Megan McArdle writes:
I don’t know why Matt should find this remarkable:
Still, the main psychological point remains that there’s a remarkable tendency to equate advocating that others engage in risky acts of physical violence with the idea of possessing courage and strength as personal characteristics.
After all, we’ve already internalized the notion that advocating taxing other people in order to give their money to someone else is somehow morally akin to charity.
I find the “taxing other people” argument — which conservatives and libertarians use frequently — bewildering. “I think people, but not me, should go to Iraq and risk death,” just ain’t analogous to “I think all taxpayers, me included, should pay for a generous safety net.”
In a followup post, Megan implies that liberals only favor using wealthy people’s money to pay for social programs. Poppycock.1 I’m hardly high-income, but I pay taxes. So do most liberals and leftists. And although liberals and leftists2 favor raising taxes on the wealthy, not all rich people are republican.3
Note also that SCHIPP, which is paid for from cigarette taxes, has received enthusiastic support from lefties — even though smokers are not an especially wealthy group.
Yet the idiotic “liberals want to spend other people’s money” idea is commonplace among conservatives .
- The word “poppycock” “is actually American in origin, first turning up there about 1865. The OED is silent on its origin, but most modern dictionaries know well where it comes from: the Dutch word pappekak for soft faeces.” [↩]
- “L&L” — the newest sequel to Dungeons & Dragons! [↩]
- Incidentally, the overall tax structure in the US is flattish — the vast majority of Americans pay about 16% of their income in taxes, give or take a couple of percent. [↩]
Saying that taxation to help the needy doesn’t count as charity because it uses other people’s money is like saying the police arrest of a child molester doesn’t count as heroic because it was four men with weapons against one unarmed. It probably doesn’t. And it probably doesn’t matter. The virtue isn’t in the act itself; it’s in the results.
Now, if someone could definitely prove to me that private methods provide superior *results* to taxation for a given specific circumstance, I’d be all for it. But
Hah, edit time out. There should be no ‘but’ at the end of that last sentence, so don’t hold your breath for the awesome cliffhanger.
I think that as well. In fact, I agree with a lot of your social goals. I just don’t agree with your arguments.
Seeing as I also support progressive taxation and a big safety net, and seeing as I’m not incredibly rich, in practice that means that the safety net is largely going to get paid for (in my dreams) by really wealthy people, and not by me. IOW, I “pay taxes”, but I don’t pay a LOT of taxes. (and in fact, last year, after deductions, I paid no taxes at all. Though this is very unusual for me.)
This is a common situation for the nonrich: you may pay taxes, but you don’t pay very much.*
Does that bother me? No. But I agree that lobbying for such taxation is only a distant cousin to my contributing personally to such a cause. The first isn’t charity and the second is.
*measured as an absolute, not relative, amount. Is this fair? I dunno. But I have no problem saying that I pay less in taxes than does Joe Rich Dude, even if I’m paying $10,000 while making $50,000 and he’s paying $100,000 while making $20 million. I can afford less, but that doesn’t change the fact that I pay less.
I agree that lobbying for income transfer programs isn’t charity. I’m not sure if anyone has actually claimed that it is charity, though; Megan didn’t provide links to anyone making such an argument.
Amp, I think what Megan is referring to is what some on the left do in the opposite direction – claiming that right-wingers are UN-charitable because they do NOT support income transfer programs. Thus, the implication is that those programs are charitble (or at least that supporting them is).
Of course, I don’t know that for sure, but that is what came to mind regarding your query about who actually says that.
And, of course, just because you pay taxes doesn’t mean that you pay in a significant amount nor does it mean that you could not theoretically be arguing for creating programs that far exceed your tax contribution (and that of everyone else in your bracket) – in other words, advocating a program that is, in fact, mostly paid for with other peoples’ money, presumably rich peoples’ money.
I, for one, would be glad not to pay any taxes. I find it strange that some people who pay taxes also get government benefits – but only because it seems strange to take money away from someone in one form just to give it back in another, when it probably would have been cheaper to just let them keep it. But that may not be a big phenomenon.
At the same time, I recognize the need for taxes and government. I just disagree with the size of it and I think most of it is wasted money – and kickbacks for rich donors. Talk about a return on an investment – like those who donate a few million to some Senators and Bush and get legislation that makes them billions of dollars. There is no better investment than a politician.
I wonder how this meme works with the “limousine liberal” stereotype. If liberals are all rich latte drinkers wouldn’t they be arguing to tax *themselves* and spend it on a social safety net that, as limo dwellers they don’t even need?
Amp, most of the discussion I see on the left these days . . . and certainly most of the campaign rhetoric–involves raising taxes on “the rich” in order to fund things like national health care. People who oppose these things are often castigated as “selfish”, even when neither they, nor the people hurling insults, are going to pay the new taxes.
Do you think you should pay much higher taxes in order to fund social spending? If not, then you can’t believe that you’re any more personally moral or generous than people who are against those taxes. (not that I’m aware that you, personally, have made any such claims). And of course, if you do think that you should pay higher taxes, why aren’t you donating whatever you should be paying to charity? Even if you think it’s less effective than government action would be, it can’t be that there is no charity effective enough at helping someone deserving to satisfy your moral obligation.
Megan,
First of all, I think that you need to be looking at taxpayers as classes rather than individuals in the context of this discussion. “The rich” is not Tracy Doe and “the poor” is not Lenny Smith.
If we look at taxes from the class, rather than individual, point of view, we can see that the richest folks (those in the class that encompasses the top 1% or top 10%) pay a noticeably smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the commonly defined middle class does. Thus, when those of us on the left talk about increasing taxes on the rich, we are, first and foremost, calling for the rich to pay a percentage of their income commensurate with the taxes paid by those in the middle class.
As to:
And of course, if you do think that you should pay higher taxes, why aren’t you donating whatever you should be paying to charity?
I’ve always thought that was a lousy argument. If only I pay those “higher taxes” to charity, I put myself at a competitive disadvantage in the wealth acquiring game as we play it under the current rules. But if everybody pays those higher taxes, the playing field remains equal. Also, if I’m the only one paying those “higher taxes” to charity, my goals will not be met. If, OTOH, everybody (including me and my friends and loved ones) pays those actual higher taxes, the funding necessary to achieve my goals will actually exist.
Also related to this, I believe that the wealthier you are, the higher the percentage of your income should be paid in taxes. This is part and parcel of what I’d like to think the social contract is – if you can pay more, you do. Thus I don’t complain that I pay a noticeably higher percentage of my income in taxes now that I earn $90k than I did when I earned $20k. It is my duty to my community to help support those less fortunate than I and, as I now benefit more from our infrastructure & society, my fair share is more than it used to be and I can afford to pay more.
Bit confused, Jake. So from a “class” perspective, you’re paying a lower percentage of your income than poor people are. But from an individual perspective, you’re paying more now than you did when you were (income) poor?
Even limo libs tax other people. If they didn’t, they’d just fund whatever program they want out of pocket. It is use of taxes paid by other (nonsupporters of the liberal idea) people to fund liberal ideas which chafes libertarians, not the effect (or lack thereof) on supporter’s tax burden. Whether all of your money, or none, went toward your favored social program is utterly irrelevant to the ethics of using taxes paid by non-supporters of that program to fund it. That is to say, libertarians aren’t calling liberals hypocrits, they are calling them thieves.
(In general, hypocrisy is viewed as a great wrong primarily by the left, the right is at peace with the idea that, as the Christians say, all are sinners. (Or, to put it another way, it is easy to consider hypocrisy the greatest sin when one has few morals. Those with strict moral codes have to be able to deal with the probability that man, a highly flawed and temptable creature, won’t ever be able to live up to them. For example, the great evil (in the view of Christian right-wingers, NOT ME – I view consensual activity of this type as being of no more moral importance either way than, say, watching tv) of ‘out’ gays is not that they are tempted to sin and sometimes fall into ‘sin’, but rather that they are not repentant or ashamed of those sins. So Larry Craig, by being furtive about his sin, acknowledges the sinfulness of his action, and thus is less bad than, say, Barney Frank, who refuses to do so.)
Megan: Y’all are just going to talk past each other, because your operative morality is individualist, while Ampersand (like many on the left) has a collective sense of morality. The person on the left isn’t trying to discharge an individual moral obligation to the poor – that isn’t the morality he operates under. He is trying to advance our society toward fulfilling what he sees as its collective moral obligation to the poor – in his view the obligation isn’t merely his, it is everyone’s, whether they accept it or not. That is to say, there is no ‘your’ and ‘my’ moral obligation for him to discharge through charity, it is all ‘ours’, in the modern left’s world view.
Last I checked conservatives have no problem spending my tax dollars on the Iraq oil war. Can i get refund when we all agree “to stop spending other peoples money”?
