Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Weekend Open Thread
To get you started:
• This fun discussion at the New York Times' "Freakonimics Quorum" on how to divvy $10 between a beggar and a hot dog vendor. Ponder the analytical, lighthearted response from Tyler Cowen, the businesslike brevity of Mark Cuban, the disingenuousness of Babara Ehrenreich (she coughs up ten bucks and the coat off her back every time she passes a beggar?), and the utter humorlessness of Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
• President Bush's war czar says it's time to consider a military draft.
• Read up on the sad, ongoing racial saga in Jena, Louisiana.
• Thomas Sowell explains how bad government policy contributed to the subprime meltdown.
• It wouldn't be the weekend without a tale of another isolated incident.
|8.11.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Let me be the first to point out the "honest mistake" ruling in
the isolated incident is most definitely a one-way street.
And, if true, I'm not sure this qualifies as professional
conduct:
""The lady (SWAT officer) says 'Mother F-----, I said get down or
I'll blow your f------ brains out,'"
|8.11.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Thomas Sowell is an idiot. Smart growth (and high housing
prices) were around long before 2002, when "creative financing" was
still a rarity.
I shouldn't call him an idiot; once in a while he provides some
insight, but 90% of the time he's just a political hack for the
right.
|8.11.07 @ 10:35AM|#
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt.
Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's
"All Things Considered."
Maybe he's just trying to be consistent with the program's
name...
Edward|8.11.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Thomas Sowell is like one of those mob lawyers in the movies. His clients are all honest olive oil importers being unfairly harrassed by congressional committees.
|8.11.07 @ 10:43AM|#
I get free bus tokens from the city for school so I'd give him one or more of the tokens, that way he could go downtown and make more money than the few he would had gotten from me. It forces him into a situtation in which he can make more money (which, in a non-metaphor, I don't approve of) and it comes at a lower cost to me
|8.11.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Fuck the begger. Give money to people who work for a living. What is ironic is that at least in my experience the very people who would give the $10 to the crackhead who would rather beg than work for a living, will shortchange a waiter on a tip. You want to help people out, great, give your money to a cab driver or some college kid waiting tables. Better that than to support someone being a bum.
|8.11.07 @ 10:49AM|#
I like Thomas Sowell on a lot of things, but I don't understand how someone who believes in a "Constrained vision" of human nature could support the Iraq war and the neoconservative project. The neoconservatives most certainly have the "Vision of the anointed".
|8.11.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Where is the love my fellow liberts? Some compassion, please ...
I am just as prone to want to tell people to get a job. But this is
the sort of thing that gives us a bad rep. Remember, the bum will
spend that money, put it back into the economy in some way, unlike
the government in most cases.
Seems like some of us could use the American version of this.
Edward|8.11.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Why, unlike all other human agencies, do SWAT teams persist in making the occasional error? Is perfection really so difficult?
|8.11.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Next time I need ten bucks, I'm going to the Ehrenreichs. I
loved how she starts by stating she's an atheist, defering to
Jesus, recognizing that Jesus wasn't saying what she thought he
was, sweeping that under the rug, and then claiming it's a matter
of religious observance.
(The quote from Jesus was not talking about charity, it was talking
about outwitting people who were trying to screw you over.)
|8.11.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Martino,
I had a friend in law school whose father owned several businesses.
This was when the whole "will work for food" scam came around. He
made it a point of stopping and offering a job to every person he
saw holding one of those signs. He was serious, he would have given
any of them a job doing something if only for a day or two. Not one
person ever took him up on the offer. Later, when I moved to
Washington DC, a girlfriend of mine worked as a bar tender at a NW
restaurant. There was a whole crew of beggers who hung out outside
the place hitting up people for money. We talked to them one day
and they told us they could make $10 an hour begging and that was
easier and better than making $8 washing dishes somewhere. After
that I never gave another begger another dime. This is not the
1930s. There is help available for people who want it. These guys
just don't want it. They would rather beg than work. Some of them
are mental patients and those people I feel bad for and will give
money to. But your typical jive ass hustler out begging, is doing
so because that is his job of choice. Fuck him. I wouldn't give him
a dime if they came out of my ass for free every day.
|8.11.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Speaking of homeless stories, theres a woman who sits on a
bucket near the I-64 overpass in my city holding up a sign everyday
that says IM THREE MONTHS PREGNANT NEED $$ FOR FOOD AND RENT.
Shes been three months pregnant for two years.
Give to shelters, not panhandlers.
Edward|8.11.07 @ 10:59AM|#
I hope all those who on principle wouldn't give a beggar a dime have never taken one from their parents. If it weren't for a generational transfer of wealth, our economy would have been belly up long ago.
highnumber|8.11.07 @ 11:00AM|#
It's not just the subprime meltdown now. American Home wrote "A" paper.
|8.11.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Martino,
When the govt spends money it goes back into the economy too. Where
else would it go?
The problem is that capital and labor follow the money. When you
have massive amounts of govt spending on useless things, it causes
them to be diverted from more productive things. I'm not sure how
much productivity is diverted to the liquor industry by wino-aid,
but in principle it isn't a good thing to do IMHO.
|8.11.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I agree with Mickey Klaus. Why is that Wall Street types always talk this great game about how they are risk takers and all that, yet, when the risks don't pan out, which sometimes happens, they come whining for the government or the fed to bail them out. Sub prime was great for a while and they were all getting rich, now that it is not, that is as they say the way the ball bounces. The same assholes in the banking industry who gave us the bankruptcy bill that screws average people who get into money trouble are now screaming like stuck pigs because they might lose some money. My heart bleeds.
|8.11.07 @ 11:04AM|#
John,
Good points all, and I have heard anecdotes like these before ...
let us both divorce the argument from any morally loaded
construction. Pure end-game Econ101 ... the money given to the
beggar would go into the economy just as easily had he been
working.He is going to spend it, and keep the rest of us working
and earning. Beggars may truly be any of the things that you may
wish to call them. But they are an integrated and perhaps integral
part of the economy, just unrecognized, like prostitutes.
|8.11.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Edward,
In addition to supporting my parents when they get older, I'm
paying into a Social Security system from which I'm fairly certain
I'm never going to see a dime. Which is exactly what a selfish,
wino-neglecting bastid like me deserves, I suppose.
|8.11.07 @ 11:05AM|#
John--
Those wall-street types that say they are for small government and
then take every bail-out remind me of farmers I know that talk
about "Welfare parasites" and then get $100 grand in subsidies from
the feds every year.
|8.11.07 @ 11:07AM|#
But Ceasar, you must pay taxes to support my farming habbit or we will lose the family farm and an entire way of life. How could you not support that?
Edward|8.11.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Crimthink
Some people support their aging parents and some people's aging
parents support them. an inheritance isn't earned by the recipient;
it's a form of kinship charity, what Warren Buffet called the lucky
sperm club.
|8.11.07 @ 11:11AM|#
John, you are aware that our entire existence is dependent on
farmers, right? It's hardly a "habit".
I'm not a huge fan of farm subsidies either, but let's not get
overly disrespectful. The reason I'm able to lead a comfortable
life typing at a computer is because somebody else is doing the
hard work of growing my food.
|8.11.07 @ 11:11AM|#
As long as it's an open thread, I came across the results of
this UC Davis survey of furries...
"Politically, 40% of respondents described themselves as
"Liberal" or "Very liberal", compared to the 7% who were
"Conservative," "Very conservative". 35% were "Not political" or
"Other", and 16% were "Moderate". Of the 35% who marked "Other,"
the dominant write-in was "Objectivist," which tallied
17%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom
If this is a truly representative survey, it suggests, by my math,
that if you're lookin' at a room full of 600 furries, you're also
lookin' at about a hundred Objectivists!
That seems like a pretty extraordinary ratio! I'd try to figure out
how large the furry Objectivist menace really is in absolute terms,
but I'm much more interested in understanding what it is about
being furry that Objectivists find so compelling.
...or visa versa, I guess.
|8.11.07 @ 11:14AM|#
You mean, sell out the treasury to Archer Daniels
Midland--Welfare Queen to the World?
I know you were being sarcastic, but most of those subsidies don't
even get to family farms. Its glorified corporate welfare.
Its also extremely unfair to developing countries whose entire
economies are dependent on a health agriculture sector. Dumping
cheap subsidized corn on Mexico, for example, is a big reason why
so many Mexicans have to move here to get a decent job.
Even those subsidies that do get to "Family farms" are silly.
