Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
By "economic equality" do you mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? The two are dramatically different. I would say that your "Berkeley-think" caricature would tilt toward equality of outcome, which I think is impossible to achieve and foolish to aim for. On the other hand, I think that it's perfectly reasonable that people should have equality of opportunity, in that schools ought to offer the same (high) quality of education and that people should be able to compete on the same level for jobs, based upon their ability and training.
I happen to believe that government is neither a good nor an evil institution. It can be either or both. The Army that protects and defends us is good; the Commander-in-Chief who rushed too rapidly into a situation that further reflection would have shown to be intractable is bad. To suggest that any governmental influence is wrong is just as silly as to suggest that we shoudl live in a centrally-planned economy.
I also think that is is an abomination that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, people are going to hungry in the streets while the Dept. of Agriculture subsidizes tobacco farmers. I think that everyone, even those who simply refuse to work, has a right to a sheltered place to sleep and two meals a day. Because is life is sacred, even the wasted lives are worth keeping alive in some human fashion.
Is your worldview as nuanced? Do you have room for both absolutes and relative standards? Can you see shades of gray?
|
1. I believe equality of opportunity is more and more confused with equality of outcome. When Krugmanites cry for more progressive taxation, what "opportunity" are they asking the govt to give to people? Sounds like someone's handing somebody the ends, rather than the means.
2. I didn't suggest govt is exclusively harmful. It polices; it defends; it regulates as needed. Where it becomes evil is when it becomes a fix-all. Democrats believe we should run to the govt to fix everything. Pass a law. File a lawsuit. Real conservatives and libertarians (read: not these pork junkies presently calling themselves conservatives) believe in the notion that we get ahead by finding our own way, rather than suing each other, asking for handouts or pushing for a law to fix what ails us. The more people in this country are trained to believe Govt can be a Big Brother who'll fight your battles and make sure everything's fair, the more fucked we are in terms of ability to compete. Somebody's gotta get hurt for someone else to climb the ladder.
3. I loath subsidies. I can't argue with your stance on tobacco. Those farmers should have diversified. They didn't; they should lose their farms. Next.
4. Everybody has health care. When was the last time you were in the E/R and saw somebody turned away? I'm all for giving everybody preventative health care... But I'm not paying for it. My own family's health care is high enough. If I bought into buying it for everyone, Id get the double taxation of years of paying my family's costs, plus higher taxes... And then you know what would happen? They'd tell us the Nationalized Care Department ran into huge cost overruns due to bureaucratic expenses, and that our taxes wouldn't be coming down. Thanks. I'll take one of the retainer plans coming out and work out my own deal with an insurer for the excess. Shit, that's practically what I do now anyway. Does anyone really believe a nationalized system would be better? God, if the private sector can fuck health care up this badly, just imagine what the fucking govt would do. Oh, but at least we'd be sure there was no favoritism in the contracting process, since 20% of admin expenses would be eaten up in vetting procedures to make sure bureaucrats kept everything "fair." Quite simply, any "savings" I'd get out of nationalized health care would be illusory... I'd rather just bite the bullet and pay the doc.
5. By the way, since we're on the issue of health care, why is it always our tax burden to pay for the care of people who can't afford children but nevertheless reproduce? I can't afford four kids. It'd be cruel for me to have 4 kids because they couldn't get the standard of living I think they should (barring some lucky economic circumstances occuring). So why the fuck should people having children they can afford get a free pass in society? And why the fuck isn't birth control free? Fuck the GOP and the Jesus Freaks on that issue. You can't afford kids, don't fucking have them. It's just that simple. Don't whine to me about your dire straits due to the tax policy when you've got 4 kids and a $40k income. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.
Yeh, my worldview is nuanced. Nobody should be left to the wolves, but we have to have an honest discussion about exactly what "equality of opportunity" entails. Looks to me like a whole lot of people think opportunity's best doled out in liquid form. Hopefully, I'm wrong, and my view is just another jaded observation from this cesspool of a state in which I live.