On a smaller point while the cigarette tax is regressive, I think some level of taxing is justified to cover smoking related costs (mainly the health costs) and perhaps some for prevention efforts. Other than that I’m 100% for making the rich pay universal health care.
Class War Now!
Megan wrote:
“Charity” is not the opposite of “selfish,” Megan; saying that people who are infuriated at the thought of their precious precious tax dollars supporting a welfare mother are being selfish, is not the same as saying that people who do support a generous welfare state are being charitable.
I believe in paying my fair share of what’s necessary for a strong social safety net, including universal government-paid health care. If that requires me paying much higher taxes, I’m in favor of that.
In Portland, where I live, many worthy public initiatives are paid for by voter-approved property tax increases (parks, libraries, etc). I have voted for every single one I’ve had a chance to vote for — and have continued to do so since becoming a homeowner myself. So I support higher taxes for myself not only on my blog, but in the voting booth. (Or in the mail-in ballot, to be less poetic but more accurate). I suspect that most lefties and liberals do the same.
In general, I think a highly individualist worldview is more selfish than a communitarian worldview. But of course you can’t apply that analysis at the level of particular individuals; there are selfish communitarians and nonselfish individualists.
That’s not an argument I generally bother making, though, because it smacks a little of ad hom. (I wouldn’t have mentioned my view on it here if you hadn’t brought it up while addressing me).
Speaking of ad hom attacks…
What I give to charity is none of your business.
It’s also irrelevant. Universal health care is either the right policy or the wrong policy; it’s not suddenly the wrong policy based on if the person advocating it has given to charity lately. I have never once brought up what someone I’m debating with has given to charity, and I never will; you should imitate me in this regard, Megan.
However, your ad hom aside, Jake is right. I want society as a whole to guarantee a decent economic situation for everyone in society, and I favor effective solutions that will bring such a situation about. Using taxes for a common social safety net that benefits us all is a rational way to bring this outcome about; and it’s no more wrong for me to want taxes to pay for this than it is for taxes to pay for roads, or the police, or FEMA.
If my paying 10% of my income to charity would solve these problems, of course I’d do it. But it won’t, and it’s ludicrous of you to bring this up as if that’s at all a reasonable alternative policy to (say) France’s income transfer and health care programs. The problems we face are too large and systematic to be handled by individual charitable gifts. They can, however, be solved by a tax increase that would be far less than 10% for most taxpayers, and not an unreasonable crimp on any taxpayers’ lifestyle.
Furthermore, because charitable giving may go down when incomes go down — such as during periods of high unemployment or low wage growth — a system that depends solely on personal charity will not only always be inadequate, but it will be most inadequate exactly when it’s most required.
* * *
I’m going to be working on getting drawings done today — and also going to see a movie tonight with Jake Squid :-) — so probably won’t be responding more in comments. My apologies. I do read every single comment, for whatever that’s worth.
Robert,
I’m not in the top 1% (or even 10%) of income earners. Therefore I fall in the commonly defined “middle class.” As such, I (and by “I”, I mean my class – the middle class) pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the wealthiest among us. I also pay a higher percentage than the classes below middle, but that is as I think it should be.
“Amp, I think what Megan is referring to is what some on the left do in the opposite direction – claiming that right-wingers are UN-charitable because they do NOT support income transfer programs. Thus, the implication is that those programs are charitble (or at least that supporting them is).”
I’m glad we swiftly put to rest the notion that anti-poverty programs must fulfill some ethically ambiguous category of “charity” before we can implement them – otherwise, I reserve the right to personally veto any armed action by the police or military if it doesn’t fulfill some perfect definition of “heroism”.
You do have a point here with saying that people shouldn’t hurl words such as “selfish” at those who don’t support social programs.
“I find it strange that some people who pay taxes also get government benefits – but only because it seems strange to [b]take money away from someone in one form just to give it back in another[/b], when it probably would have been cheaper to just let them keep it.”
Giving wealth away in one form and getting it back in another is the basic principle of all economic interaction there, dbb. The reason the government mediates these particular exchanges is because they deal with goods the private sector is incapable of providing, either at all or at the same level.
“Bit confused, Jake. So from a “class” perspective, you’re paying a lower percentage of your income than poor people are. But from an individual perspective, you’re paying more now than you did when you were (income) poor?”
Hmm. I think Jake already fielded this question, but here it helps to remember that federal income tax =/= the sum total of all taxes in the universe. Many discussions about the relative tax burden shouldered by the rich take into account only the federal income tax, as if no taxes are paid in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, state and municipal taxes, excise taxes, and payroll taxes, all of which are/can be regressive in effect. (Granted, this also discounts the capital gains and estate taxes, which are progressive in effect.) So it’s entirely possible to say that rich should pay more of their income in taxes – in other words, a call for greater progressivity in the income tax – whilst also maintaining that, say, upper middle class folk pay more total taxes than the very wealthy. It depends if by ‘income’ you literally mean ‘income’, or are using it as a synonym for ‘wealth’.
Personally, I find it doubtful that the very rich don’t in fact pay the greatest share of their wealth in taxes – I just think that the extent to which they pay more is vastly overstated when all taxes are not taken into account. I could foresee a situation like the one JakeSquid posits happening, but only after taking into account tax evasion, a vastly overlooked problem. But we have no way of measuring that here.
“Whether all of your money, or none, went toward your favored social program is utterly irrelevant to the ethics of using taxes paid by non-supporters of that program to fund it.”
Ruman, do you support using government money for public universities? The CDC? Enforcing traffic laws? Building and maintaining water mains and sewage systems? Subsidizing medical research? Regulating airspace and bandwidth frequencies?
Because if you look around, there are people who oppose each and every one of these functions of government. If you believe government spending in any of these areas – or any area at all, really – is legitimate, then you are also coercing non-supporters of the program to pay for what you want. True, the great majority of people support all of these state services. But then great majorities of people support Social Security, universal health care, and the basic notion of taxing the rich to help the needy. Your argument reduces to piddling with degrees of great-majority-ness, which is, suffice to say, distinctly morally unpersuasive.
Now, if your argument is that there is some specifically wrong with taxing the rich to help the needy, make that argument. But don’t try to hide behind easy anti-“government” rhetoric. Don’t we all hate government in our own way?
Sylph – Of course I recognize that part and parcel of economic activity is money going in and coming out. But I was talking specifically about a government program that pays money ONLY based on not having enough income. Thus, it seems strange to first have the government say that you make enough income that they can tax it and take some of it, and then say that your income is too low and so give you money. It would be easier (and far far far more efficient) to simply raise the level of untaxed income rather than tax it and then pay it back.
Paying someone because they have low income is not standard economic activity (there is no exchange) – it is welfare.
Spending “other people’s money” to fund the Iraq war, abstinence-only education programs and faith-based initiatives is OK but spending “other people’s money” to fund a generous social-safety net is bad. Got it.
Sylphhead,
I was actually talking about only income taxes. I’m willing to be corrected, though, because I haven’t collected the research on Federal Income Tax. I have, however, done some work on the Oregon State Income Tax. I have (perhaps incorrectly) extended my findings to the Federal level since Oregon tends to imitate the Federal government in most cases. That work can be found here: http://jakesquid.livejournal.com/2836.html
Perfectly legal deductions account for the discrepancy. In Oregon, no tax evasion is required to result in the top 2% of income earners to pay a bit more than 1/2 of what the bottom 98% pay in taxes (as a percentage of their income).
There is an excellent book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everybody Else, that details how the top income earners pay much smaller percentages of their income in income taxes than you would think possible. If I had it to hand, I feel certain that I could assert facts on the numbers rather than quite possibly incorrect memories.
Amp said:
I want society as a whole to guarantee a decent economic situation for everyone in society
I would disagree. I want society as a whole to guarantee that every individual will have the opportunity to provide a decent economic situation for themselves. Whether or not they choose to put forth the necessary effort is up to them; if they don’t (as opposed to can’t) they should suffer the consequences.
slyphhead, when you look at the various things that the taxpayers’ money is spent on and compare them, remember that under our form of government some things (roads, a military, etc.) are in fact specified under the Constitution as being within the powers of Congress, whereas other things (a social safety net) are not.
So while different people may object to their taxes paying for different things, those different things have different standing under the law. They’re not equivalent.
So, RonF, you think all rich people are rich due to hard work and effort while all poor people are poor due to lack of motivation and laziness?
I just want to thank you for the etymology of ‘poppycock’. It’s been a while since I used the term; it will see more use, probably in the immediate future.
I want society as a whole to guarantee that every individual will have the opportunity to provide a decent economic situation for themselves. Whether or not they choose to put forth the necessary effort is up to them; if they don’t (as opposed to can’t) they should suffer the consequences.
I really, really don’t want anybody who believes this to be part of my society. But, given that I’m stuck with them, I want a social safety net for those foul people, too.