Family farms don't really have much of a place in a post-industrial
economy. They are inefficient and outmoded. Yeah, the farmers will
have to change their way of life, well, welcome to the industrial
revolution.
|8.11.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Cesar,
When/if that EMP hits, we're going
to need as much of a pre-industrial agricultural base as we can
get.
|8.11.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Cesar,
My mother's family are wheat farmers. The government subsidies only
keep you in business if you have a really big operation. It is the
big stake holders and the corporate farms who benifit from
subsidies. It is a joke.
Team America|8.11.07 @ 11:19AM|#
I'm surprised that the obvious solution has been
overlooked:
1. Kill the hotdog vendor and rob him of his possessions.
2. Kill the beggar by ramming a hotdog down his throat. Rob him of
all his possessions, but leave one-dollar bill with some mustard
residue on it in his hand.
3. Call the police.
Bonus:
4. Write a book about why the evil capitalist hotdog vendor is
fault, because he didn't freely give to the beggar.
5. Change Name.
6. Write a book about why the lazy beggar is fault, because he
decided to rob money and not work for it.
|8.11.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Speaking of jokes, did anyone else catch the Democratic AFL-CIO Panderfest 2007?
Bryan|8.11.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Martino,
The issue isn't whether the money given to the begger will go back
into the economy, pretty much all money will that is not being
saved under a mattress. The point is that the begger hasn't
contributed anything positive and tangible to society. When you buy
a hot dog, you no longer need to eat. You money is spent on
something productive, and your next $10 can go to purchasing a CD
or a car or a house. When you give the begger $10, nothing has been
created and nothing new needs to be created based on the
transaction. All you have done is transfer wealth around.
|8.11.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Have a cash flow problem in a small buisness and see who lines up to help.No one.
VM|8.11.07 @ 12:13PM|#
And what about the EU/Libya/France/Nuclear Reactor
bruhaha?
Way to show some sack, EU.
http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=2993685
Fluffy|8.11.07 @ 12:25PM|#
"I hope all those who on principle wouldn't give a beggar a dime
have never taken one from their parents."
Do you have any children?
I'm happy to give the occasional homeless guy a buck or a Newport
or something, but comparing helping out a panhandler to
childrearing is just crazy. I know all the "ethics of care"
theorists try to do this, but it's just false.
Based on my own experience with having a child and the experience
of all the other people with children I know, there are powerful
biological drives incenting us to lavish resources on our
offspring. Satisfying those drives is no more altruistic than
satisfying the urge to eat a sandwich or to have sex. Trying to
force people or guilt people into transfering that drive to a
random homeless guy is pointless and shows a profound lack of
understanding about the nature of Man.
|8.11.07 @ 12:29PM|#
The issue isn't whether the money given to the begger will
go back into the economy, pretty much all money will that is not
being saved under a mattress. The point is that the begger hasn't
contributed anything positive and tangible to society. When you buy
a hot dog, you no longer need to eat. You money is spent on
something productive, and your next $10 can go to purchasing a CD
or a car or a house. When you give the begger $10, nothing has been
created and nothing new needs to be created based on the
transaction. All you have done is transfer wealth
around.
If someone where to give money to the beggar and eat later, that
would be the equivlent of buying a CD and then buying a hotdog
later. If someone who enjoys donating $10 to beggars, the money
isn't wasted, it is exchanged for a good (usually intangible) such
as feeling good about yourself, or bragging rights in which you
could know that you are so much better than everyone else. You
might not find much value in the beggar donation transaction, but
then again some hippy out there might not find much value in
"subcoming to the evil consumerist culture" by buying a CD...value
is relative.
|8.11.07 @ 12:43PM|#
A better example would be paying a stripper, psychic, or tipping a waitress etc.
|8.11.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Take money from my parents? Yeah, when I was like 12 or 5 or
basically before I could make a living on my own. If I ever see a
five year old out begging, perhaps I will give him a buck. Of
course that is pretty pointless since his parents would probably
take it from him anyway. That is a stupid analogy.
Jonathan, there is nothing wrong with paying a stripper. She is
just using what she has and providing a service. There is nothing
wrong with that. I have no problem with tipping and overpaying
people who are working for a living. It is the person who refuses
to work that I have a problem with.
Bryan|8.11.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Jonathan Hohensee,
Your statement is absolutely true on the individual economic level,
and I don't mean to discount it because I definitely do appreciate
the value in money spent for "a feeling." The point that Martino
was trying to make, and what I was addressing, was more on the
macro economic level. The mere transfer of wealth does not
contribute anything tangible to society in the way that purchasing
a product will. Even if its just a CD, a portion of that money
often goes to more jobs to produce more CDs and to research and
development to produce better CDs. Money spent on things like
drives the economy much more than if we all stood in a circle
passing our money around to each other but creating nothing but a
smug sense of self-appreciation.
Martino's point was that giving money to a homeless person does
help the overall economy because the homeless person will spend it
on something. That is true, for the most part. In broad terms
though, its not the most efficient way to get that money into the
economy though. It adds an extra, unnecessary step, for a person
that has contributed nothing to the overall economy.
|8.11.07 @ 1:14PM|#
I don't think that there is anything wrong with paying a stripper, just that paying a beggar is on an equal level of paying a stripper (I should stress that I don't mean that to be as horrible as it sounds) in the fact that you are making a voluntary transaction to someone in which you exchange money for something intangible.
|8.11.07 @ 1:17PM|#
But not only do beggars contribute nothing to the economy, having a city or a particular neighborhood filled with begging winos actually hurts the local economy. Who will want to go shopping in an area where they will be mobbed by strangers asking for money? Giving them money just encourages them.
|8.11.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Why, unlike all other human agencies, do SWAT teams persist
in making the occasional error? Is perfection really so
difficult?
No one minds the occasional error, Edward. It's just the same
error, made for the same reasons, and with the same totalitarian
justifications, over and over and over again.
You snarky little devil, you.
thoreau|8.11.07 @ 1:17PM|#
What, no response to the draft talk?
I have to wonder if this is the General's way of stoking anti-war
sentiment. If he starts hinting to the middle class and upper
middle class that a draft might be needed, they'll make damn sure
that we get out of Iraq.
|8.11.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Martino's point was that giving money to a homeless person
does help the overall economy because the homeless person will
spend it on something. That is true, for the most part. In broad
terms though, its not the most efficient way to get that money into
the economy though. It adds an extra, unnecessary step, for a
person that has contributed nothing to the overall
economy.
I get what you're saying, although even then it seems iffy. Would
it change the game any if I where to give the money to a homeless
man in exchange for a blowjob?
|8.11.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Does anyone here think its a violation of free speech when a
city passes an ordinance outlawing panhandling?
My city did so a few months ago, and its already being sued by the
ACLU for a violation of "civil rights".
|8.11.07 @ 1:23PM|#
What, no response to the draft talk?
I have to wonder if this is the General's way of stoking anti-war
sentiment. If he starts hinting to the middle class and upper
middle class that a draft might be needed, they'll make damn sure
that we get out of Iraq.
I don't see it going anywhere. He's considering it either like how
the military in the past has considered making a nude bomb or how
Kerry and x others where "considering" the fairness doctorine.
|8.11.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Does anyone here think its a violation of free speech when a
city passes an ordinance outlawing panhandling?
My city did so a few months ago, and its already being sued by the
ACLU for a violation of "civil rights".
You live in Orlando?
|8.11.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Check out the comments attached to the article on the beggar and hot dog seller. For example: "I suspect that Ms. Ehrenreich would not give the wino her $10 but instead find someone who looks like a Republican and make him give the wino the money."
Keith|8.11.07 @ 1:32PM|#
oooh, bum stories.
A young woman approached me and my wife at Walmart 3 weeks ago
saying she had run out of gas and asked if we could spare some
change. My wife has a strict policy of not giving to bums and while
I'm a sucker I refused since her story didn't quite add up. Why
would you drive to walmart and park if you didnt have any gas or
money? And if you really ran out of gas, wouldnt you just call
someone to bring you gas? (the only time I ever ran out of gas,
this was my course of action).
When I said, "sorry," she rolled her eyes and said, "Thanks
anyway," real snarky like.
Fast forward two weeks. Last Saturday, same lady, different parking
lot, she even pointed to a different car (cherokee first time,
wrangler second time, maybe she owns two jeeps but no gas, but I
doubt it), same result.
I'm sure both days she made enough money to score some meth (it's
arizona, so I'll just assume meth was the driving force behind the
request.)
|8.11.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Here in Orlando the local anarchist chapter (which is weirdly a
large and strong group down here) went insane when they banned
people from handing out food in public parks. When one of the FNB
kids got caught feeding the homeless, he was charged a small fine,
he turned into a freaking mayrter and the Pogressive Council of
Orlando (a lose network of Orlando's far-left leaning
orginizations) went absouletly ape shit, following the Mayor around
where ever he made a public apparance doing gaudy-historonic
protests.
