Re: WAY OT: Gas-Gouging Greenspan

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:59:09 -0700, "Marcello" <marcello@xxxxxxxxxx>
quacked:

>
>So to answer your point, the fact that this example so clearly illustrates
>is that you cannot base the value of earnings on time spent working alone.
>For simplicities sake, if you the cab drivers both work the same amount of
>hours yet one cabby is far more personable and makes more money as a result,
>or even better yet, if one cabbie hustled more and is able to pick up more
>customers as a result, yet in both instances the same amount of hours of
>work are performed, then...well, clearly you should grasp the point by now.
>

I never said or implied that hours worked was the main or only measure
of the value of earnings, whatever that may mean. Sorry for snipping
your extended example, but I have no response to it, as it does not
address any issue I addressed or you addressed. If you are asking me
if I'm willing to do some redistribution in the case you gave, the
answer is yes, if that is the choice of the people. But my main
concern is in redistributing from the very wealthy to the middle
class. It is the accumulation of great riches in the hands of a few
that threatens democratic government. And it is that accumulation that
is impossible to defend on fairness grounds.

The point of my cab example was that within the middle class, there
are many inequalities or outcome that can be defended on fairness
grounds, although the defense might be a bit weak in some cases. You
simply gave an additional example to illustrate my point. Such cases,
however, do not undermine the legitimacy of redistribution --- only
the practicality or desirability of it.

<snip>
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by no one having the right to control luck.
>> We certainly can mitigate and ought to mitigate the results of bad
>> luck. That is a major goal of the welfare state in which we all live.
>> You are entitled to think otherwise, of course. We are all entitled to
>> have evil thoughts now and again. You are even entitled to think that
>> government should not promote the general welfare. Again, I happen to
>> think that promoting the general welfare is a central function of good
>> government.
>
>If you are going to suggest we don't all have the best interest of the
>public at heart then you are turning to propaganda. Assuming you are above
>that then perhaps you might at some point understand that the methodology of
>what you propose is the problem, not the intent. Let me ask you, would you
>agree that the best state of welfare might be for all employable people
>(those who can work) to have a job available? Perhaps you disagree on the
>basis that we should have a right to not work and receive benefits from the
>government anyhow. Perhaps you disagree on the basis that you don't believe
>this society could possibly reach a point where there is a job available for
>anyone who is capable of working. Or even perhaps you disagree on a basis
>that is just pure leftist propaganda. Whatever the case, if you truly think
>deep enough and sincerely take into consideration what you propose, you will
>find that the act of general social engineering, (taking more from the
>wealthy to give outright to the poor) is noble only in its initial ideal to
>the uneducated. The application of such an ideal goes against every bit of
>common sense in reference to the goal of expanding opportunity to everyone
>who is capable and therefore provides only temporary relief/solutions to
>existing welfare problems. One need not look further than the current
>welfare system for evidence of this failed ideal.

I accept your claim that you want to promote public welfare and have
no basis in any event for challenging it.

I disagree with your view that the welfare state --- the provision of
a social safety net and the regulation of improper business practices
--- is a bad thing. I think the welfare state has hugely expanded
opportunities for most people. I think government efforts at
redistribution have been inadequate, but, to the extent they have
succeeeded, they have expanded opportunities. I invite you to compare
19th century workers or even workers in the first half of the 20th
century, with those in the second half, when the welfare state
flurished. In brief, I think you have no basis in fact for your right
wing views.
--McDuck
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ot: the political compass
    ... government it is reasonable to have should be paid for progressively. ... tax which excluded the first $N of income. ... tariffs and pork because we are afraid to "lose jobs". ... We spend so little money on welfare that it would funny (if it weren't ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Price does matter - Mac potentially forces mom to stay on Welfare
    ... > the government responsibility to say that I will? ... > that idea be purely private charity organizations, ... > government-funded welfare? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: From the UK: The ObaMESSiahs welfare spendathon
    ... Bill Clinton finished it and last week ... the sweeping welfare reform programme that sent millions of dole ... a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the ... the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • From the UK: The ObaMESSiahs welfare spendathon
    ... Bill Clinton finished it and last week ... the sweeping welfare reform programme that sent millions of dole ... a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the ... the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... that more than a few white middle class suburbanites have forgotten ... heirs are like welfare recipients. ... you seem to trust government to handle these ... portraying moderates as much farther to the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)