"Why I'm a Libertarian"...

[daveon]

No, not me, this guy posting at Real Clear Politics.

 There's a quote from a Harvard economist in there: ""But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

This sort of thing infuriates me.  Because it's exactly the kind of sloppy thinking I firstly don't expect to see from an economist, and secondly, it's utterly and completely meaningless.

What people is the person referring to?  I know what people without even thinking.  He's thinking of somebody on welfare or being paid so little in their minimum wage job that in the RICHEST country on the planet they can't afford healthcare, a chance at college for their family or the ability to feed, house and clothe themselves.

Those are the people that this person has a problem with.

And to do so he's channeling the ire of the middle class person struggling to do the same but earning many times as much as our minimum wage "sponger" that they are thinking of in their minds.

He's not, probably, thinking of the CEO pulling in $14.4M a year with an exit clause that pays them $7M + a year's salary if they completely fuck up their company.  Nor is he thinking of traders or hedge fund managers earning 7 figures for playing roulette with tax payer money - because I'm SURE they're "earning" that...

His definition of "people" is probably a narrow band of largely white middle class professionals social bands C1/B earning $100-$200K a year.  And yes, they are being screwed, but not by the people that the writer thinks they are.

Then we get this gem:  "Private Charity... will provide..."

Firstly, DID YOU REALLY SAY THAT?  Secondly, what if it doesn't.

We have massive emperical evidence that private charity does nothing of the kind.  Not because it doesn't want to but because in a complete modern society it just doesn't stand a chance of keeping up.

This is just the kind of "I've got mine, sod off you little oik!" thinking that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth and a rant on my keyboard.

They should be more worried about the income differentials that have grown up in the last 30 years that mean that middle class people earning good salaries can no longer afford housing, healthcare and education while a class of super rich earning 100x what the rest of the population earn are living practically tax free.

If that doesn't make your blood boil I don't know what would.  Perhaps we should have some pictures of kittens now?

Comments

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Not only is it selfish, but it forgets (or never knew) that one's economic position can change, through no fault of oneself. See, for example, the millions bankrupted in the Crash of 1929 (or any of the 19th Century's multitude of "bank panics.")

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The challenge there is the issue that fate or luck also have a play in life and success. There isn't actually a direct correlation between working hard and earning money.

You can work hard all your life and end up completely poor, whereas somebody else can end up rich.

You're probably more likely to end up well off but it's by no means certain.

Nor does it take into account people undertaking vocational jobs where they probably won't make much money.

[wolfette]

the guy on "minimum wage" probably works harder and longer hours - sometimes even two jobs - than the CEO on the 6 figure salary, and still can't afford that health care.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Rand Simberg recently ranted about tips being something he hated because he didn't want to be expected to pay for bad service. I'm actually with him on that. HOWEVER - he's the one who supports the kind of policies that mean that restaurant owners in the US can pay under minimum wage and expect their serving staff to make up the money in tips.

I can't work out if it's some kind of "blind spot" or a special form of insanity which means that certain logical connections don't get made in the head.