My college's newspaper covered it in the most biased way possible,
with every week a report on the helpless homeless problem in our
fair city and how our Mayor is a facist. Eventually, they ate crow
when someone wrote a slamming editoral pointing out that their
where already plenty of other homeless feeding/shelter programs in
Orlando that where better funded and run much more effeceintly (the
anarchists would feed about 50 homeless people once a month, and
only feed them vegan food) and that really they where being
hysterical over nothing.
|8.11.07 @ 1:53PM|#
I hate Food Not Bombs with a passion.They turned Monroe Park from a nice college park into a rat hole full of winos because of their stupid vegan feeding program. Public parks are not a good place to run feeding programs.
|8.11.07 @ 1:56PM|#
At least homeless people don't shit all over the grass and most of the sidewalks. Seriously, any time I ride my bike in the park, the back of my shirt looks like it was in the bottom of a factory farm chicken cage.
|8.11.07 @ 1:58PM|#
'Just considering' a draft?
I'd say this is just the opening salvo. The volunteers are worn
out. Even with astronomical enlistment bonuses, recruiting can't
keep pace. Unless we get out of Iraq, a draft is inevitable. The
only saving grace is that the call for a draft should speed our
withdrawal.
e|8.11.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Jonathan Hohensee, what an inspiring story. Thank god it's now a crime to feed the homeless in public parks. Freedom(TM) is on teh march!
|8.11.07 @ 2:05PM|#
Send captured IllegalImmigrants over there. They do the JobsAmericansWon'tDo, right?
Bryan|8.11.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Jonathan,
Interesting question. My inital reaction is that it would make a
difference. Mostly I think, because I assume that if you are going
to pay $10 for a homeless blow job, you are probably going to do so
whether or not you also pay $10 to the homeless guy.
If you tell me that you only have $10 and the choice is between
just giving the homeless guy $10 or getting a blow job from him, I
guess there isn't really a difference. In both cases you are giving
the homeless guy money in exchange for the feeling it gives
you.
I will say, if you are the type of guy that is willing to get a
blow job from a homeless guy, I serious doubt that you are going to
just give him the money.
|8.11.07 @ 2:19PM|#
There's a vast difference between what people say they would do,
when it's for public consumption and their piety is on display, and
what they actually do when no one is paying attention. A couple of
years ago, at the Mormon chaple I was attending, we were discussing
a passage in the Book of Mormon that unambiguously said you should
give to anyone who asks of you. I asked about if that "charity"
applied to giving to a drunk panhandler in front of a liquor store
with empty tallboys and cigarette butts scattered around him, and
was gently rebuked for my hardheartedness. A few years later, I was
watching the most Mormon people of all, people with Temple
Recommends streaming out of the Salt Lake Temple after attending a
session there, passing by a beggar strategically camped out by the
entrance. Fifteen minutes later, no one had given anything to the
beggar.
So, pardon me for being cynical, but if Ms. Ehrenreich had $500 in
her purse, I doubt she'd hand it all over to the beggar as she
implies she would, unless a camera was filming her and she thought
avoiding adverse publicity was worth whatever she handed
over.
Personally, I limit charity to people I know who are suffering
temporary adversity they are working to turn around, and (if
applicable) are willing to change whatever ill-advised behavior got
them into that jam in the first place -- which I suspect was the
actual reasoning of the people at Temple Square, given the booming
economy in Utah at that time.
|8.11.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Jonathan Hohensee, what an inspiring story. Thank god it's
now a crime to feed the homeless in public parks. Freedom(TM) is on
teh march!
I honestly and against the ban just as much as the FNB kids are
against it, my main peeve is the manner in which they go about it
and the fact that they use helping homeless people as a front for
their more extreme political viewpoints.
|8.11.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Would it change the game any if I where to give the money to
a homeless man in exchange for a blowjob?
Welcome to H&R, Bob Allen
(R-FL)!
|8.11.07 @ 2:35PM|#
http://www.foodnotbombs.net/story.html
they use helping homeless people as a front for their more
extreme political viewpoints.
Or maybe helping homeless people is an example of putting their
message into action...
Rambo|8.11.07 @ 2:36PM|#
If theres a draft, I say they make the 30%ers go
first.
The draft won't come until the Dems are in power. Enlistment will
really drop off when Hillary is Commander and Chief. The major
supporter in Congress is a Dem and a Dem brought registration back
after a Republican killed it.
Dems love the Universal Service idea but that would be hard to pay
for. Anyone want to bet they renig on the debate professed support
to draft women?
|8.11.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Helping homeless people is fine, I'd just really would
appreciate them doing it some other place than a public park.
(Note: that doesn't mean I support a ban).
Homeless Guy|8.11.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I'd rather get food from the Bible-thumpers, at least they give
away meat and dairy.
The Mao and Stalin kids can keep their fucking brown rice.
Underzog|8.11.07 @ 2:49PM|#
This is so ridiculous. This "Freakonomics" author comes up with
an idea to excite people into being frightening terrorists against
America and you at the misnamed 'Reason' Magazine talk about
hotdogs and beggars. Why do you not comment on the treason of
Levitt and the 'New York Times'?
The 'New York Times' is a treasonous publication. They break all
our military secrets so Al Qaida can read them; their junk
economist with his junk economic book ask people to imagine their
terrorists (a reasonable request to the treason times as
everyone wants people on their side); and they 'New York Times'
destroys free speech in their craveness and sympathy for Muslim
terrorism in not publish those danish cartoons. It's no wonder that
Ann Couler joked that someone should blow the building up.
"There's no need to fear; Underzog is here!" (and don't forget the
"Underdog" movie that just came out)
|8.11.07 @ 2:53PM|#
...and the rest of us just whistle, look around at nothing in particular, and slowly back away...
|8.11.07 @ 2:59PM|#
the misnamed 'Reason' Magazine
Aw, man, I'm out of beer! I guess I'll just have to start straining
rubbing alcohol through toast.
|8.11.07 @ 3:03PM|#
say what you will, though about the FNB and other far-left
crowds, the girls are usually pretty cute;
http://orlandofoodnotbombs.org/FNBtwosides.jpg
iih|8.11.07 @ 3:19PM|#
General question that will tell everyone how much of an
economist I am:
This whole subprime lending meltdown, will it have a direct effect
on my credit card loans? i.e., will the credit card rates go up
somehow in response to the credit woes this country seems to have?
I would imagine that the answer is "yes". Just need someone to
confirm.
|8.11.07 @ 4:18PM|#
the disingenuousness of Babara Ehrenreich (she coughs up ten
bucks and the coat off her back every time she passes a
beggar?)
Nice cheap shot. You didn't tweak anyone else for accepting the
question's premise that they had $10 they were going to
spend.
And man is Mark Cuban a dick or what?
|8.11.07 @ 4:25PM|#
I give money to beggers when they ask, for entirely selfish
reasons.
It takes a certain hardness of heart to look at a fellow human
being in trouble and say no. It's actually an exercise in
overcoming the fundamental feeling of compassion towards one's
fellows that makes us human. Sure, maybe you can convince me that
in this or that situation it would be rationally better, even from
a non-selfish, objective standpoint, for me to keep my change in my
pocket, and do the mental work to override the desire to help. But
I don't wanna. That's work. I'd rather part with a little bit of
money than a little bit of my soul. Like I said, entirely
selfish.
Besides, as a liberal, I don't have the responsibility to make sure
that charity by itself is sufficient to further my humanitarian
goals. When I write out checks to the causes I've chosen, I make
sure my money is being spent wisely. When I vote or engage in
political activism, I do what I can to make sure that money is
spent wisely. But when I'm confronted by a begger, I do what I want
so I don't have to be in a bad mood.
Lord Jubjub|8.11.07 @ 4:30PM|#
If the subprime loan meltdown results in a credit crunch . . . yeah, you're credit card rates will rise.
|8.11.07 @ 4:31PM|#
So you don't care if they go buy a 40 of Colt 45 with your spare
change?
I used to feel sorry for beggars, until I moved to the city and had
to deal with them. At first, I gave out change, and guess what?
They told all there friends, and every day, I'd walk into 7-11 and
get asked by the same person, plus five of his friends. They'd
start demanding not just change, but dollar bills. Instead of
feeling sorry for them I began to have contempt for them and
stopped giving. I don't appreciate being mobbed made to feel
threatened when I just want to buy some damn hot dog rolls and a
slurpee.
iih|8.11.07 @ 4:34PM|#
joe:
And you can still be a libertarian. You have explained your
position very well, I think.