Which of the above 2 sentiments is more in line with the New Testament? Weird.
I really, really don’t want anybody who believes this to be part of my society.
There are far more people who believe this than who don’t. Whose society is it?
And, what’s “foul” about expecting that people who can take care of themselves, will?
Here’s an example, Robert. How is a foster child who’s lived with 15 different families during her life supposed to know how to take care of herself when she ages out of the system at 18 and is suddenly on her own? With no solid support system to help her navigate the real world? With, perhaps, no life skills to speak of?
Not everyone grows up in a good family with a mom and dad who’ll pick them up when they fall down.
And, what’s “foul” about expecting that people who can take care of themselves, will?
Because you don’t actually know who can take care of themselves. Your judgement is subjective and extremely likely to be factually incorrect. It’s foul to hold oneself out as arbiter of who can and who cannot “take care of themselves” as many impediments are not readily visible.
Judge not, that ye be not judged..
Jake,
Where is all this Biblical reference stuff coming from? Am I missing something?
What’s more, our capitalist system requires a certain level of unemployment in order to function well. We have designed a system that has winners and losers . . . and that’s fine . . . but once having ‘losers’ is an integral component of your system, there’s a certain cruelty in washing your hands of them.
—Myca
Where is all this Biblical reference stuff coming from?
It’s kind of related to who I’m responding to & their past statements of the importance of their religion in their lives. I’m trying to put my position in terms that may be both familiar and of importance to them.
How is a foster child who’s lived with 15 different families during her life supposed to know how to take care of herself when she ages out of the system at 18 and is suddenly on her own?
By having eyes and ears and a brain, and recognizing that most of the 15 families she’s worked for go out and, I don’t know, get jobs? Such a person may well have many deficits in life skills that they will have to learn as they go. But they aren’t someone who can’t take care of themselves.
It’s foul to hold oneself out as arbiter of who can and who cannot “take care of themselves” as many impediments are not readily visible.
This is absurd, and is a test you would reject as applied to any other area of your life. LOTS of things in life aren’t readily visible, yet we must make judgments there nonetheless. Fortunately we have brains and the ability to do crazy things like asking questions. (“Are you sitting down because you’re tired? Or because you have myasthenia gravis?”)
Granted, no person is going to be a perfect arbiter, and there are undoubtedly going to be differences of opinion and interpretation.
But having discovered the hidden variables of a person’s situation and collectively decided upon standards of behavior and responsibility, we’re perfectly capable as people of making these reasonable determinations. Lots of people can’t take care of themselves. Most can.
If that’s “foul”, then so is the whole concept of human social organization.
I appreciate (kind of) your reference of the Biblical sentiments, Jake.
But it’s worth noting, to anyone who (like you ) doesn’t appear well-grounded in the fundamentals, that the Bible urges charity that is aimed at those who need it- that we support “widows and orphans”, in other words, but that the able-bodied by the Bible’s standards are expected to care for themselves.
Christ demands that we care for others as we would care for ourselves. He demands that we share love, fellowship and brotherhood with one another. He doesn’t require that we check our brains at the door.
“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I had no clothing and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to see me.”
Note – NOT, you gave out food to everyone. NOT, you gave drinks away to everyone. NOT, you took everyone in. NOT, you clothed everyone. NOT, that you visited everyone.
Rather, that you gave food to the HUNGRY. That you gave drink to the THIRSTY. That you sheltered the STRANGER, clothed the NAKED, visited the SICK and IMPRISONED.
Means-tests, in other words. Endorsed by the Jewish and Christian traditions for 4000 years, and still going strong.
Fortunately we have brains and the ability to do crazy things like asking questions. (”Are you sitting down because you’re tired? Or because you have myasthenia gravis?”)
Good luck getting help when you have a chronic pain syndrome. That works so very well. Go find yourself a fibromyalgia support group and see how well your judgment works in real life.
Whether one can take care of oneself or not comes down to the individual. Much like pain, the same degree of which can be intolerable for one while a minor irritation for another, this is something that is extremely difficult to judge from the outside. Distasteful as this may seem to you, this is a case where we need to largely believe what people tell us about themselves. You know, start from a position of belief rather than a position of disbelief.
Honestly, judging who can and cannot care for themselves is not nearly as easy as judging who can and who cannot program a computer.
… the Bible urges charity that is aimed at those who need it…
… you gave food to the HUNGRY…
I don’t recall the bible instructing us on a means test to determine if somebody is REALLY hungry or just scamming. If somebody asks you for food, isn’t the default position supposed to be belief in their claim? Or are we told to first say, “Prove it?” If so, I surely missed that in my education.
Distasteful as this may seem to you, this is a case where we need to largely believe what people tell us about themselves.
Have I argued otherwise? I would say that the presence of scammers in society militates for some skepticism concerning absurd claims (“I can’t work because I was in foster care”), but in many cases the only prospective evidence for someone’s disability is their own statement. As a society, we are competent to establish broad baselines of what does and doesn’t count as a reasonable self-report of disability; I’m in agony 24/7, vs. My cats need me.
You’re shifting the goalposts. You said it was foul to believe that people who should take care of themselves, ought to. Now you’re trying to turn that into the “foulness” deriving from judgmentalism.
You need to either back off your original assertion, or stop trying to change the parameters.
IRRESPECTIVE OF ONE’S OPINION CONCERNING HOW DISABILITY SHOULD BE DETERMINED, is it foul to believe that people who can take care of themselves, should?
I don’t recall the bible instructing us on a means test to determine if somebody is REALLY hungry or just scamming.
Nor does Paul provide instructions on how to repair tents; he just says that if you can work as a tentmaker to support yourself, you better do it.
The existence of a qualifier is implicit support for the idea that someone must do the qualifying. Surely there are people that you would believe immediately if they said there were hungry; equally surely, there are people who you would know were just trying to cadge a meal.
Our charitable obligations do not extend to charitably assuming the honesty of every human being on earth.
You need to either back off your original assertion, or stop trying to change the parameters.
I think that you have misinterpreted my original assertion (possibly due to my lack of clarity). So let me try to clarify it here.
My initial assertion was that I really, really didn’t want people who thought like RonF. to be part of my society.
IMO, people who think like RonF. (as represented by his statement that I quoted) believe that they are fit to judge who can and who cannot provide for themselves. The statement I quoted is one that I have often heard in conjunction with complaints about “welfare queens,” a cliched complaint that strongly implies both that the social safety net is overwhelmed by scammers and that the complainer can judge who is and who is not deserving of aid.
This means that I believe people who think like RonF also believe that they are accurate judges of who cannot provide for themselves and who is merely not putting for the effort while basing that judgment on extremely limited info. Thus my quoting of the biblical line about judging in my response to your query.
I hope that is a satisfactory explanation of my initial comment.
Oh. I am enjoying the discussion of biblical interpretation.
One thing of which I was previously unaware is that the “For I was hungry…” verse from Matthew is almost a direct quote from several places in the Old Testament.
Also, if it’s Paul saying, “… if you can work as a tentmaker to support yourself, you better do it,” but Jesus exhorting us to feed the hungry, what is the relative weight of each? Is that really what Paul said? Are we meant to believe that Paul setting an example for the Thessalonians by working is in any way implying a means test for works of charity?
I’m asking those questions in all seriousness because I know less about interpretation of the New than I do the Old.
Yeah. Isaiah 1:17 is the big one in the feed-the-poor department, particularly because it is presented as part of a direct (and lengthy, and pissed off) quote from God, not as Isaiah’s own opinion.
The verse is pretty redolent of the idea that is fairly thick on the ground in biblical text: judgment. Not of the smite-evil variety, but of the using your brain variety. God commands the listener to reach right judgments in the cases of the widow and the orphan.
Paul’s labor doesn’t establish a means test; it establishes the principle of self-sufficiency where possible.
Part of this has more to do with logic than charity or greed. Reason says we can’t accomplish some goals, charitable or otherwise, without group action and probably taxes. Likewise, reason says that goals like universal fire department service or health care benefit everyone. Warren Buffett probably has honest charitable reasons for giving away lots of money and supporting more taxes on his class. But he also knows that it won’t in fact hurt his children’s standard of living — nobody needs more than a few million dollars for anything except status or power — and it may in fact protect them from angry citizens or villagers carrying torches. See Solon of Athens.
I was referring to Isaiah 58:7 and on through :12 (in which sacrifice in service of the needy is the way to spiritual fulfillment and satisfying God) in the midst of calling for obeying the spirit, as well as the letter, of God’s laws.
If I recall my classes correctly, Isaiah was a prophet in a time in which Israel had fallen from following biblical law. He was citing the ways in which his contemporaries had strayed and telling them how God wanted them to act. In fact, 1:17 seems to be calling for what I have stated in prior comments wrt judgment vs justice.
