Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers

E.J. Dionne is the only actual liberal at the Washington Post. The other ostensibly leftish columnists are craven morons who value their membership in the Beltway cocktail circuit more than critical thinking.

tgregory
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Wha? I suppose there are a few people too stupid to distinguish between "Wanting something done in a particular way" and "Not wanting something done at all" (usually politicians). However, for the most part, this is a strawman (i.e. most politicians don't believe that crap, they just use it because it makes the other side sound bad).

The great majority of people would, of course, prefer that individuals be generous, intelligent, and resourceful enough that we wouldn't have mistreated workers, starving children, unsafe products, untreated illnesses, etc. However, this is not the case. We do have these things. Which is the entire reason why people advocate government intervention. If undirected groups of people naturally resolved these problems, then nobody would be advocating government solutions because there would be no problem to resolve. The proposal of government solutions is not because people confuse government and society, it's because the problems of an undirected society are, again, the entire reason why government was created in the first place.

What is your solution to these problems? Your argument is fairly common, and "let people do what they want" is often portrayed as a solution. Except that it isn't. It is a description of the current situation, one where these issues have not been resolved.

The closest thing I've heard to a legitimate solution is to say that starving children, etc. are a necessary cost and that such problems will be resolved in the long-run. This, as before, is not an actual solution (as there are still starving children). It merely says that the problem is not a problem (which, for properly functioning humans, it most certainly is). It is also not guaranteed to work, even in the long run, as basic selection mechanisms do not require that all people be treated decently in order for others to survive.

Oh, and here's a tip. If you have something that is always bad (e.g. "Socialism"), then it is not a real thing. It is a group of things that you selected based on moral valuation. In the same way, if "Freedom" is always good, then it is not an actual thing. It is, as before, a group of things selected based on moral valuation. This would be fine, except that people will regularly argue in the wrong direction (e.g. "This reduces my freedom, therefore it is bad."). If you are arguing these sorts of things, then you are most likely making this mistake. If you do think that freedom is always good, then you must admit that people should have the freedom to murder you. You might argue that this infringes on your freedom, but that would imply that you're aware that there is complexity here and that you are merely pretending to be a simpleton.

I'll note that you were asked for a solution, and replied with this:
How do we feed the poorest families with no government intervention? How do we clothe the poorest families with no government intervention? Etc... Charity, private schools, and (gasp) people doing good for others.

As I said before, it isn't a solution if it doesn't actually, you know, resolve the problem. Sure, charities help. It's great that people give. But it's just not enough. As I keep saying, it would be great if people would just resolve these problems on their own. Unfortunately, they don't. Which is the whole reason why they turn to government intervention.

Grover Cleveland would have voiced his concerns about the Alternative Minimum Tax on two non-consecutive occasions.

Teddy Roosevelt would lay Ted Nugent out with one right hook.

TofuTheAlmighty: Robert Samuelson, still dumb as a bag of hammers


Ohhhhhhh. Robert "Rapist Glasses" Samuelson, the notorious Social Security hater. That explains everything.

Him and "Uncle Thomas" Sewell just cannot stand the idea of old and disabled people NOT rummaging through garbage cans for food or doing a tapdance in the street while billionaires laugh and throw pennies at them from their limos.

Socrates totally loved San Dimas, dudes.

tgregory: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't think having to pay into SS makes me any less free. Sure, taxes suck, but I understand the importance of taking care of our elderly and disabled citizens. One of which I hope to be one day.


There are better ways to take care of the elderly and disabled than threatening free people with fines and imprisonment for not participating. A forced solution (in a free society) should never even be considered.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

I forgot that you are THAT guy.



Yup. Look out for me. That guy who thinks people own their own lives. (Crazy these days, I know.)

Yeah, Taxes should be zero right?

Dusk-You-n-Me: I don't think having to pay into SS makes me any less free. Sure, taxes suck, but I understand the importance of taking care of our elderly and disabled citizens. One of which I hope to be one day.


There are better ways to take care of the elderly and disabled than threatening free people with fines and imprisonment for not participating. A forced solution (in a free society) should never even be considered.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

There needs to be an opt out option. FICA is a pyramid scheme and I will never get any semblance of that money back

tgregory: Land of the free. Where the government can sign you up for a service you never signed up for, threaten you with imprisonment if you don't participate,

Abraham Lincoln would be apalled by Pro Wrestling!

Philip Francis Queeg: HotWingConspiracy: Philip Francis Queeg: George Washington would hate NASCAR.

William Howard Taft would hate Lean Cuisine.

It's a little known historical oddity that Taft would have loved Lean Cuisine, but would have consumed 14 portions in a single meal.



Hold the beef stroganoff one, I'm on a diet.

HotWingConspiracy: Philip Francis Queeg: George Washington would hate NASCAR.

William Howard Taft would hate Lean Cuisine.

It's a little known historical oddity that Taft would have loved Lean Cuisine, but would have consumed 14 portions in a single meal.

Philip Francis Queeg: George Washington would hate NASCAR.

William Howard Taft would hate Lean Cuisine.

I'm sick of the founding fathers and politicians from the past being lionized to such a degree that their way is the only righteous way. It's even more telling that people with an agenda insert their own thinking and terminology into their heads. Or maybe they have a time machine and... whatever

George Washington would hate NASCAR.

actualhuman: Let me guess, for not being nearly social enough?

exactly. He'd wonder why in the hell we let the rich off so easy.