I am personally against government interventaion for humanitarian
reasons. It should be left to individuals like you, to
nongovernmental charities, and religious organizations. I am trying
to find that quote from the Legends of the Fall, but goes like:
"Government has no soul, and it can not be humane". To rely on
government for humanitarian goals is society's selling its soul to
a soulless being. The effect, all compassion in society (if society
chooses so) disappears. Hence, we should abolish government
sponsored well-fare and health care.
iih|8.11.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Cesar:
I generally refrain from giving to able-bodied (men or women)
beggers. I give only to the elderly and the truly destitute (not
the smart kind who waits outside 7-11).
|8.11.07 @ 4:40PM|#
President Bush's war czar...
I find it interesting how recent administrations have thrown around
the word "czar" so freely. As I recall, "czar" is synonymous with
"despot." It's like they're no longer even bothering to hide the
"despotism" behind it all...
|8.11.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Cesar,
Nope. I've yet to hear of the drunk who stopped drinking because he
was too poor. I don't see how the act of denying him my change is
going to help anything.
I have heard of drunks who went hungry because they were too poor,
so there is some chance of my money doing good. If I had any real
reason to believe giving someone my change would hurt him, of
course I wouldn't give it to him. But I don't, and maybe I'm
helping a little.
iih,
I don't believe in government aid to the poor to save souls. I
belive in it entirely for the material benefits it provides,
whether that's smooth roads or food in poor people's bellies and
roofs over their heads. My wrench is soulless, too. It's still a
useful tool for turning bolts I want turned.
|8.11.07 @ 4:46PM|#
Cesar,
Whe blowing off a begger isn't going to require any effort on my
part, I don't give them a second thought. There used to be this
huge, pumped weightlifter-guy who begged for change on the GW
campus. I didn't have any trouble going past him. Like I said,
unlike the real charity I give or the politics I agitate for, my
change-giving is all about me.
|8.11.07 @ 5:01PM|#
joe, to sum up your comments:
The beggar is in the business of making you feel guilty so you'll
give him or her money. It's a job, albeit a really, really
unproductive job. You pay them money to assuage the guilt they've
deliberately created in them, thus paying them for that
service.
Then, you go to the voting booth and vote to rob me and all other
productive human beings so you can take that money and give it to
more unproductive beggars to further assuage your guilt.
Thanks for outlining the basis of the welfare state and liberalism
(and most of the Democrats you cheerlead for), without the
hypocrisy of claiming it's for the betterment of society. I
appreciate your honesty -- but not your theft.
|8.11.07 @ 5:02PM|#
There's a guy who holds a "Will work for food" sign full-time at an expressway exit ramp near my house. I always try to pull up right next to him while waiting at the light and chow down on something while he watches.
|8.11.07 @ 5:04PM|#
joe,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your politics largely about
forcing other people to give their money to the idle to assuage
your guilt?
|8.11.07 @ 5:07PM|#
From Barbara Ehrenreich's response:
And before anyone virtuously offers him a hot dog, they should reflect on the possibility that the beggar is a vegetarian or only eats kosher or Hallal meat.
Boo-fuckin'-hoo. The phrase "beggars can't be choosers" springs to
mind. The Dalai Lama told his monks-who must beg for their
meals-that vegetarianism is a luxury that they cannot afford. You
can't get much more holier-than-thou than a bodhisattva, so I'm
pretty sure some humility is in order.
If a beggar would rather starve than eat a free meal, the decision
is on his or her head, not mine.
huge, pumped weightlifter-guy|8.11.07 @ 5:09PM|#
joe says:
Whe blowing off a begger I give this huge, pumped weightlifter-guy
a second blowing off I didn't have any trouble going a second
effort blowing
is all about me
iih|8.11.07 @ 5:11PM|#
joe:
My wrench is soulless, too. It's still a useful tool for
turning bolts I want turned.
But some wrenches are better than others, and I do not think that
government is the best wrench for the job. Private charities and
organizations would do a far better job at turning these bolts.
Edward|8.11.07 @ 5:12PM|#
I've come to the conclusion that the defining characteristic of right-wing libertarians (I don't think it applies to Chomsky) is a total ignorance of the role luck has played in their lives.
atrevete|8.11.07 @ 5:16PM|#
My brother tells the beggars he'll give them a quarter a push-up. It has its logic. Usually beggars find there are easier ways to earn $10.
NP|8.11.07 @ 5:17PM|#
jh,
I'm generally against governmental welfare as well, but I find your
last post a little lacking in objectivity. First, not everyone
considers taxation theft. Second, not all governmental welfare goes
to "unproductive beggars." As you said in your earlier post, there
are some people who are hardworking but may be experiencing a
temporary financial hardship, and it would be not only humane but
also beneficial for us in the end to help those individuals. Now of
course you may counter, as I'd argue myself, that the private
sector does a better job than the government in this role, but you
should've emphasized this in your post instead of making the facile
accusation of hypocrisy.
|8.11.07 @ 5:18PM|#
My wrench is soulless, too. It's still a useful tool for
turning bolts I want turned.
Difference is, I'm not paying for your wrench.
iih|8.11.07 @ 5:19PM|#
joe:
My basic belief is that humanitarianism should not be outsourced to
governments, otherwise the true humanity of the process is gone in
vain because we, both beggars and givers as members of society, do
not get to exercise and experience this humanity. The poor getting
aide from the government will not appreciate the humanity of
society (and may will find it unobjectionable to commit atrocities
against that society through crime). Some members of society on the
other hand will hate the poors' guts for feeling that they have
unjustly taken their hard worked for earnings. They will be forced
to feel the animosity towards the poor. So, solution --
humanitarianism has to be privately and willfully practiced.
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.11.07 @ 5:41PM|#
If anybody wants another topic, here's the useless thought
experiment I've been mulling lately, and I'd love to hear from the
fine people here...
You get sent back in time -- to when/where, I'm not sure, but I'm
thinking at least 1000-2000 B.C.E., just use whatever's interesting
to you. You quickly establish some method of communicating
effectively with the people of the past. And let's assume your
getting sent back changes the timeline enough that it's not helpful
for you to give the past people information like, "A long time from
now, there's gonna be this guy named Adolf Hitler. Everybody
pretend his paintings are awesome, just trust me."
I'm not a scientist, by trade or education, but I'm fairly
confident that I'd fall towards the more scientifically
knowledgeable end of the general population. However, sent back to
a relatively primitive society, I think I'd be just about useless
to them. I sorta understand the principles at work, but I couldn't
show them how to build a battery or a light bulb. I couldn't help
them isolate penicillin. I don't know how to mine the right
components and smelt steel. I couldn't demonstrate an internal
combustion engine, though I could probably answer a question about
it on a standardized test.
Best I think I could do is explain the scientific method in general
terms, maybe a few specific things like the germ theory of disease
or heliocentrism, and hope that helps speed up the work of their
scientists.
So, how useful would you be?
|8.11.07 @ 6:07PM|#
jh,
I hope that restating my argument using the word "guilty" made you
feel better about yourself, because it certainly didn't accomplish
anything else.
The rest of your yammering, including completing misstating what I
wrote about the relationship between government programs and
personal virtue to mean exactly the opposite, is pretty much just
your admission that you can't respond to my actual arguments.
|8.11.07 @ 6:09PM|#
crimethink,
OK, you're wrong. My support for government programs has nothing to
do with guilt.
|8.11.07 @ 6:12PM|#
iih,
But some wrenches are better than others, and I do not think
that government is the best wrench for the job. Private charities
and organizations would do a far better job at turning these
bolts.,/i>
I disagree with your assessment of the practical effects of the two
different policies. If I agreed with you about the efficacy of
government involvement, then I'd oppose the government's
involvement, but that has nothing to do with this discussion of
principles.
|8.11.07 @ 6:14PM|#
Difference is, I'm not paying for your wrench.
Whether I personally want a wrench is my decision. The existence
and funding of government programs is our collective decision.
|8.11.07 @ 6:17PM|#
I get the arguments about A and B making C give money to D. But is it OK for A and B to make C give money to provide police protection for D? Cause what if I'm D and I say, hell, I don't want or need police protection (I honestly think for example cops have been more a hassle in my life than I've ever needed them). I mean, if I were a rich dude with plenty of stuff that big strong poor people looked at hungrily I would think, hell yeah everyone should pay taxes to provide police protection for my, er um, our stuff! So I geuss I'm confused as to how it's ok for the government to make me cough up dough for police protection, but wrong to take care of poor people, if the principle is that it is always wrong to force another person to give money for something they don't agree with....
|8.11.07 @ 6:17PM|#
iih,
I'll say it again; I don't support government aid to the poor in an
effort to save the souls of taxpayers. It doesn't. I support
government aid to the poor purely for the material benefits it
produces.