I disagree with your analysis in your second paragraph (as did my religious classes). In terms of judgment, Isaiah is concerned with God’s judgment and the need to follow God’s laws and not with human judgment of other people.
learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed.
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
is no call to use your brain to judge others. Rather, it is a call to follow God’s laws and, as is mentioned in numerous other places in Isaiah, to treat your fellows decently and with charity as God wishes.
Isaiah is a fascinating mix of fire & brimstone combined with love your brother. An almost apocalyptic vision of the cleansing of Israel. But nowhere in there do I remember anything (good in God’s eyes) about judging your brethren.
Also, helping the poor should mean they have more money to spend and help the economy (by which I mean rich people). And the evidence of “negative unemployment” calls that inflationary doctrine mentioned before into question. The dogma seems either false or, like the Laffer curve, meaningless in practice.
Jake asked:
“Which of the above 2 sentiments is more in line with the New Testament? Weird.”
Well, Jake, since you brought it up, here you go. This is from St. Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 3, verses 6 – 15:
From Chapter 4, verses 11 – 12:
This has been viewed as a guideline for life in America from the founding of English settlements here. From the founding of Jamestown on the National Endowment of the Humanities’ web site:
My emphasis; I wonder if the NEH missed or ignored the fact that this is a Scripture quote.
SarahMC said:
So, RonF, you think all rich people are rich due to hard work and effort while all poor people are poor due to lack of motivation and laziness?
No. Do you?
In terms of judgment, Isaiah is concerned with God’s judgment and the need to follow God’s laws and not with human judgment of other people…learn to do right! Seek justice…”
I eagerly await how we are to learn to do right and to seek justice, without considering judgment. The very language of the verse itself requires mental processing; it’s plead the case of the widow, not plead the case of anyone who wanders along. Uphold the fatherless, not uphold every random kid.
Isn’t that nice. I guess this may relate to the discussion after all. Because since I just pointed it out, you should still recall that America does not follow the Puritan conservative principle for rich people unless you modify it as Brad does in his explanation (following Bill Bennett).
Robert: unless you follow the Sermon on the Mount. But this is a minor point, since Paul makes it clear in Romans 13:8-10 that you have exactly one moral commandment to follow as a Christian.
Thanks for the verses, RonF. Learning new things is always good.
Thessalonians 3:6-15 certainly gives a concise summary of modern day Christian sentiment (to a certain extent). I find Paul intriguing because so much in there seems to be the word of Paul (as opposed to the word of God). The phrasing and choice of words is particularly notable to me as causing that impression. The more I read of Paul, the more I understand why there are those who make the distinction between Christians and Paulists.
“If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
This exemplifies why Christianity (or Paulism for those who view it that way) is not the religion for me. No matter how much I hate my ex-wife on a personal level, I’d never let her starve. To do so (even if she wouldn’t work) would be nothing more nor less than stark cruelty.
I might also point out that the circumstances, both in Paul’s time and at the Jamestown colony, were significantly different in terms of availability of food than they are now. In Paul’s time & at the Jamestown colony there was (or was always the possibility of) real famine without prospect for relief from distant locations. As a result, starvation for the entire community was a looming reality. That sort of phrase allowed people to harden their hearts towards those who would starve in the next famine – an understandable strategy for the preservation of one’s mental health. In contrast, today we produce more than enough food to feed every person in the world well and we have the communications and transportation to get food anywhere that it is needed. That we choose not to, that we choose to starve people as punishment says nothing good about us or the gods we believe command us to do so.
Also, today, as Myca said, our system relies on having people who are unemployed. If we create a class that we don’t want to be working, is that even remotely related to Thessalonians? Can we then deny them food, etc. and still be moral, righteous in God’s eyes Christians?
Believing that line is applicable today or believing that we need to understand the context is the difference between following the letter and following the spirit, between blindly following orders and doing what is right and moral. Or so I think.
I eagerly await how we are to learn to do right and to seek justice, without considering judgment.
If you read and believe Isaiah, you can learn by following God’s laws as previously laid out in the Torah.
The very language of the verse itself requires mental processing; it’s plead the case of the widow, not plead the case of anyone who wanders along.
It seems to me that the verse assumes that the person claiming to be a widow or orphan is actually a widow or an orphan. So much of Isaiah is a plea for returning to God (which explicitly includes honesty and explicitly excludes judging your fellows). This is an admittedly utopian view, but that’s part and parcel of the prophets – threaten destruction, entice with heaven. The prophets were not normal, everyday folks, or so we were taught in school. They were pretty radical folks preaching a very manichean near future – turn to God & everything will be perfect or continue and face utter destruction. You, otoh, take the view that people need the stick to do what is necessary and that they would lie to avoid work. This is a perfectly valid worldview, it’s just not the one that Isaiah was living with.
If we can accept that as the worldview within which many of the prophets (including Isaiah) lived, we can see how there would be no call to judge whether others are worthy of receiving aid or not.
Thanks for the link, hf. The First Principle of Conservatism was certainly enlightening for me.
Robert, you seem to be considering a very narrow definition of “social safety net.” It’s not that 18 year old former foster children from really bad situations can’t physically work. It’s that sometimes all different kids of people can benefit from programs designed to teach people skills, help them find stable employment & housing, etc. I think they are a good idea. I recognize that not all people were born into ideal situations, and I’d be more than willing to pay more in taxes to make society more just and equitable.
RonF, I don’t. But I inferred, from your writing, that you did.
If we can accept that as the worldview within which many of the prophets (including Isaiah) lived, we can see how there would be no call to judge whether others are worthy of receiving aid or not.
Not worthy of receiving aid or not; helpless or not. The commandment is to care for widows and orphans – at the time, the people who were most at peril in a very hostile world. God isn’t telling us to support the 32-year old able-bodied, sound of mine “orphan” boy until his death from natural causes at 92, he is telling us to adopt the three-year old orphan, to find a job for the thirteen-year orphan, to make sure the nine-year old orphan is getting two or three squares. The process of deciding where on the sliding scale we stop helping people is political, or religious, or cultural – but there’s a pretty fair range of middle ground where we have broad agreement of judgment.
I should stop using the word judgment, because you’re reading it as the sense of moral condemnation. I should say discernment. Yes, we help the widows (metaphorically) – in Isaiah’s time, discernment meant making sure someone claiming the widow’s allotment is a widow.
Trust, but verify.
Jake:
No matter how much I hate my ex-wife on a personal level, I’d never let her starve. To do so (even if she wouldn’t work) would be nothing more nor less than stark cruelty.
If she wouldn’t work, you’re not letting her starve. She’s starving herself. That’s not cruelty on your part; it’s suicide on her part.
I might also point out that the circumstances, both in Paul’s time and at the Jamestown colony, were significantly different in terms of availability of food than they are now.
The premise of this part of your post seems to be that Paul’s statement was based on ensuring that the community didn’t starve. I contest that; for one thing, he seems to be warning those who follow him that they are not simply to teach the Word but to work as well. On that basis I’d say it was therefore possible for the community to support someone to teach the Word and not work as well. It seems to me that his statement is based on the concept that there is an inherent good to working and supporting one’s self, and that it also more properly inspires other (especially given the quote from Chapter 4).
Also, today, as Myca said, our system relies on having people who are unemployed.
That’s an interesting assertion. It’s not familiar to me, and I don’t buy it.
I don’t see anything in the context of those verses that makes them inapplicable today.
SarahMC
It’s not that 18 year old former foster children from really bad situations can’t physically work. It’s that sometimes all different kids of people can benefit from programs designed to teach people skills, help them find stable employment & housing, etc.
I quite agree that those are proper moral things for a society to do. Those are programs that help people help themselves. For example, in order for someone to take advantage of money for education, they have to go to school and get good enough grades to learn something and graduate. While someone is dependent on others while going to school, the end result is that they should be able to end that dependency. That’s why I strongly support effective governmental support for education, even though there’s not a thing about it being a duty or responsibility of the government in the Federal Constitution. Of course, the various State constitutions generally all mention it, which is fine; that’s the whole idea behind limited sovereignty of the States (a.k.a. “State’s rights”).
I have a question for the “means testers” out there.
Let’s say you see somebody who is at first glance able-bodied, but is not working, and is starving (or homeless, or suffering in any other way that working would alleviate).
How likely is it, in your mind, that that person is in fact able (but unwilling) to work? And how likely is it that they are unable to work in a way that is unapparant to you at first glance?
My impression is that those who are eager to apply means-testing are often eager to believe the former — that the non-working poor are in some way “pulling the wool over our eyes”, craftily managing to enjoy their substandard Section 8 housing and WIC handouts while avoiding honest work.
Personally, I think you’d have to be crazy to aspire to be one of the non-working poor. I think that the vast majority of the non-working poor don’t work because they can’t, and that our obsession with means-testing ends up harming them totally out of proportion to the good it does in preventing slacking.
