your position on health care is and always has been that there is too much government interference, that the insurance industry can fix our problems if left unregulated – you want to stop forcing them to carry certain coverages and, I presume, allow them to cross state lines to sell policies. You want the ability to segregate groups so that higher risk people can get coverage, though at higher prices. You see Medicare as inefficient and tragically unfunded, and the concept flawed anyway. I don’t think I’m mischaracterizing you when I say that you prefer market solutions to the health care crisis, and eschew government interference.
I say that we once had a free market in health care, but that it left seniors uncovered and failed to reach the poor and already sick. Government stepped in becuase it had to. I see insurance companies as trying to find profitable clients and ditch everyone else, performing exactly as markets perform.
Without niggling, I don’t care about your position on dividends – I personally don’t beleive tehre is any harm in taxing them twice, as I’m not convinced that investors should not be double-taxed as workers are.
Eliminate the double taxation of wages and dividends, tax all income the same, make it a progressive tax, and I’ll be a happy guy and the economy will suffer no more than it did before 1980, when the current downward spiral for workers went into full gear. Trickle down economics is theory in service of power.
In the larger framework, we have a tax structure that favors wealth, says that capital formation can only happen with weak taxation of investment vehicles and “passive” income. This favors the wealthy. It should come as no surprise that people who have been hired by the wealthy – the think tanks and the like – come up with positions that favor wealth. It’s their job. So I said of you that you too favor positions that favor wealth. You’ve said no different.
As I understand the appeal to authority, you attempt to bolster your own argument by citing authority figures – birth control is not just wrong, that’s what the pope says, etc. Your explanation is new to me. I’m sticking with mine. I mentioned Wulfy becuase he loves to tread in the logic 101 arena. No other reason.
If I come off as arrogant, you’ve got a scoop. My first reaction to assholes is generally negative, so I come off as one myself. Maybe I am one. And I tend to react in kind – when someone like Gman does bonehead economics on me, I have a bad reaction. Maybe I am arrogant, but I think I’ve gone out of my way to embrace you and your philosophy and will continue to do so.
Other CPA – you sound like Carl. I’ll have to check IP’s. Socialism is not in retreat – check your garden. You’ll find it growing everywhere. Most industrialized countries, including the US, have adopted mixed systems – pure capitalism is self-destructive and dangerous. Pure socialism is also destructive, but in a wilting fashion – things tend to atrophy.
LikeLike
But Mark, you accuse me of trying to distroy the social safety net and you don’t allow (the fallacy of false choice) that, even though I do believe that too much government interference (such as the tax code favoring employer based health care) has caused a sustained inequilibrium. But I have never advocated getting rid of Medicare (although I think it needs to be means tested – which would run against your idea that I support the rich and powerful) not do I think that we should get rid of other means tested health care such as Medicaid.
I don;t think that the insurance industry can fix the problem and I’ve never said so. I’ve said that there are some valid market based solutions that would arrive through competition forcing the insurance industry to be more competitive. But for you the paradigm that only a single payer system can be effective. I don’t buy it.
Secondly, my invoking Hobbes, Locke and others is in fact understood by many – just not many on the left it seems (although Singer has read Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau I think.) But most of the right-wing bloggers, in Montana at least, such as Craig, GeeGuy, Carol, Steve Eschenbacher, Gman, Andy, Scoop, and many others have, if not read them directly, know their contribution to Enlightenment philosophy. I have had conversations with all of them on those subjects. So when I write I include an audience far more erudite that you suppose. I would also suggest that conservative and libertarian bloggers are much better grounded in understanding their own philosophies because of this underlying education.
It blows me away that so many on the left haven’t even studied the influential liberal thinkers like Hobhouse, Thomas Hill Green and Rawls. Rawls theory of distributive justice supports, rationally, almost every position you make about the social safety net. He argues about social morality and the needs of the “least advantaged” citizens. But what these thinkers do best is argue why it is a moral requirement to have a weak socialist economic structure that perseveres civil liberties (although I think at some point the two objective become mutually exclusive.) I have read them and I find their arguments compelling even if I think they’re wrong.
But it’s exactly the fact that most on the left only argue from their hearts that so frustrates conservatives. It’s almost impossible to have a rational debate with most of them because they haven’t taken the time to give arguments beyond the “we need to help people” pap. The ideological differences between the two aren’t separated by the desire to help people but a fundamental difference on how that’s done. But we can’t even make the argument because the majority of liberals can’t argue well against the theory. For example, I’ve asked repeatedly over the years “what is the moral basis for the government to take money from one person and give it to another?” What I get is “because in a wealthy society we need to protect the weak.” But that’s not an answer to the question. It addresses the need of the weak but not the rights others.
And so often as the left talks about “market failure” they avoid in toto the governments role in those failures. Instead of a critical analysis of what impeded a market equilibrium they say “see, markets fail!” – which no thinking conservative doubts. But liberals tend to ascribe all outcomes to markets and not government. It’s lazy and appeals to emotions rather than logic.
As to your point that we have a tax structure that favor the rich, I agree and I have argued against it on numerous occasions. I don’t support in any fashion the tax subsidies and rent seeking outcomes for the wealthy. But you make the point for me. It’s the government that, though its largess, makes it possible for the rich to keep a sustained advantage via the tax code. But that said, I understand the capital formation is the driving force in the creation of jobs and opportunity. Hell, even Marx agreed with that only separated by the idea that the capital should belong to the state. We’ve seen how that turned out.
As to logical fallacies concerning appeal to authority you can read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority.
There are several sub-categories, but read the examples. By pointing out what someone believes is not in itself a logical fallacy. To say with certainty that it is true often is.
LikeLike
Mark – As for my reference to a conversation I had on Monday with a journalist who was retiring after 30 years on the job, there was no sense in what was talked about that journalism was superior to blogging, or vice versa. You are familiar enough with my concern about civility in all areas of communications, but for those who may not be, I certainly consider the dialogue between you and Dave to be entirely civil. I had other “debates” in mind when I agreed with my journalist friend’s comment about libel and slander.
You and I can talk more on the subject of journalism and blogging over our next cup of coffee. We can also talk about intuition and intellect as serving one another, not as opposites, and that science is not all about intellect. Intuition is a big factor in that art, whether it is Aristotle’s, Einstein’s or Heisenberg’s science. Back to you and Dave now. Drop me an email about coffee. And oh yeah, Happy new year!
LikeLike