I also don't find it appropriate to deny these material benefits
just so there will be more poor people for us to feel virtuous
about helping.
|8.11.07 @ 6:20PM|#
All of this talk about guilt really drives how little you think
about your fellow man.
You can't imagine why someone could be concerned about other
people, except in response to a feeling of having personally harmed
them?
What the hell is THAT?
|8.11.07 @ 6:22PM|#
joe,
If most people think they should help the poor with their own
money, then govt intervention is superfluous.
If most people don't think the poor should be helped, then govt
intervention is undemocratic.
The current system is one where most people have decided that the
poor should be helped with other people's money, and that's
immoral. It's not charity when you're giving away other people's
money.
|8.11.07 @ 6:33PM|#
crimethink,
How many times would you like me to say that I don't consider
government aid charity?
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
I don't consider government aid charity.
Quick, now tell me that government aid to the poor isn't an
exercise in virtue, like private charity.
|8.11.07 @ 6:37PM|#
joe,
If you typed all those manually, I'm impressed. If you copied and
pasted, you should be ashamed of your cheating.
|8.11.07 @ 6:46PM|#
When you give money to a begger, you aren't really giving them the money; you're paying them to perform the job of begging. If this makes you feel good, it's only because you don't understand what you're doing.
|8.11.07 @ 8:24PM|#
"Politically, 40% of respondents described themselves as
"Liberal" or "Very liberal", compared to the 7% who were
"Conservative," "Very conservative". 35% were "Not political" or
"Other", and 16% were "Moderate". Of the 35% who marked "Other,"
the dominant write-in was "Objectivist," which tallied
17%."
The idea of a bunch of people dressed up like animals sitting
around talking about why it's not enough to be right--you have to
be right for all the right reasons... Am I the only one here who
thinks that's funny?
iih|8.11.07 @ 9:24PM|#
joe,
I hope that you too understand that I feel for the poor as much as
you do. I am not against society aiding the poor. But I am against
government taking up that role. It will ultimately undermine the
humanitarianism of society.
Coming from a heavily socialized society, where assisting the poor
and providing them with free health care has done nothing but
increase the gap between the rich and the poor and has done nothing
but increase the animosity between the two groups.
I am a firm believer that no soul should be left to suffer while
others in society enjoy so much. I am for a community-based
humanitarian activism, but if done through government, the
"community" part will totally be lost. As in the case of my
original homeland Egypt.
iih|8.11.07 @ 9:25PM|#
joe:
This:
Coming from a heavily socialized society, where assisting the
poor and providing them with free health care has done nothing but
increase the gap between the rich and the poor and has done nothing
but increase the animosity between the two groups.
should be changed to:
Coming from a heavily socialized society, where assisting the poor
and providing them with free health care by
government has done nothing but increase the gap between
the rich and the poor and has done nothing but increase the
animosity between the two groups.
|8.11.07 @ 9:30PM|#
Ken Schultz,
A better question would be, do objectivist furries believe in
animal rights?
|8.11.07 @ 9:33PM|#
I'm a libertarian but also a vegetarian so the hotdog merchant will get none of my money -- the homeless guy will only get money if he asks for money to buy shit to fuck him up -- if he asks for money to buy food I turn him down automatically. Needless to say I rarely give money to the homeless.
|8.11.07 @ 9:40PM|#
i agree with crimethink about Tom Sowell, or "Uncle" as I
like to call him.
Yeah, hes just an Uncle Tom right? Why don't you go actually read
some of his books (like his trilogy on ethnicity and race) before
judging the man ? Asshat.
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.11.07 @ 9:56PM|#
[D]o objectivist furries believe in animal
rights?
No idea, but either way, I'm sure they're dicks about it.
Alex|8.11.07 @ 10:35PM|#
If I saw a beggar next to a hot dog vendor, I would probably become hungry (depending on the appearance of the beggar). So I would buy a hot dog and eat it right there. While eating it I would say something like "You did this to me", preferably while chewing a mouthful of food.
|8.11.07 @ 10:53PM|#
f anybody wants another topic, here's the useless thought
experiment I've been mulling lately, and I'd love to hear from the
fine people here...
You get sent back in time -- to when/where, I'm not sure, but I'm
thinking at least 1000-2000 B.C.E., just use whatever's interesting
to you. You quickly establish some method of communicating
effectively with the people of the past. And let's assume your
getting sent back changes the timeline enough that it's not helpful
for you to give the past people information like, "A long time from
now, there's gonna be this guy named Adolf Hitler. Everybody
pretend his paintings are awesome, just trust me."
I'm not a scientist, by trade or education, but I'm fairly
confident that I'd fall towards the more scientifically
knowledgeable end of the general population. However, sent back to
a relatively primitive society, I think I'd be just about useless
to them. I sorta understand the principles at work, but I couldn't
show them how to build a battery or a light bulb. I couldn't help
them isolate penicillin. I don't know how to mine the right
components and smelt steel. I couldn't demonstrate an internal
combustion engine, though I could probably answer a question about
it on a standardized test.
Best I think I could do is explain the scientific method in general
terms, maybe a few specific things like the germ theory of disease
or heliocentrism, and hope that helps speed up the work of their
scientists.
So, how useful would you be?
I've actually memorized ceratin details about 9/11 just in case I
get sent back in time on 9/10/01 or something (realisticly I don't
expect this to happen, it's more akin to throwing salt over the
shoulder when someone spills the shaker)
|8.11.07 @ 10:55PM|#
jh-still want to know if you support taxation for purposes of
providing police protection (A and B making C pay for police for
D), and if so, how that is different than taxation for social
programs. Before you say, well, the police protects everyone, one
can say that welfare provides a safety net for everyone (of course
most folks don't need it, but then some folks go their whole lives
and never call the police). I'm not wholly unsympathetic to your
point of view mind you, I'm just not sure myself where I can draw
the line...
Cesar-I agree. Sowell's newspaper columns are often boneheaded
blind GOP apology (show me the money!) but some of his scholarly
work is top notch, including his excellent stuff on ethnicity (I
would add his early work on Marxism which was hardly sympathetic
but also fair and balanced).
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.11.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Sowell's newspaper columns are often boneheaded blind GOP
apology (show me the money!) but some of his scholarly work is top
notch, including his excellent stuff on ethnicity (I would add his
early work on Marxism which was hardly sympathetic but also fair
and balanced).
"Boneheaded blind GOP apology" is an apt description of much of his
newspaper columns (remember a while ago in one of his random,
disjointed musings columns when he said something like "Sometimes,
I think the only hope for this country is a military coup"?) but
there are a few exceptions. Sowell is about as good as anybody at
explaining simple economic concepts. Look through his archives for
columns that address things like the cost of housing in San
Fransisco or the "price gouging" accusations directed at fuel
suppliers after Katrina. Those are brilliant. Unfortunately, that
clarity of thinking goes right out the window when the topic is
dudes kissing dudes or the teeming hordes of IslamoNazis. About the
same goes for Walter Williams.
atrevete|8.12.07 @ 12:11AM|#
Anonymo was talking about going back to BEFORE Christ, as in
1000-2000 BC, no? Anyway, there's a few things I could tell them
for sure DON'T work, like sacrificing virgins if the king is sick,
or if the crops are scarce. That bleeding the patient doesn't help
cure him and mustard packs on the scalp do absolutely nothing
either.
I think if I worked on it I could get a fairly good smallpox
vaccine going from cowpox, and if they had any kind of alphabet,
figuring out a moveable type for printing, as well as getting some
kind of crude paper from wood pulp.
Plus just good hygiene would help with a lot of those plagues, too.
Boiling water disinfects things. Alcohol is a good antiseptic. I
got no idea how to make chloroform or ether or any good anesthesia,
but I'll bet a lot of you scientific types do.
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.12.07 @ 12:59AM|#
Anyway, there's a few things I could tell them for sure
DON'T work, like sacrificing virgins if the king is sick, or if the
crops are scarce. ...
Yeah that's what I'm thinking -- the basic concept of science vs.
superstition, though obviously some people still have trouble with
that today, and this depends on you having some credibility with
the past people (which we'll assume).