Myca and Jake are correct; the authorities who run the economy deliberately act in ways to make sure that there are always enough unemployed workers so that wages aren’t forced up “too” fast.
Ron wrote:
Whether or not you “buy it” is irrelevant. Some things are a matter of opinion, but this isn’t; it’s just the facts of how the Federal Reserve Bank operates.
If unemployment gets too low, firms are forced to offer higher wages in order to compete for the smaller pool of available workers. To pay for the higher wages, firms raise their prices, leading to inflation.
If low unemployment brings about rising prices — and if the unemployment rate is low enough, it inevitably will — the Federal Reserve Bank will respond by raising interest rates, in order to slow economic growth, which will in turn increase unemployment and prevent (or at least slow down) inflation. In fact, the Fed will often do this before inflation rises, wanting to counteract inflatinary trends before they begin.
Obviously I’m doing some extreme nutshelling here, but nothing I’m saying here is controversial, or something that only left-wing economists believe.
Bjartmarr raises an interesting question (well, interesting to me at any rate.)
Are there any Europeans here? i have read, but do not know the accuracy of, reports that living “on the dole” is/was much more common in the more socialist Europeans contries. Which makes sense, at least to me: the better it is to be one of the non-working poor, then the more people will be non-working poor.
Whether or not it’s more common though, I doubt anywhere near “most” of the nonworking poor are voluntarily so.
And of course it is difficult to figure out who “should” be working. Take the U.S. and the often-perverse incentives for poor people. If you start work (good, right?) you can occasionally lose benefits in an amount equal to or greater than your new earned income (bad). Or, say, if you start work (good) your childcare and commuting costs equal your take home pay (bad.) Or if you’re in a shelter and you start saving money (good) to get your own place, you may lose your shelter (bad.)
Is a person in that situation, who makes a perfectly rational choice not to work, someone who is “unwilling?” It’s a stretch to say they are, IMO.
Note that Ampersand et al simply describe they theory controlling the Fed’s actions. It may not be true, and indeed I don’t entirely buy it, but the authorities clearly try to follow this principle.
Let’s say you see somebody who is at first glance able-bodied, but is not working, and is starving (or homeless, or suffering in any other way that working would alleviate). How likely is it, in your mind, that that person is in fact able (but unwilling) to work? And how likely is it that they are unable to work in a way that is unapparant to you at first glance?
No data. Anecdotally, “some”, in both categories.
f low unemployment brings about rising prices — and if the unemployment rate is low enough, it inevitably will — the Federal Reserve Bank will respond by raising interest rates
So the Federal Reserve Bank takes action when the inflation rate goes up, or when the unemployment rate goes down? I’m sure there’s some correlation between those numbers, but which one is the trigger?
This could just as easily be framed as “the government works to make sure that entrepreneurs and small business people have a hard life”; rising interest rates make new ventures and operating capital both more expensive.
But there’s no political hay to be reaped by doing that.
No, that’s not what your original quote said. You said:
Here, “some people” are paying taxes and ALSO getting government benefits. We are not talking about people who are so poor that they DON’T pay taxes.
And when you say,
Am I wrong to read “another” as “another [form]”, rather than “another [person]”? Sounds like what you’re saying that is that what’s ridiculous is someone’s money leaving them and coming back to them in another form, which again is what constitutes a basic economic transaction.
I am not saying that taxation is a basic economic transaction that is accurately analogous to buying peaches at your local bodega. (I do maintain that taxation is not a *unique* economic transaction by the same token, however, and that it has many private sector equivalents where there is an obvious imbalance of power, such as that between landowner and tenant, or boss and employee.) I say this only to highlight that a lot of anti-tax arguments really clutch at any straw they can grasp, as is evidenced by the fact that the same logic employed against taxes can also be employed against other things that the anti-tax crusader otherwise approves of.
Progressive taxation is a separate issue.
The general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause in tandem have been interpreted to allow the New Deal, desegregation, and federal criminal law. The Supreme Court has considered this valid. Rich plutocrats, working class racists, and the right wing punditry have not. The Constitution does not tell us, unfortunately, which of the two interpretations are binding.
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Also, do you have any objection to the idea that it takes just as much state power to forcibly seize an individual’s private property to pay for a railroad that the individual doesn’t want? Does the initiation-of-force-ness go up depending on how the state chooses to spend the money after it has forcibly seized it? If so, how?
Ron, the Federal Reserve raises short term interest rates to halt economic growth when unemployment dips too low. Have you never heard of (the now largely debunked*) NAIRU?
An interesting way to think of it, Sailorman, is analogizing it to due process. There are those who think that the emphasis should be on prosecuting as many of the accused as possible. Punishing the actually guilty is a more important consideration than the collateral damage inflicted on the wrongly accused. There are those who don’t like it when criminals are harshly punished, because they see this as violence perpetrated by the state and that criminals are often just the misunderstood elements of society. Then, there are those who want guilty criminals to be given their just dues by the state, but not at the expense of accidentally jailing the innocent. Though both are important, in the end, the freedom of the wrongly accused is more important than punishment of the guilty. I’m of the third camp, and this philosophy is the founding principle of modern democratic legal systems as well.
When it comes to the social safety net, we see a similar assortment of camps. There are those who think that not giving away handouts to the undeserving is a more important consideration than giving some help to those who are in dire circumstances through no fault of their own, and could really use some help. There are those who think that everyone deserves a minimum level of economic assurance. I’m ambivalent toward this: I think everyone should have basic food and shelter, but “economic assurance” could be interpreted more broadly than this.
Then there are those who agree that somewhere out there, some people are receiving welfare who don’t deserve it. They could be working, but they aren’t. I don’t like the idea of these people being on the government dole. But I also understand that any move to cut down assistance – giveaways, really – to these people will also do so for people who really need and deserve assistance: people who are poor because they’re either too young or too old to find a decent job. People who are poor because their parents were poor, abusive, or both. People who are poor because of one or two mistakes made deep in the past, but are still essentially good people who need a temporary leg up. People who are poor because of medical conditions. And cutting assistance to this latter group is a greater wrong than giving it out to the former.
I suppose there could be a way for the government to profile each and every welfare recipient to make sure that they’re of the latter type. But here, we have a pernicious tradeoff: if it’s intricate enough to work, chances are we are wasting more money implementing this program than we are giving money to those who don’t deserve it. If it’s not, chances are it’s too ham-handed to separate the two accurately. And it all depends on trusting those who administer it on the ground, who could very well be real jackasses, to be accurate judges of moral character.
A better method is to replace a straight cash dole with an array of cash vouchers so that we can better direct where our tax money’s being spent. Think food stamps, but expanded both in amount and scope. The problem is, not every poor person has the same needs: a hard-working poor single mother in her late teens will spend her money differently from a hard-working recovering drug addict who’s a single man in his late 30’s. Ultimately, I think a very strong safety net of ground level government services – child care, drug rehab, adult education – will eliminate the need for any straight welfare payments.
*Conceptually, NAIRU is still valid as a logical corollary of the Phillips curve. But NAIRU has been adjusted downward repeatedly over the past quarter century after theory did not match up with empirical experience, so the predictive power of NAIRU is virtually nil today.
One of the barometers they use to measure inflationary tendencies is the unemployment rate. Once inflation begins, it is usually too late, so they take pre-emptive measures by acting on the unemployment rate. This is a textbook explanation of the concept.
I’m really surprised more people are surprised when they hear this. Part of the Federal Reserve’s job is to prevent unemployment rates from getting “too low”.
Just a reminder that not all welfare recipients are non-working individuals. Many people with multiple full-time jobs receive welfare benefits. So do their children.
Sailor:
This makes sense, in the same way that “the better it is to be paraplegic, then the more people will be paraplegic” makes sense.
While there may be a few people whom extra handouts may convince not to work, I’d have a hard time believing that this number significantly impacts the number of people on public assistance. Rather, I find it far easier to attribute the US and Europe’s disparate public assistance rates to the relative ease by which someone who can’t work can find their way onto the public assistance lists. (In other words, I think we deny assistance to many who need it, while certain European countries aren’t so stingy.)
You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that. Get any sleep?
Ampersand:
This used to be the theory (or maybe it was always just an oversimplification by the lay media–I’m not sure), but I think it’s pretty much universally acknowledged now that inflation is a monetary phenomenon. The idea that low unemployment causes inflation was a confusion of causality and correlation. It’s not that low unemployment causes inflation–it’s that loose monetary policy both stimulates economic activity, thereby lowering unemployment, and increases the money supply, leading to inflation.
Also, that NYT chart in the footnote is misleading. Yes, the bottom 20% only have $8,000 per year in pre-tax income, but according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which the chart cites as a source, they have expenditures of over $19,000 per year. I’m really not sure what’s going on there. This quintile has the highest average age of any of the quintiles, so there are presumably some retirees in there living off their savings, and 42% are homeowners, so property taxes may account for much of the taxes. In any case, it doesn’t seem to be the case that people trying to get by on $8000 a year are paying $1500 in taxes.
