TREASON!
I hereby bring before the High Court of Blogdom, one Schnocone, charged with the crime of treason.
What did he do, you ask...well, in the course of the evening quite a lot, but let's start with the treason.
As I related last week, I got fired under extremely ridiculous circumstances (Schnocone agrees to this point). As a show of solidarity, he quit the same job the next morning. So that updates us to yesterday morning when Schnocone returns to Ellsworth's to continue working. The Reason: Schnocone felt bad for Ellsworth because he's been working on this project since February and Schnocone wants to see it through to the end. True, he got me this job, and it pulled me out of the throes of poverty. Regardless, you do not quit a job to show your loyalty to a friend only to start the job again within a week. What a betrayal of friendship! Schnocone also says that he quit only because it was awkward once I got fired. Is it not more awkward now that he already quit and decided to return a week later. That, I say, is far more awkward. So here we are now. In an act of appeasement, I got a free margarita tonight, which if I may say so, was not that strong. I think it's not so much to ask for a free drink every night that he works, which amounts to less than five dollars out of the sixty dollars earned a day. That's certainly the cheapest price I've heard for a betrayal of friendhsip, but apparently it's not enough for economics-major-Schnocone.
Which brings me to my next point. If you weren't with me on the last one, you're sure to be with me on this one. Schnocone thinks that there was nothing wrong with the Civil War era draft where the rich could pay someone poorer than them to take their place place in the battlefield. When Bighead and I tried to argue that this was fucking crazy...an idea that they threw out in the 19th Century, he argued that there were no victims in the case, and that we were trying to deprive poor people of the free choice to earn money by replacing rich people on the battlefield. He actually accused us of being against poor people through what he hinted was condescending patronage...He actually believes this!
Bighead and I exhausted all avenues of debate, but it wasn't enough for the economics major who believes that everything has a price and the contract entered into should be honored as pure free will of all individuals involved. Sure, we tried to say that certain things shouldn't be given a money value, and one shouldn't be able to buy themselves out of their obligation to their society, but he said that they were fulfilling their obligation through their monetary payoff to the poor person.
Even when we tried to argue that one shouldn't be able to buy oneself out of a social contract it wasn't enough. Apparently I'm depriving poor people of money that they may need. We also tried saying that a society should hold that certain things do not have a cash value, because there are certain things that are beyond the realm of money, but once again we were accused of depriving the poor of their free will. Is it just me or is this insane? Tim said that his argument was in the spirit of the social contract that the rich are fulfilling their obligation to defend their society in time of war while we said that the social contract is above financial matters. But again, Bighead and I were depriving the poor and not making sense, grabbing at abstract, ethereal values in a concrete world. I can't explain my frustration. Maybe Schnocone can explain it better, but am I the only one disturbed by this?
By the way, this whole argument started over whether or not scouts should be able to pay someone to do their police call garbage pickup for them.
P.S.--I really want comments on this one, because it was a huge argument and I'm eager to know whether or not one of us is crazy. So if you read this, please comment.
posted by Bacchus Americanus @ 2:17 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Points:
As for the job, all I can say is that I honor my own ethic to get finish things that I start. I was a bit peeved that Ellsworth put me in the position that he did, but in the end, I realized that I made an arrangement that I was honored to follow. When you haven't got a sugar-mama pouring honey into your pot during the year, work ethic is all you have take care of yourself.
As far as the other discussion, for a fair portrayal of my thoughts, I refer you here
Also, I bought you drinks with my serverance pay, which was meant to make me feel better about being thrust into the middle of a situation that I did not create and warned you about.
If I might, I've another assertion as well. I'm quite sure that you don't approve of pollution, much less government pollution permits. Yet the government has been allowing such permits to be sold to certain target industries with the goal of reducing pollution. By creating a market for these permits, we're making faster progress in pollution control than decades of regulation have done. The fact of the matter is that when third parties are not harmed (an assertion that I only theoretically made, although I doubt anyone knows for sure the effects of contracting), individual decisions exceed government action by any measure. Government should limit itself to providing incentives and let people decide for themselves what's best for people. The essence of liberalism and the free society is that people themselves know what's best for themselves. It's quite easy to tack on other limits to personal choice *cough*abortion*cough* by saying that people cannot be trusted to do what's best for themselves.
Um, what you're saying sounds more like classical (not social) conservatism to me--Government shouldn't interfere. people should be allowed to choose. While I don't necessarily disagree with this, I am an FDR Democrat in that I still believe that government can be an agent for good, and is not a necessary evil.
Do you not realize that the essence of liberalism and progressivism for the last century has more or less focused on the fact that sometimes people cannot choose, whether it be the folly of prohibition, or the sweeping progress made in civil rights. The entire civil rights movement (and, unrelatedly, the New Deal) were both based on the idea that sometimes individuals do not make the best decisions. Isn't that the essence of Social Security, and isn't Bush trying to destroy that with his private accounts which are based on your exact same logic? I'm not saying government knows best. Of course that's not always true. I'm sayint that you cannot rely on theoretical absolutes. You need, more than anything, a pragmatic approach. That's always the best way to progress. Otherwise, we'd all be repressed Kantians, living our lives in corners.
I fear we're witnessing the Birth of a Conservative. Where's D.W. Griffith when you need him?
You're witnessing the birth of someone who respects a person's right to make his own destiny. I said before that government should incentivize people toward socially responsible action. I'm not disputing that there are problems that government can solve, but more often than not these involve people hurting other people. You cite civil rights, and again, I implore you to cite laws that do not involve hurting innocent parties, since I am in favor of all such regulations. This goes for New Deal programs as well. People who manipulate the market hurt other people.