Thinking a bit more, I figure the most useful stuff I can
contribute is probably in the area of anatomy/physiology/basic
medicine -- not that I have any specialized knowledge there, but
it's fairly simply and practical until you get down to the cellular
level. I probably could explain, like I said before, germs,
sterilization, throw your waste somewhere other than where you
bathe and get drinking water, isolate the contagious; I could
explain what general functions the blood, brain, heart, lungs,
stomach, liver, etc., serve, probably not well enough to teach them
useful surgeries, but I could give them a head start on getting
something useful. Pharmacologically, they probably know more than I
do already as far as the useful plants of their habitat.
Math, physics: Some concepts of probability would be useful, but
I'm not sure what they would already know in that regard, and some
of that is redundant with the general concept of science (1 in 6
chance, rather than an angry god controlling your dice). Arithmetic
and such I think they'd already know, same for much geometry/trig
(depending on when/where). I can do some calculus but doubt I can
teach anything useful.
Newtonian mechanics, I can explain the basics (F=ma, inertia,
etc.), but not sure how much practical good that does them --
engineering-wise, they've already figured out wheels, leverage,
pulleys such that I'd have nothing important to add.
Chemistry, electricity, nuclear stuff: I'm completely useless. I
suppose I could tell them the gist of atoms, but what good does
that do until much later?
In sum, I suppose I could be a moderately useful "medicine
man/shaman"-type guy and have some positive effect on their
standard of living, but they won't be talking on cell phones or
anything a week after I get there. And their benefit from my
knowledge, relative to other societies without my help, disappears
pretty quickly over time.
|8.12.07 @ 1:42AM|#
I'm generally against governmental welfare as well, but I
find your last post a little lacking in objectivity. First, not
everyone considers taxation theft. Second, not all governmental
welfare goes to "unproductive beggars." As you said in your earlier
post, there are some people who are hardworking but may be
experiencing a temporary financial hardship, and it would be not
only humane but also beneficial for us in the end to help those
individuals. Now of course you may counter, as I'd argue myself,
that the private sector does a better job than the government in
this role, but you should've emphasized this in your post instead
of making the facile accusation of hypocrisy.
NP, hardly anyone considers taxation theft. I do. Feel free to
disagree on that point, and explain how taking money or time from
me without my consent for government programs that I don't agree
with and never consented to having performed, with prison time if I
vigorously resist this taking, isn't a form of theft. Seems
objective to me to have that POV, even if almost no one else has
yet reached that conclusion. It's real hard for people to have an
epiphany if they're personally benefiting from not connecting the
dots.
Sorry I didn't emphasize that I feel some people do deserve help if
it is voluntarily offered. I'm all for voluntary taxation, where
people would choose whether or not to contribute to such worthwhile
causes on their tax forms -- it's the compulsory stuff I hate. In
fact, I personally do a form of this voluntary taxation, donating a
tenth of my income to the Mormon church, plus additonal charitable
donations and time spent serving others in my calling. That is the
governing model I'd like implemented.
|8.12.07 @ 1:55AM|#
jh-still want to know if you support taxation for purposes
of providing police protection (A and B making C pay for police for
D), and if so, how that is different than taxation for social
programs. Before you say, well, the police protects everyone, one
can say that welfare provides a safety net for everyone (of course
most folks don't need it, but then some folks go their whole lives
and never call the police). I'm not wholly unsympathetic to your
point of view mind you, I'm just not sure myself where I can draw
the line...
Mr. Nice Guy, I oppose ALL forms of compulsory
taxation whatsoever, including police protection. If the government
wants to offer me police protection, I would like to choose between
taking their offer and paying a voluntary tax for that service, or
heavily arming myself or hiring a private security agency and not
getting any government-supplied police protection. I would almost
certainly opt for the government police protection, but I'd feel
much better choosing to do so rather than having it forcibly
extracted from my pay.
I don't see any substantial difference between someone taking taxes
from you without your consent to pay for police vs. social
services.
e|8.12.07 @ 5:06AM|#
Look through his archives for columns that address things
like the cost of housing in San Fransisco
Housing is expensive in San Francisco because everyone
wants to fucking live there!
That's what Uncle Tom Sowell can't seem to comprehend. Yes, it's a
collectivist nightmare of beauraucratic parasitism run by moochers
and thugs. Just like New York, Paris, London, Barcelona, etc. Yet
for some reason people want to live in those places; go figure!
|8.12.07 @ 8:10AM|#
Anonymo the Anonymous
Going back in time and being useful? Try Mark Twains "A Connecticut
Yankee in King Arthur's Court" or "The Cross-Time Engineer" by
Michael Valdivielso.
|8.12.07 @ 9:21AM|#
We all agree that Thomas Sowell, with the except of a book or
two, is a sad apologist for the Gayfers On Parade.
First, he's such a supply-sider that he doesn't take into account
demand at all. San Francisco, NYC etc. are expensive because people
want to live there.
But the thing that kills me his silly (it isn't plausible enough to
give much more respect than that) idea that gov't regulation caused
the sub-prime crash. One look at the Florida real estate market
shows just how ass-fat-in-the-crack wrong he is. There has been a
major boom in housing development and no gov't entity can stop it.
Sprawl went crazy in Orlando, Sarasota, Tampa and most other places
in FL. The locals couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to. And
yet.....the market crashed.
Perhaps Sowell could do some basic work in economics instead of
trying to make a case for his preordained political views all the
time.
|8.12.07 @ 10:48AM|#
I think Sowell can do economic work, and fair, thoughtful work
at that (again, look at one his early books called simply Marxism
for evidence, and much of his stuff on ethnicity and economic
success). However, it's clear he just wants to get PAID now. He'll
write anything if the GOP stamps it OK first...
jh-Thanks, I do think that is a consistent position. I think that
once a person says we can have compulsory taxation for police
(which many libertarians say) they have little room to argue that
it is not ok for other things. I think your position has
consistency.
|8.12.07 @ 11:00AM|#
To Reasons credit a while back a fee market think tank ranked the most economically free places to live, and NYC was near the bottom while Wichita was near the top. Reason said certainly there is more to life than economic freedom, because Wichita is a hole and NYC rocks. I think one may argue that wherever you find dynamism you will find parasitical things like government, and that could be why dynamic cities have such collectivist tendencies (they have dynamism despite the collectivism). Of course, I think the better view is that a little bit of government seems essential to economic success (Somalia has no government and look at it) while too much strangles it (think North Korea). Of course, I am quite a heretic because I think government coercion can at times (usually not, but yes at times) create more freedom for more people in the long run. If the government tells employers they cannot spy on me during my lunch break at the office then that constrains the freedom of a handful of people (employers) but expands freedom for many, many more (employees). The old "well you're always free to work elsewhere" is empirically flawed (corporate standards can be quite uniform at times for all intents and purposes, and the bargaining power of the employee relative to the employer is nearly always lower [who could go without each other longer without starving, you or your boss?]) and conceptually iffy (since you can say the same about government to a libertarian: if you don't like it you are free to move to another one's jurisdiction). But when I see government restricting the freedom of the many for the sake of the few (like subsidies) then it's plainly wrong to a freedom loving person...
|8.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Regarding Sowell, it still amazes me that a man as smart as he is--and one who says he has a "Constrained vision" of humanity--can support something like the Iraq War. Theres just a big disconnect there, I think.
|8.12.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy-
Yes, NYC is a great place despite its big-government tendencies and
high taxes. Big cities have other things--culture, dynamism, an
educated populace--that smaller places often lack.
However, you can have the best of both worlds--ex. Hong Kong--a
large dynamic city with a high degree of economic freedom.
|8.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
You seem to be advancing a utilitarian criterion. But to see if
something's fair. don't we have to closely examine principle and
particulars?
Also, could you please give an example of spying in:
If the government tells employers they cannot spy on me during
my lunch break at the office then that constrains the freedom of a
handful of people (employers) but expands freedom for many, many
more (employees).
Please consider this example of my point: I think that it should be
legal for a company to have cameras in their stores to examine the
shopping habits of its customers. But I don't think that a company
should be able to monitor the customers inside the rest rooms. That
would be a clear violation of the customers' right to
privacy.
In my preceding example, the fact that the customers outnumber the
owners of the store has nothing to do with the conclusions vis a
vis fairness.
|8.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Balko,
Thanks for calling Nassim Taleb humorless.
That made me read what he said. It was a gut-buster.
Will all posters above and below, please go now and carefully read
what Taleb said!
I have read his Fooled by Randomness and will read his Black Swan
if the local library ever lends it to me. (I have it on
"hold.")
|8.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#
iih,
You've said nothing to indicate that your desire to aid the poor is
anything but genuine and robust.