It’s also misleading at the upper end. Yes, the top quintile may be paying a total effective tax rate of 19%, but for married couples filing jointly, the 25% bracket doesn’t even kick in until they have an AGI of $61,300. When you figure in all the deductions and credits, it’s not inconceivable that a couple might be making $100k between the two of them without hitting the ceiling of the 15% bracket. It’s not until you start getting up into the mid six figures that you have 30%+ effective tax rates.
Which is consistent with your claim that the vast majority pay a tax rate of 16% (for the record, I have a five-figure salary and pay about 25% between federal income tax and “my half” of FICA, but that’s because I rent and have no wife or dependents). But Megan’s right: Most Democrats will not directly pay the cost of the tax hikes they support (and neither will most of the Republicans who oppose them), because the tax hikes endorsed by most Democratic candidates are narrowly targeted at a small minority of the population.
I agree 100%. But doesn’t the idea that almsgiving should not be a private matter lie at the core of your political philosophy? In other words, you’ve decided that how much I give to charity, what causes I give to, and what strings, if any, I may attach to those gifts, are matters to be decided publicly. So is it really fair to cry foul when others want to make your charitable contributions a matter for public discussion?
This is so far from reality that I don’t even know how to answer it.
A recent article in the Financial Times asked if perhaps Monetarism is “rising from the grave.” (And I add: If it is, then please someone grab a wooden stake and have at it.) People don’t describe a view as possibly about to rise from the dead if that view is universally agreed upon, Brandon.
Regarding “most democrats will not directly pay the cost of the tax hikes,” I don’t think that’s the point. Yes, most Democrats will not directly pay the costs of reversing Bush’s ridiculous giveaways to the wealthy; but that’s not the question. The question is whether or not most Democrats are paying taxes which help support the social programs Democrats support; and the answer is, yes they do.
And as I’ve pointed out (but you ignored), I routinely vote to raise my own taxes to pay for government programs, and I doubt I’m the only one.
(For that matter, I had thought that a couple of the Democratic health care plans floating around raised taxes on more than just the ultra-wealthy. But I may be wrong.)
This is impressive. You could not possibly have any less comprehension of my view.
Paying taxes is not, in my view, giving to charity. Giving to charity is giving to charity; paying taxes is paying taxes; and the two activities are entirely separate.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re free to give to charity, and contrary to your ridiculous claims above I will not tell you where to give it, or attach strings. But that you give to charity (and I’m sure you do, very generously) doesn’t exempt you from paying taxes (apart from the usual deductions), or make it wrong that you are required to pay taxes.
Clearly I was unclear, though my clarity is clear to me ;)
But I agree with you. And Bjartmarr, I basically agree with you, too, though the paraplegia example is a bit off.
Robert & RonF,
Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate hearing your views.
Oh, I mostly agreed with you too, Sailorman. I just thought that your explanation of why Europe might have more people on the dole missed the obvious explanation in favor of the dubious one.
We (USA-dians) have this odd tendency to consider living on handouts to be somehow desireable — an absurdity which I thought your explanation promoted.
Bjartmarr said:
That’s not a case against “means testing”; that’s a case for not making evaluations on first impressions.
Amp, I’ll let Brandon Berg carry the ball on the economic theory, since he’s apparently much better versed in it than I.
However, as far as charity vs. taxes goes; I have proposed before that I have no argument against things like supporting those unable to work, but whether or not the proper vehicle for that is governmental action vs. private charity. I have been answered by being told that private charity is insufficient for the purposes, and thus it is justified for the populace to decide, by majority vote, to enable the government to involuntarily take my money and give it to whoever the majority sees fit. In such a case, then, the distinction between taxes for social services and charity is annulled; taxes are being used to support charitable causes, and the majority is deciding what charities are to be supported by my money.
The “safety net” is, in fact, charity. The fact that taxes are used to provide it does not make it less of a charity, it just changes how the money is collected and allocated. Indeed, it’s not unusual for a charity to get both tax money and private donations, or for private organizations to support the exact same cause that tax money does.
The “safety net” is, in fact, charity.
I think that you have just identified the sticking point between the two sides. I don’t consider the social safety net to be charity any more than I consider caring for my immediate family to be charity. The social safety net is, in my view, our responsibility to our community. This is very different than charity.
I’m not sure that this is a resolvable difference.
The social safety net is, in my view, our responsibility to our community. This is very different than charity.
Who is “us”?
The reason I ask is, that if the safety net is “our” responsibility, that implies a division in society. A great number of people make no net contribution to the safety net (they may pay some trickle of taxes but it is swamped by their use of infrastructure).
Are they, by their lack of economic productivity, letting down their responsibilities?
To put it another way, if you and I have a responsibility to pay for the safety net, why doesn’t Frank the homeless guy have a responsibility to not need it?
Excellent explanation of deliberately maintained unemployment, Ampersand.
If folks are inclined, they can wikipedia both NAIRU and the Phillips Curve for more information.
The way I look at it is that in order for most of us to enjoy a booming economy with minimal inflation, it is apparently necessary for some of us to suffer. That may be, as I said, necessary, but I think that either viewing their suffering as an unalloyed personal failing (“They just don’t want to work.”) or refusing to help mitigate their degree of suffering (“Why should the government steal my money to help them?”) is kind of childish and cruel.
This is the system we’ve set up. Our system requires some to fail in order for some to thrive. The cost of mitigating the misery of those who have failed is so much less than actually failing, I have little sympathy.
—Myca
“maybe it was always just an oversimplification by the lay media”
Nailed it! Take a macroeconomics course and you will find that unemployment is an integral part of the equation. Literally, an integral part once you get into the differential equations.
Unemployment is just one of the many agents involved, but it is one of the more volatile in that any change in most other agents in either direction can increase unemployment. This can happen because agents that were not directly manipulated are more likely to respond in such a way that unemployment increases. Generally, unemployment is the agent that responds last to balance the equation.
Conversely, decreasing unemployment is very difficult to achieve through the adjustment of a single, other agent. Often, a combination of agents must be altered, and even then, the result on unemployment has a low predictability since other agents are more likely to take advantage of the changes.
To take an example, the macroeconomics equations are what shot down Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan in the ’90s. Sure, we got a lot of soundbites from both sides of the aisle, but the decisions were made by the numbers crunchers sitting in the back rooms, and the spike in unemployment was pretty much the deciding issue. Look at Hillary’s current healthcare plan and what some call sucking up to Big Business. Her plan now will cause a more palatable, and perhaps even manageable, increase in unemployment. The question is how quickly her plan can be phased in; the longer it takes to reach universality, the less impact it has on unemployment.
Ampersand
I definitely agree with RonF on the taxes and charity issue. I agree that a small (and temporary in most cases) safety net is needed, but the safety net is charity.
Apparently many people on the left believe that we are under taxed. In the spirit of freedom I think I have a fair solution to this problem. I think that there should be an option when you file taxes for giving more than you are required. We could even have check boxes for the new voluntary tax where you would like your money to go. The result would let those that think they should be doing more can, and the government wouldn’t not be seizing more economic freedom from individual persons. It would also give us a little more insight during campaigns when politicians tell us we are under taxed.
No, the entirety of monetarism was a confusion of causality and correlation. The money supply is simply a reflection of the demand for credit, not the other way around.
The idea that the only thing needed for a stable economy was a steady money supply, that keeping inflation low should be the only priority of government, or that money is completely neutral, was the impetus behind the Federal Reserve’s actions during the early 80’s. They abandoned manipulating interest rates and set monetary growth targets only. They did cure double-digit inflation, but at the cost of staggering unemployment, collapse in investment, and the most disastrous recession since the Great Depression – in short, everything their critics said would happen. That was just in the US. In Britain, the situation under Thatcher was even worse; in some respects, the British economy has yet to fully recover from their hare brained experiment.
Needless to say, the Federal Reserve went back to the federal funds rate shortly thereafter. State control of the money supply, not long after the spectacular failure of monetarism, was instrumental in neutralizing the 1987 stock market crash.
I don’t fathom why it’s necessary to get bogged down in the terminology of “charity” versus “safety net”, except that haggling about semantics can be a useful distraction from the real issues.
I don’t understand the no-obligation-to-help view when it is held by those who support community, or even the concept of a nation-state. If you see the ideal human condition as a bunch of individuals with no obligation to anyone, bartering and negotiating for everything they need, all right then.
Emphatically, I ditto.
