arbat | Two Moralities

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.

Current Mood: calm

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

arbat.livejournal.com

There is no Mueller quotation above. There is a link to an article by Mueller, where he mentions, but does not define the term.

Given how you are able to mistake a dream with an actual thing, and find something in an article that is not there, I would like YOUR explanation - what exactly do you call "integrating the masses into the body of the state"

This way I will know what YOU consider a worthy goal.

From:

larvatus.livejournal.com

You are confusing use with mention (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005349.html). Mueller writes as follows: “Integrating the masses into the body of the newly formed unified German State was the objective, and a comprehensive social insurance system provided the means for obtaining this aim.” His usage gives no indication that Bismarck ever spoke or wrote a German phrase that could be translated into English as “integrating the masses into the body of the state”. In this connection, I have no interest in changing the subject to what I consider a worthy goal of a social policy. All that concerns me is refuting the insinuation that the goal of integrating the masses into the body of the state is by any definition of this term incompatible with the formation and maintenance of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Edited Date: 2011-01-24 09:40 (UTC)

From:

arbat.livejournal.com

I did not ask you to give me a quote where someone else mentions the phrase.

I asked you - could you explain what did you mean by "Integrating the masses into the body of the state". What is the MEANING of this phrase, - to you?

Can you answer the question?

From:

larvatus.livejournal.com

I attach no particular meaning to the phrase “integrating the masses into the body of the state”. Once again, in response to the insinuation that Bismarck pursued nefarious goals (http://arbat.livejournal.com/515880.html?thread=25530152#t25530152) through instituting social security, my claim is limited to the observation that among all possible reasonable definitions of this term, many are compatible with the formation and maintenance of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The burden of proving the contrary falls on

beobahter.

From:

arbat.livejournal.com

"I attach no particular meaning to the phrase “integrating the masses into the body of the state”.

You said it is a worthy goal. Does it mean you can say "it is a worthy goal" about anything at all? Without ever "attaching a particular meaning" to whatever you declare worthy?

This means any opinion of yours is basically random.

"my claim is limited to the observation that among all possible reasonable definitions of this term"

Nope. Your claim was - "it is a worthy goal". And now I am trying to find out what exactly you had in mind when you called "it" a worthy goal.

Your current claim is, - basically, nothing. You just like how it sounds.

From:

larvatus.livejournal.com

This means any opinion of yours is basically random.

No. This means that on reflection, I would prefer not to discuss my political views here and now.

From:

arbat.livejournal.com

You made a statement.

I asked you to clarify its meaning, - quite reasonable request.

Instead you posted a LOT of comments where you implied that your statement has meaning.

Now, you say that you are not in the mood to explain.

Well, you GET IN THE MOOD.

And if not, I ban people who troll my journal.
There will be no second warning.

From:

larvatus.livejournal.com

As stated above, I see nothing wrong with creating systematic economic incentives for the workers to acquire a stake in the political stability and financial solvency of the state, provided that the social policies responsible for this creation proceed within the Constitutional bounds.

From:

arbat.livejournal.com

Citizens always have a stake in political stability and financial solvency of the state.

I am puzzled - what exactly "social security" scheme adds? What "extra" stake we are getting when we are participating?

From:

larvatus.livejournal.com

Citizens have a stake in political stability and financial solvency of the state if and only if it maintains a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Otherwise they are better off pillaging its assets and renouncing their citizenship. A fair and rational social safety net promotes their solidarity with fellow citizens and native institutions. This solidarity is better promoted by citizens and institutions serving transparently in an official capacity subject to political oversight inapplicable to private charities. Everybody likes to piss and moan about state agencies and political machinations, but given their inevitability, the only way to make the system work is by promoting a service ethos in the Victorian mold, complemented by the XXIst century expectations of institutional transparency.

(deleted comment)

From:

larvatus.livejournal.com

Please keep your Marxist strawmen away from my redoubt. If you are trolling for good examples of class warfare, look up Viktor Kožený and David Amir Makov, two of my Harvard classmates who pillaged the assets of their governments and took off, with different degrees of success.

From:

arbat.livejournal.com

This is weird logic. How can a citizen possibly pillage government's assets, - if the government does not offer any social securities??? Pillaging only possible when the government offers hand-outs.

Pillaging argument is an utter nonsense.

Same goes for "solidarity". No solidarity with fellow citizens can be promoted by a class-warfare scheme, - this is a contradiction in terms. When you force Peter to work for Paul, and explain that Peter is a greedy bastard who will never voluntarily help Paul, and that only elightened beings like you can make it right by being more equal than others, - this promotes the opposite of solidarity.

Actually, when one looks at the debates around Social Security and all lefty fear-mongering and screaming about evil Republicans who want take away everything from the poor people - one must be totally out of touch with any reality - to proclaim that social security promotes solidarity.

The rest of your argument is not an argument at all, - you simply repeat the assertion, adding qualifiers like "fair and rational", - as if by merely saying these words you make it so. Nope, doesn't work this way.

So... basically, no answer.