For example, unlike other commenters, you haven't once attempted to
demean the desire to help one's fellows by dismissing it as "guilt"
and implying that such a desire is, on its own, and indication of a
character flaw.
Also, I don't think that the watered-down "Arab Socialism" of the
Egyptian government is comparable to the western, liberal project
of incorporating a welfare state into a fundamentally capitalist
system.
|8.12.07 @ 11:59AM|#
When jh feels a responsibility to help the poor, it's good and
noble. When people who disagree with him about government policy
feel the same responsibility, it's just "guilt."
Sure, that makes sense.
|8.12.07 @ 12:04PM|#
Since thia is an open thread, I'd like to share this swell Mew
Wave vid:
Bananarama-"Shy Boy" (btw, were they hot or what?!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqGawSXcAgk
Also, check this fine New Wave tune:
Q Feel-"Dancing In Heaven (Orbital Bebop)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDdY3dXpdmU
|8.12.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Here's another great Bananarama vid!
It's Bananarama and Fun Boy Three- "Really Saying Something"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBxZNDGj5Ng
|8.12.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Cesar-Excellent point. Hong Kong is a most interesting example.
However, in some ways I remember they have some made government
(like in zoning)....But as my most excellent sociology professor
used to say, Hong Kong is just a city, and maybe it's easier to
organize things if you just have a city to look over...
Rick-if you think it is wrong for a business to put cameras as you
say then we agree...The hardcore libertarian would say "anything
the businessowner can get the employee to put up with is great, oh
sweet freedom!" Bullshit say I...
|8.12.07 @ 4:12PM|#
With new wave hair-dos, I want GIRLS!
Brilliant call, joe!...
Here's Another Bananarama -"Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF2XN4GMsY8
Dale Bozzio, and the rest of Missing Persons - "Words"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNU_wyQbAv4&mode=related&search=
Eurythmics -"Who's That Girl"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsOMJ8OGNaA
(BTW, Bananarama are among the girls appearing in this vid)
|8.12.07 @ 5:12PM|#
More:
The GO-GOs - "We Got The Beat"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiCwIPGkTy4
Two vids of Siouxsie and the Banshees-"Hong Kong Garden"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF0OjrFIVWY&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfnYu2Jergk
|8.12.07 @ 5:22PM|#
The hardcore libertarian would say "anything the
businessowner can get the employee to put up with is great, oh
sweet freedom!" Bullshit say I...
Wait a minute, Mr. Nice Guy. That's different than your example of
employer spying on employees. Now you're decribing voluntary
interaction. So it should be legal, whatever we think about it.
|8.12.07 @ 7:20PM|#
And of course we have the lovely Debbie Harry and Blondie!! -
"Dreaming"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95AEzyWZX8I&mode=related&search=
and "Accidents Never Happen"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsMzs5HKhj8
|8.12.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Have I left the best New Wave girl's hair-do for
last? What ever, super cute Terri Nunn of Berlin should
never be left off the list!
Berlin - "No More Words"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWXspXwTCOs
iih|8.12.07 @ 7:44PM|#
joe:
I know that we agree on the need to have a humanitarian society. It
benefits, firstly, the less fortunate in society, the provider of
assistance, and, probably most importantly, the strength and
cohesion of society as whole.
We only differ on who should administer the process, government or
private institutions?
Aside from the administrative deficiencies/inefficiencies of
government administering the process, I also believe that it hurts
society's cohesion, as I saw in my country of birth (as well as
other countries, including European cities -- and I have been to
quite a few). If nothing else, it hurts one of the most important
roles of religious institutions (i.e., churches, synagogues,
mosques, temples, etc).
If government leaves the business of aiding the less fortunate,
these religious organizations will all of a sudden have a much
stronger role in society. May be a side effect is that Evangelical
Mega Churches would finally stop their attempts at undermining
church and state separation as they will have a lot at hand to take
care of.
iih|8.12.07 @ 7:51PM|#
joe:
You've said nothing to indicate that your desire to aid the
poor is anything but genuine and robust.
This is one of the most confusing sentences I had to read in quite
sometime :-) But this:
For example, unlike other commenters, you haven't once
attempted to demean the desire to help one's fellows by dismissing
it as "guilt" and implying that such a desire is, on its own, and
indication of a character flaw.
helped explain what you mean.
Finally:
Also, I don't think that the watered-down "Arab Socialism" of
the Egyptian government is comparable to the western, liberal
project of incorporating a welfare state into a fundamentally
capitalist system.
How do we know that we are not in the US on our way to
watered-down, not necessarily socialism, but system of
governance?
Quite frankly, I think the welfare society built in Canada's
capitalist system a bit inefficient, but in many ways less
watered-down than whatever it is we now have in the US (and
remember that I do have Canadian residence as well, and am quite
familiar with their system drawbacks and strengths).
|8.12.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Another one by Berlin-"Sex (I'm a...)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt4Xp3YKADs&mode=related&search=
|8.12.07 @ 8:46PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Hong Kong is a most interesting example. However, in some ways
I remember they have some made government (like in
zoning)
Hong Kong also has a robust public housing program due to the high
cost of housing in the city. Something like 2 million people in
Hong Kong live in public housing.
http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/residential/prh/0,,,00.html
http://www.housingauthority.gov.hk/en/aboutus/0,,,00.html
|8.12.07 @ 8:52PM|#
joe said: "When jh feels a responsibility to help the poor,
it's good and noble. When people who disagree with him about
government policy feel the same responsibility, it's just
"guilt."
joe, my views on private charity reflects Jesus' teachings, which
say that one's motivations for giving matter. In Matthew, for
example, He lit into some Judean clergy who conspicuously gave
because it enhanced their public image.
As for the 'guilt' thing, I was referring to your own words, where
you said you gave out of a sense of guilt, and emphasized that your
giving was all about making you feel better. Do you really want to
be shamed by having those posts repeated -- posts which are a
matter of record and easily recalled -- or would you rather let it
slide? Or do you want to retract those statements?
No doubt some other people who advocate a larger government role in
"charity" do it out of a genuine desire to help others. My point is
that it is not really charity if you get the money by robbing
others via taxation against their will. If it comes out of your own
pocket, and out of concern for your fellow human beings, that is
unambiguously charitable. Otherwise, not so much so, even if some
people do benefit from the aid given, albeit at the expense of
others.
I understand your POV that wealthy people are rich bastards who
deserve to get taxed heavily to help the less wealthy, and that
doing so makes you feel better about yourself. I just don't agree
with that POV, and feel the behavior you're extolling is immoral
and wrong, even if the majority of the voters side with you and
join you in that theft. Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree,
since you don't seem the least bit repentant about your complicity
and advocacy of this theft.
|8.12.07 @ 9:40PM|#
Neu Mejican:
Hong Kong also has a robust public housing program due to the
high cost of housing in the city.
That doesn't negate the fact that Hong Kong realized its fabulous
standard of living as a result of largely unfettered capitalism.
Thru many time frames, and perhaps currently, residents of Hong
Kong have enjoyed the highest per-capita income in Asia.
|8.12.07 @ 10:09PM|#
As for the 'guilt' thing, I was referring to your own words,
where you said you gave out of a sense of guilt
I said no such thing. You read your pre-determined script, borrowed
from the liberal in your head, onto what I wrote.
Sort of like this:
No doubt some other people who advocate a larger government
role in "charity" do it out of a genuine desire to help others. My
point is that it is not really charity if you get the money by
robbing others via taxation against their will. If it comes out of
your own pocket, and out of concern for your fellow human beings,
that is unambiguously charitable. Otherwise, not so much so, even
if some people do benefit from the aid given, albeit at the expense
of others.
And this:
I understand your POV that wealthy people are rich bastards who
deserve to get taxed heavily to help the less wealthy, and that
doing so makes you feel better about yourself.
None of these bear the slightest resemblance to anything I've
writtern, or believe. You just write crap to make yourself feel
better, because you don't actually have the mental firepower to
come up with counterarguments to what I actually write. You see
something that kinda sorta reminds of an argument you saw someone
else refute, and parrot the refutation.
Pathetic.
iih|8.12.07 @ 10:17PM|#
joe, jh:
What I see happening here is a big waste of time regarding the
motive for giving. Is this even worth the waste of time? Regardless
of the motive, people like to give and there are those who are
willing to receive the donation. Lets not get hung up on issues
that really do not play a role on the desired outcome/consensus.
The assumption here is that this is a discussion seeking common
grounds between people in society with vary different beliefs and
backgrounds.