As far as social security, the program was initially intended to be a safety net, not a retirement fund. The idea was that just as people can get injured on the job (which incidentally OASDI also supports) people can live unexpectedly long. Having social security protects them from the unexpected hardship of additional years without adequate savings. You'll notice that when the initial collection age was created, people typically didn't live very long. Old age isn't something you do to yourself; it's a force beyond the control of people, and government has an obligation to protect people from such misfortunes. From there, social security has been morphed into performing functions it was never intended to perform. Too many people use it to fund vacations or second homes, and that is just plain wrong.
You complain about pragmatism. I'm not sure what can be more pragmatic than doing allowing people complete freedom as long as they don't infringe upon the welfare, health or freedom of others. This is the essence of liberalism, my friend, and you are misguided if you think that there is any better answer than this for providing a great society.
The idea that Social Security is used to fund vacations or second homes is ridiculous if you ever take the time to look at a senior's social security check. You say far too many people use it for this. Do you personally know any senior that uses their SS check to fund trips to Florida? I know I don't, and I've known some pretty rich people in my life. That needs to be acknowledged first of all.
Second, how can you say that there are no victims. Just because people choose freely doesn't mean that they are making the right decisions. People can become victims to their choices, and this is a core of liberalism. Should a person be allowed to take a risk...yes. But a person should not be allowed to manipulate the will of another through money to avoid what is their fundamental duty. I think that there are some situations that one should not be able to buy oneself out of.
Free choice is one of the greatest gifts we have, but it can also be used poorly. The ideas you talk about are no different than Bush's Ownership Society. Sometimes a person shouldn't be able to make his own decisions. If a person is so poor that he's willing to sell himself out to a rich person so that that person can avoid their societal duty, than that person is more or less desperate, and is already a victim (whether he's a victim of the rich or not you can decide). In any case, I truly believe that should this person be willing to sell himself for cash, then it is simply the last time in a series of instances in which he has been exploited by the rich.
I find it hard to believe that a wartime casualty is not a victim. Anyone who enters the battlefield is automatically a victim. The Pentagon just released papers today detailing that war trauma for vets is worse than expected. If you don't see every single soldier as a victim of war, then you certainly can't argue against laws prohibiting prostitution. Isn't that what we celebrate Vets' Day and Memorial Day for? Because every single veteran is inherently a victim of war. I can't prove it, but I'd bet anyone who has been in war knowing what they now know would not sell themselves for the opportunity to return. You may say prostitution is not a fair analogy because prostitutes are more of a victim. I find it hard to believe that prostitutes are more of a victim than most soldiers. Both act on free will, and both are victims to varying degrees. That said, you can respond to this, but I'm closing myself off. Neither of us will budge, but I welcome new comments just to hear what others think. Give it one more shot, then please don't respond again. I know I won't.
Please quit throwing around ideology, it's destructive to the debate. The whole point about embracing and ideology is that underneath there is a core rationale in using it to make the best society ever. I happen to trust that when people make a decision, they are doing what's best for themselves. Who's to know better? You? The government? It is an insult to people that you say that they can't be trusted. I'm completely in favor of a safety net of people who have a hard time in society; I'm not about to limit their freedom by calling them a menace to themselves.
As far as social security, I stand by my original comments that you are the one being untrue to the spirit of the institution, not I. Also, note the fact that the average social security recipient takes more out of the system than he ever put in, even after all accounts of interest and time are placed into the calculation. This isn't security; it's an intergenerational transfer that takes place without regard for the wealth that these people possess.
As for the decision to contract out of the draft, again, plenty of people join war efforts freely for the greater pay opportunity, regardless of whether they are paid on top of this to take the place of another. Say the government were offering a certain wage that induced some but not others to go to war, then raised the wage and got a certain few to join up because they now considered joining worthwhile. Are those "certain few" victims, and was the government wrong for inducing them to join the war effort through money? Of course not, the price was simply right for them. Hell, for a trillion dollars, I might join the army. The effect of contracting is the same in the absence of effects on third parties. If negative effects do exist, it would violate the decision-making principle of government and I would oppose it. However, when you talk about a person desperate enough to join the war effort, you are misguided because a) this already actually happens and b)you'd rather see the person continue to be poor than to make a decision he'd likely make anyway. As far as war trauma, I do not dispute that it's a brutal and unfortunate part of the business of making war. However, again, should we protect people against enlisting to secure a military job? If we're conducting a war, should we place a disclaimer on the sign up sheet. Your position is basically that people should not be allowed to do what they're already allowed to do. Further, does it occur to you that before the draft, those recruited are essentially saving somebody else from the draft, and that if enough freely choose monetary inducements (since the government does not pay that well, this does in fact mean that the majority of enlistees are poor) that essentially the same effect is produced. I wish you would see a)how this stuff already occurs extensively and b) how your position limit poorer individuals from making the best of a bad situation. I mean, in practice what you are saying in this circumstance amounts to advocacy of cutting benefits and wages to soldiers to protect them from making the bad decision to join the army. I'm not sure how you can defend what is surely a rich-benefitting construct already, when we should make things better if we can.
Lisa just called me Bighead. Tim and Ryan I expect it of, but Lisa?
I'm just kidding. No offense taken. And yes, the fact that you're on the right side here defintely counts for something.
I cleanly state a concise synopsis of what I hold to be the principles of a liberal democracy within a more structured framework than I have presented so far. You can view it here to get a better idea of what drives my assertion than assuming I hate poor people or have turned Republican.
Post a Comment
<< Home