Re the real issue of liberals and taxes –
I think it is obvious that lots of liberals pay lots of taxes. Plenty of liberals are rich, and rich people pay big chunks. Plenty of liberals are poor, and poor people pay what feels like a lot. I’m not poor now, but I’ve been income-poor for extended periods and I remember the days when the various deductions represented real “ouch”. Plenty of liberals are middle-class, and middle class people get bitten on both ends; endlessly nagged by little taxes and also often pounced on in the case of big windfalls.
So, as a conservative and/or libertarian, I’ll offer the olive branch of conceding the obvious – you Demogreenunists pay plenty of taxes, and it’s illegitimate for conservatives to criticize your willingness to vote for taxes on the theory that you’re not the ones shouldering the burden.
I think there are two ways, however, in which the conservative critique of liberal tax goals is legitimate.
1) When liberals advocate for taxes that would be paid only by small groups of very wealthy people, they are for using majority power to target an identifiable minority. I doubt this is unconstitutional, but it feels like a bad thing to do.
That the awful power of democracy to oppress Bill Gates does not appear to be currently operating at any great effect, I grant you.
2) When liberals advocate for taxes that would be paid disproportionately by the poorest of people, it seems both (a) like a really mean thing to do and (b) somewhat inconsistent with the laudable liberal policy of being pro-regular guys and gals.
Cigarette taxes are the example of this that springs to mind. I don’t want to get into an argument about the balancing of public health and wellness versus individual choice, but it’s got to suck to be a working man or woman who does umpteen hours at the plant and on the way home just wants to stop for a cold beer and a fresh pack of Marlboros and…jiminy it’s up to SIX bucks a pack…
It’s true that some Republicans push such measures; most of those Republicans are on the liberal side of things within the party. But lots and lots of liberal candidates and officholders promote them
Robert, thank you for that comment.
Regarding the two conservative critiques you say are legitimate: #1 doesn’t bother me for just the reason you say; it’s hard for me to think of millionaires as an oppressed and subjugated group.
#2 is, to me, a much more compelling criticism. The truth is, I agree with you that cigarette taxes are unfair. In the case of SCHIP, I just find them a lesser evil compared to the evil of leaving more kids without reasonable access to medical care. And, arguably, current political realities leave us with a choice between two evils.
(In my ideal world, everyone but the very poorest would be paying taxes at some level, and health care would be paid out of general taxes, not a cigarette tax.)
* * *
By the way, in the spirit of making concessions, I do agree with you that everyone has a responsibility to contribute to society, when they can.
However, I see it more as a lifetime commitment than a “now” commitment. If someone needs to live on the dole, not due to sickness or incapacity, but due to a desire to take a year to start a business, or to seek training, then that seems to me like something we should want society to pay for.
I say that partly because I think such a society is better morally. But also because it’s arguably better economically. A system that reduces the risk people face when switching careers, or starting businesses, brings greater average productivity, because given the means I believe people naturally try to sort themselves into occupations they’re able to do well. (Not everyone succeeds, of course, but enough people succeed to make it worthwhile for people to have the liberty to switch careers).
I’m not saying we can, or should, eliminate risk from the economy altogether. I am saying that when risks are too high — when it’s “if I take a chance my family might have no medical coverage and no home” rather than “if I take a chance my family might have to eat cheaper foods and wear cheaper clothes for a few years until we can catch up again” — that discourages some kinds of economic movement and risk-taking we should want to encourage.
Nor am I saying that Americans can’t currently switch jobs — some of them can, sometimes, obviously. I’m just saying that a larger number of Americans would feel able to take such chances if they felt that they had more security, and that would be beneficial.
A Canadian cartoonist I know of used to work in fast food. Then he lived on the dole for several years doing nothing but drawing comics all day; he was very poor, but he was also secure, in that he didn’t have to worry that he’d go without food or shelter.
Then, for the past 15 years, he’s earned a living as a moderately successful cartoonist and illustrator — a position in which he’s much more productive than if he had remained a fast-food worker. Is the Canadian economy really worse off because he “slacked off” for a few years?
Amp, I think the answer to your question is “it depends”. If one person slacks off and doesn’t produce anything of value to other people for some length of time it won’t sink an economy the size of Canada’s. Even if that length of time is their whole life that would still be true. If many people do the same thing the answer obviously starts to change.
While it might be fulfilling for a lot of people if they spent time on public assistance to hone their skills writing poetry, water painting landscapes, or starting up internet sales companies there’s going to be some number where it starts to hurt society as a whole.
I don’t think the US is anywhere near the breaking point. So I like that my taxes help keep people from dying of starvation and exposure. But I think time spent on the dole is (usually) not time well spent. I want it to be sustaining, but not comfortable. I don’t mind that your cartoonist did what he did, but I want a system that would cause him to think long and hard about whether graphic design or house painting might not be a better choice.
I also like the idea of means testing the hell out of social programs. Health care for kids seems like a no brainer to me. But if your parents can afford to pay for the care I think they should. Same for adults.
Pingback: Pandagon :: How about we start focusing on the moral improvement of the neoconservatives? :: November :: 2007
This whole thread reminds me of some of the arguments I’ve had with my conservative nephew (yep, I’m liberal). In fact, RonF could *be* my nephew. :)
I personally don’t understand the conservative mindset that people would *prefer* to “be on the dole” than to work. What kind of people are you hanging out with? I work because I enjoy it, not just because I need to. I’ve worked since I was 17 years old and never thought twice about it.
On the other hand, I have worked with people who should have been “on the dole” because it would have been better for *me* and the workplace. Good gravy, these people were annoying – because you could never depend on them to get the job done, and I usually ended up doing their work as well as my own. If these morons had been at home in their “dole” efficiency, it would have freed up the job for somebody who wanted it and who could have been a valuable part of the team and contributing to the success of the company. Worth it to me in terms of higher taxes for said dole? Absolutely.
I also don’t have a problem with the idea of a “luxury” tax, such as cigarette or alcohol or gourmet food item taxes. Since these items are optional, rather than mandatory, for living – why not pay a little more to enjoy them? Trust me, it would become just another status symbol, the fact that one could afford to smoke or drink or eat caviar, and the luxury business would boom.
In my ideal world, everybody would have a basic lifestyle – a room to live in with simple furniture (bed, dresser, desk/chair, TV), a card that would get you 3 meals a day at a public eatery (and you would eat whatever they were serving, no choices), clothes appropriate to the weather/season (not fancy, but serviceable), basic education (the 3 R’s, plus a choice to either go to trade school or community college), and a job of some sort. That’s where everybody starts. If you want more than that (a house, Chippendale furniture, plasma TV, Harvard, whatever), you work for it.
But I’m sure that I’m about to be called a Communist for that … :)
The social safety net is, in my view, our responsibility to our community. This is very different than charity.
Who is “us”?
The answer is: all of those in a society who are currently able to contribute. One of the most glaring of libertarian fallacies is that some people are innately productive, were born that way, and will die that way. An implication from this is that such people are morally superior. However, the base assumption, that some people have always been and will always be productive, throughout their life span, is a false one.
There is in fact no human being who was born productive, was productive throughout her entire life span, and then died productive. Not one. Periods of dependency are normal and natural in the human life span. Differences between people in the proportions of dependency and productivity are also normal and natural. Very few people have no periods of dependency between maturation and old age. Unemployment, acute and chronic illnesses (including mental illnesses and substance addiction), accidents, crime victimhood, wars, and mistakes can lead to dependency on others, unless the person in question has a substantial self generated safety net.
Given the pay and benefit structure for the bottom 50% or so of jobs, combined with housing costs and other living expenses, for many (perhaps a majority) of people, such a self generated safety is simply not possible — at least not one stretching to more than a few months of dependency. Stigma attached to dependency is illogical, given that most of us experience times of economic dependency between maturation and old age. Further, stigma for using societal structures rather than family and/or community structures is also illogical, as many reasons for dependency tend to cluster in families and communities such that they have little to spare to benefit one another.
Another fallacy of libertarians is that the world is divided into two types: 1) people who have an innate need to be productive, and 2) people who are innately lazy and indolent. The truth is that all of us have elements of both extremes, and that very few people actually enjoy or want indolence.
I work with homeless people, and I know literally thousands of homeless people, and I do not know a single one that is able to work, yet doesn’t want to. They often get caught up in patterns of working “under the table” or in working extralegally, but they all enjoy being productive, to the extent to which they can be. Many are mentally ill (with depression being very common), many have addictions, and a large portion are too physically ill to work full time. Another segment of this population are felons who have served their time, but can’t get jobs. Interestingly, almost none of the felons were convicted of violent acts. The vast majority were convicted on drug charges. Even with all these issues against them (and in many cases, people fall into two or three of the categories above), they attempt to do things to better their situations.