As I see it, jh and I agree that government should not play any
role in the humanitarian process. joe disagrees. The gist of the
disagreement is who is best to take care of the process. As for
that, see my post above:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121885.html#763474
(you need to copy and paste it in the address bar).
|8.12.07 @ 10:50PM|#
ihh,
The gist of the disagreement is who is best to take care of the
process I agree with that. You agree with that. Unfortunately,
jh, believes that there is a disagreement over whether using tax
dollars to solve social problems counts as a charitable act. There
isn't actually any disagreement on this point - we all agree that
it does not - but for some reason, jh keeps insisting that I
believe public welfare programs count as charity work.
|8.12.07 @ 11:09PM|#
That doesn't negate the fact that Hong Kong realized
[but couldn't sustain] its fabulous standard of
living as a result of largely unfettered capitalism.
Had to add that.
iih|8.12.07 @ 11:19PM|#
joe:
I think everyone should have a right to say in which category
should his/her taxes go. That way government spending will exactly
be one to one what "we the people" want. If we all decide to put it
towards defense, then it is a truly blank check to go to war (even
though, ironically, it is called "defense" department), if some of
us decide to put it towards public welfare and entrust the
government in doing a good job at that, then this is where to go.
If on the other hand I decide to put that money in, say, building
better federal highways, then this is where it goes. And so on. I
sometimes wonder why such a tax spending method is pursued. May be
it is because the budget is too complex with a monstrously huge
government that such a spending budget would be almost impossible
to manage without an even bigger government.
iih|8.12.07 @ 11:22PM|#
joe, jh, and whoever is interested in what I just said, I will be up for may be another 30 minutes, but will check back in the morning. I would really like to know what people think about my last suggestion. I wish crimethink was around. But for now, Lamar and Rick are good enough ;)
|8.13.07 @ 12:30AM|#
Maybe it's the wine, but I think this statement, "I think everyone should have a right to say in which category should his/her taxes go" shows such a comprehensive misunderstanding about our government and its workings that you should no longer be able to participate in it.
|8.13.07 @ 12:44AM|#
I understand your POV that wealthy people are rich bastards
who deserve to get taxed heavily to help the less wealthy, and that
doing so makes you feel better about yourself.
None of these bear the slightest resemblance to anything I've
writtern, or believe. You just write crap to make yourself feel
better, because you don't actually have the mental firepower to
come up with counterarguments to what I actually write. You see
something that kinda sorta reminds of an argument you saw someone
else refute, and parrot the refutation.
Pathetic.
joe | August 11, 2007, 4:25pm | #
I give money to beggers when they ask, for entirely selfish reasons
...
Besides, as a liberal, I don't have the responsibility to make sure
that charity by itself is sufficient to further my humanitarian
goals ...
But when I'm confronted by a begger, I do what I want so I don't
have to be in a bad mood.
joe | August 11, 2007, 4:46pm | #
Cesar,
Whe blowing off a begger isn't going to require any effort on my
part, I don't give them a second thought ...
I didn't have any trouble going past him. Like I said, unlike the
real charity I give or the politics I agitate for, my change-giving
is all about me.
|8.13.07 @ 12:44AM|#
Lamar:
[but couldn't sustain)
I don't think that the evidence bares that out. Can you offer
evidence to support that Hong Kong couldn't sustain its fabulous
standard of living, which was the result of largely unfettered
capitalism?
They still have one of the freest economies in the world. Do they
not?
|8.13.07 @ 12:53AM|#
Hey everyone,
Check out the Parsiad Meteor Shower! It's only 10:45 here in
Colorado and I've already seen a few. They're best after 12:00 AM
local time, and usually get continualy better till about 3- 3:30.
Look to the East-North East.
|8.13.07 @ 12:59AM|#
iih: "I think everyone should have a right to say in which
category should his/her taxes go."
I think everyone should have the right to decide which categories
of government programs, IF ANY, they will voluntarily subscribe to
and support.
You think that the government should get to decide how much of our
money to take, but that each of should have some (easily
circumvented by politicians) say about how your individual share of
the money (compulsorily taken from you, with or without your
assent) gets spent.
You and joe think that government aid to the poor is a good thing
-- for the poor -- while ignoring the effect on the people being
taxed -- and believe that morality has nothing to do with whether
and how much of this forcible redistribution of wealth should
occur, that it's all about results for the favored political
underclass.
I think these government programs, and the means by which they are
financed, are immoral to the core (not to mention
counterproductive, ineffective, and oftentimes downright harmful to
the purported beneficiaries) and that we should not countenance
such immorality because it makes some among us feel better about
themselves.
|8.13.07 @ 2:49AM|#
Rick Barton,
Regarding Hong Kong.
Like all successful economies, it is a mixed economy. A socialized
housing program that accounts for over 1/4 of the population's
shelter is a pretty impressive government program (in terms of
scale- in the US that would mean around 90 million people provided
shelter with government resources).
My guess is that it benefits the society as a whole and has a
positive benefit for the Hong Kong economy. Hong Kong would be
harmed by moving away from this socialized program...at least that
is my guess.
iih|8.13.07 @ 7:10AM|#
jh:
You and joe think that government aid to the poor is a good
thing -- for the poor -- while ignoring the effect on the people
being taxed
then you have read none of my comments made above.
NP|8.13.07 @ 7:13AM|#
jh,
NP, hardly anyone considers taxation theft. I do. Feel free to
disagree on that point, and explain how taking money or time from
me without my consent for government programs that I don't agree
with and never consented to having performed, with prison time if I
vigorously resist this taking, isn't a form of theft.
I know you consider taxation theft, as I remember you classifying
yourself as an anarcho-capitalist. And I wouldn't necessarily say
your view is wrong; we just disagree on the extent to which the
government can demand taxation from its citizens. The point I wanna
make is that we do enjoy the services and benefits that our
government provides for us. Now some of these, if not most, we can
certainly do away with, but I think even you'll admit that others
like national defense are not only necessary but also too enormous
and involved (at least at this time) for the private sector to
handle. And since the government requires revenue to provide these
services and since the U.S. Constitution specifically
gives the Congress to lay and collect taxes--this would be true
even if we were to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment--I would claim
that "taxation is theft" is not an entirely fair statement.
Sorry I didn't emphasize that I feel some people do deserve
help if it is voluntarily offered. I'm all for voluntary taxation,
where people would choose whether or not to contribute to such
worthwhile causes on their tax forms -- it's the compulsory stuff I
hate. In fact, I personally do a form of this voluntary taxation,
donating a tenth of my income to the Mormon church, plus additonal
charitable donations and time spent serving others in my calling.
That is the governing model I'd like implemented.
I'm glad that you make charitable donations and perform community
service on your own (though I wanna add that your tithe to the
Mormon church, if you're a Mormon yourself, probably doesn't count
as wholly "voluntary" due to the "coercion" of social norms). That
said, I don't think voluntary taxation is a practical choice at
this point; as you'll probably admit, if it were instituted so
suddenly an immense recession would ensue. The best way to reduce
or eliminate taxes is to do it gradually so that the public can be
more open-minded when the government decides to fund some of its
services through "voluntary taxation" as you call it.
|8.13.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Neu Mejican:
Regarding Hong Kong.
Very good. But how come you don't wanna comment on all the swell
New Wave vids that I linked to? ;)
Like all successful economies, it is a mixed
economy.
Two points; 1) The term, "mixed economy" also has had the meaning
that production is either heavily regulated, or owned by the state.
Of course HK has neither of these conditions. 2) It doesn't follow
at all that economic success requires that the economy be mixed,
even given the welfare state connotation that we're using here. In
fact, I think that the evidence is that economies often get
prosperous in the first place. or at some stage, to the degree that
they are unfettered by government.
My guess is that it benefits the society as a whole and has a
positive benefit for the Hong Kong economy.
Well, most government redistribution programs have exactly an
opposite effect. Perhaps a political critical mass has developed
for this program that, as often happens, that has less to do with
"need" and more to do with political coalitions..
But it seems that HK is a very unusual situation which may increase
the likelihood that the motivation for this public housing program
is more genuine and less driven by political power dynamics. (Of
course that doesn't mean it's not wrong headed) HK has been a very
libertarian place. Contrast this to its quite unfree surroundings.
This freedom and resultant prosperity have caused a huge population
influx into a confined space which has, of course. driven up
property values wildly.
BTW; from one of the links you provided:
It is the first step up the housing ladder towards self-owned
accommodation.
I wonder what the "pass thru" rate is. IOW, I wonder what the
average time is for folks to stay in government owned housing?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245