Two Moralities

[arbat]

Paul Krugman decided that he had acquired just the reputation one needs to write a post on moralities. Here is a quote:

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.

Now, one part of this statement is a lie. This is a standard liberal lie (apparently, repeating it leaves conscience of a liberal undisturbed). They pretend that the difference between us and them is that they think "it’s only right for the affluent to help the less fortunate", and we think that there should be no help.

True truth, of course, is - we do believe that people should help each other. Which is why we do help. On our own, and from our own pockets. Liberals help from someone else's.

The difference is not that they are willing to help others and we are not. The difference is, - they believe they have the right to choose charitable cause for me, and then force me to contribute to it.

The difference is they believe that they are so much better people than me, that they are entitled more than me, - to decide what to do with the fruits of my labor.

P.S. Don't even start with "liberals contribute their own money too". When one wants to contribute his own money, one does not need government's help to do that. The only purpose of creating the government run charity is to force contributions from other people.

Comments

[averros.livejournal.com]

Irrevelant. History cannot be used to explain causation because there's no way to construct alternative histories and compare results. It can only be used to test hypotheses against the record to see which ones are blatantly incorrect. (And don't even start on validity of history as presented - most of it is layers upon layers of propaganda).

My statement was to say that standing armies are not necessary for security and peaceful life of ordinary people. With proof by existence provided by the link. In fact, the longest-living society (I wouldn't say "country" because it didn't have any government) didn't have an army. I'd go even further and say that armies *create* wars. Which was recognized hundreds of years ago, so that US Constitution as written contains no authorization to have a standing army (you may want to check Article I Section VIII and Article II Section II dealing with the issue).

Another two things to think about: how come Switzerland managed to get without being entangled in wars for 280 years despite being smack in the middle of the world wars, and how come US has a military budget bigger than the rest of the world combined while still failing to beat a bunch of illiterate turbanheads with AK-47s and homemade bombs?

And all that military might can protect us from the next bunch of pissed-off guys with box cutters - how?

I think Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto pretty much explained all of that in one line. As well as the advantage of having something like the Second Ammendment.

[arbat.livejournal.com]

I did no ask you to repeat or rephrase your statement.

I asked, - please, name events that lead to the US creating and then expanding its military. Then, go over those events and explain how exactly US would have been better off if it did not.

Again, since you mentioned that I have no clue, common decency requires that you provided an answer.

[averros.livejournal.com]

I explained why it is not relevant. If you want to know history, there's a lot of literature out there, and I see no reason to repeat it in the blog format for your benefit, you can always get better written and more detailed exposition just by going to a library.

If you want to make a point or counter-argument based on history, please do so. Asking an opponent to provide more and more information to support his point and then dismissing his point of view because you're not satisfied with amount of trivia provided is a form of demagoguery (because it is impossible to win this kind of argument) and, sorry, and I'm not about to get involved in this sort of argumentation.

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Funny dialog. Basically, it goes like this:

You: nobody needs safety boats on board of a big ocean-faring ship!!!

Me: Have you ever heard of Titanic?

You: Knowledge of this history is irrelevant! If you want to make an argument based on Titanic - do it! But I can not imagine what that argument could be!


Well... so be it.