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

Re: Отличный пример!

[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.

Re: Отличный пример!

[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?

Re: Отличный пример!

[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.

Re: Отличный пример!

[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.

Re: Отличный пример!

[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.

Re: Отличный пример!

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

Please calm down. I answered you the first time.

Re: Отличный пример!

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Some redoubt :-))))

Oh, yeah! That was a redoubt! :-=))))))))))))))