Humans are social animals. They are by nature interdependent, not dependent or independent. It is a rational choice for someone in a dependent portion of a life to reach out for help, and it is a rational choice for those capable of independence currently to contribute, as a matter of course (not charity) to the welfare of those who are not currently independent. Why? Because the the person who is currently independent has no guarantees that her independence will continue beyond the next horizon, no matter how well she plans. Only a societal standard of interdependence and acceptance of the natural phases of human life will lead to such general goods as affordable housing, universal education and health care, transportation grids, power grids, courthouses, temporary and permanent care for those who are temporarily or permanently dependent, and other “questions of the commons”.
Robert says:
1) When liberals advocate for taxes that would be paid only by small groups of very wealthy people, they are for using majority power to target an identifiable minority. I doubt this is unconstitutional, but it feels like a bad thing to do.
the reason a liberal/leftist does not feel bad is that any system is set up in a way to benefit some people over others and those that benefit greatly should give back the most.
Bill Gates is a perfect example: he got rich because the US has set up a system where ideas can be ‘patented’. Even if this is a good idea (an alternative might be where the government employs people to do basic research and then lets companies compete to see who can produce it more cheaply–I’m not saying this would be better but it would set up a different dynamic) it does reward Bill Gates greatly and rewards people who then fine-tune his idea much less (and actually makes it so people who see how his idea could be used better less able to do so). So, Bill Gates has benefitted hugely from patents (a government monopoly) and so should pay the government hugely.
The reason many liberals are ok with taxes on cigarettes (I really don’t like them too much) is that it does two things that are good: it brings in taxes for programs and it discourages an unhealthy habit (it has been shown that increasing taxes on cigarettes does reduce the number of people who smoke).
Pingback: Taxes and Charity « Petunias
I doubt this is unconstitutional, but it feels like a bad thing to do.
Now there’s some liberal wishy-washiness for ya.
Jake said:
The social safety net is, in my view, our responsibility to our community. This is very different than charity.
Mandolin and mythago are right; it’s an issue of semantics, not of actual content. In fact, charity is everyone’s responsibilty to our community, and one purpose (among others) of charity is to provide a safety net to those who need it. This is supported by every major religion and philosophical system I’m aware of, and I haven’t seen anyone on this thread propose anything different – although I’m willing to have it pointed out to me if I’m wrong.
The questions that I’m seeing here that do seem to be of significance to me are what should a safety net be used for, and how should it be funded. People like me agree with the founders of this country that powerful central governments are to be both distrusted and avoided as much as possible, that what power a government does have should reside in local governments as much as is possible, and that private action is preferable. Thus, the safety net is best when it is controlled by private charities as much as possible. Private charities are much more under the direct control of the public than government is. Local government should be involved when, and only when, necessary, and the Federal government pretty much not at all.
As far as how a safety net should be used, it should only be used when the person using it is also using their own resources as much as possible. Certainly it may be that the person has no resources at all; such people will need the most help, but that help should consist not only of immediate support but in assisting that individual in developing their own resources to the point that they will, as quickly as possible, lessen their need for the safety net. The overall goal should be to get that person off of the safety net altogether to the point that they are productive and are contributing to society overall, including contributing to providing others a safety net.
There can be a conflict where the person on the safety net seems to have the capability to develop and/or use their own resources but fails to do so. The failure may be due to a misapprehension of their capabilities; in that case, appropriate action should be taken to either change the approach to their development or to come to an understanding that a mistake was made and that the person will need long-term support. But if the failure is due to a lack of will or concern on the part of the individual, I have no compunction against throwing them off the net. Society has an obligation to individuals, but individuals have an obligation to society; not just the rich, but even the poorest as well.
I remember personally hearing an ideal along these lines expressed by a Democratic President; “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” That’s what builds a strong nation.
The idea that people who are already self-sustaining should have the option of resorting to the safety net while they voluntarily stop being productive so that they can change their profession is one I cannot endorse. Consider Amp’s example. He makes the presumption that a cartoonist is more productive than a fast-food worker. Personal bias there, much, Amp? It also makes the presumption that one has to quit the latter for a period of time and be unproductive in order to become the former. Sorry; that’s not what a safety net is for, in my opinion, and it’s rather selfish on the part of the person we’re talking about, since it takes money away from someone who actually needs it and gives it to someone who wants to indulge a dream.
mythago said:
I don’t understand the no-obligation-to-help view when it is held by those who support community, or even the concept of a nation-state.
mythago, are you proposing that anyone here holds that view?
I disagree that the difference between “charity” and “responsibility” is a matter of semantics. They are two entirely different concepts. You might feel responsible to be charitable, but you should never feel charitable to be responsible.
Charity:
noun, plural -ties.
1. generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one’s life to charity.
2. something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.
3. a charitable act or work.
4. a charitable fund, foundation, or institution: He left his estate to a charity.
5. benevolent feeling, esp. toward those in need or in disfavor: She looked so poor that we fed her out of charity.
6. leniency in judging others; forbearance: She was inclined to view our selfish behavior with charity.
7. Christian love; agape.
Responsibility:
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible: The responsibility for this mess is yours!
3. a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible: the responsibilities of authority.
4. a person or thing for which one is responsible: A child is a responsibility to its parents.
5. reliability or dependability, esp. in meeting debts or payments.
They’re not at all the same thing.
Thus, the safety net is best when it is controlled by private charities as much as possible.
Tried and failed. There is a reason we have S.S. and other forms of welfare. That reason is that before S.S., etc., private charities were unable or unwilling (depending on the charity) to meet the needs of all those who needed help. There is a reason that S.S., etc., are enormously popular programs.
Joe writes:
Only if you assume that few of them will manage to earn a living as poets, painters, or internet entrepreneurs; and that people who don’t succeed in the first few years will choose to spend many, many years in failure and living a meager public assistance lifestyle, rather than trying something more lucrative. I doubt that either of these assumptions are true.
I actually agree, depending on what your definition of “comfortable” is. I think the most harrowing thing about poverty is the stress of not knowing: Not knowing where the food for yourself and your kids is coming from next week, not knowing if you can pay rent next month, not knowing how to pay for the kids’ clothes or schoolbooks, not knowing how you’ll ever manage if someone in your family needs medical care. I think those are worries that a good safety net should eliminate for absolutely everyone, including the idle.
But if you want the latest high-end computer/playstation/skis/sex toys/whatever, that’s something that people should basically get through earning money in some way. If you want a luxury apartment or to be constantly traveling or to be able to afford to take your family on ski vacations or to live in the really nice neighborhood, then, again, you have to earn money. For the vast majority of people, the desire for a better-than-welfare lifestyle is more than enough to motivate them to work.
Why? He was right, after all — he was able to earn a living in his chosen field, given some time to build an audience and his chops.
What does “afford to pay” mean? If someone with a serious chronic condition can afford to pay for this year’s treatments by selling their home, should they have to do that, even though that just means that at this time next year they’ll be homeless and still need a way to pay for next year’s care? Should she be forced to sell her second car, even if that means that in the long term they’ll have a smaller income? In the long run, the economy might do better if we try to disrupt patient’s lives as little as possible, rather than wringing every cent out of them.
Plus, the means testing itself is not free; more means testing means bigger, more expensive bureaucracy.
Especially for health care, I don’t want means testing. I want a system where a sick person can make an appointment with the doctor of their choice and get seen and treated, all without having to worry about how to pay for it. If the French deserve that sort of system, then so do we.
I’d agree with means testing of some sort for cash assistance to people taking voluntarily sabbaticals from paid work, however. :-)
No, not at all. I didn’t claim that all cartoonists are more productive than all fast-food workers. But it’s trivially obvious that certain people are more productive as cartoonists than as fast-food workers, and vice versa. If Sally has the talents and inclination for job A and Babbette has the talents and inclination for job B, then an economy in which Babbette works at A and Sally at B is less productive than one in which Sally is at A and Babbette at B.
The question is, what sorting mechanism do you use to place people in the occupations which will maximize their contentment and productivity?
I’d argue that the best possible system is to facilitate self-choice; given freedom, most people voluntarily put in the effort to find occupations they’re good (or at least acceptable) at. Lacking that freedom, though, people will stay longer at jobs they’re less effective at.
A system that does more to facilitate people’s search for the right occupation will therefore be more productive. So, for example, a society that provides college loans or scholarships, thus making it possible for people from poor families to become doctors or lawyers, will end up using more of the talents of the population than a society in which only children of the well-off can receive the training to become doctors or lawyers.
I assume that a greater proportion of people will be able to make the transition from job A to job B if we do more to facilitate them. Just as some poor people will get through medical school even if scholarships don’t exist, but more will get through if scholarships do exist.
Dream-indulgers help grow the economy and make everyone wealthier, Ron. My example cartoonist helps create work for paper makers, ink makers, art store clerks, printers, comics distributors, and comic shop employees. My example internet start-up businessperson likewise helps create work.
We’re not made better off if people are trapped in occupations they don’t want to be in. We’re worse off. Less jobs and less wealth.
I was getting at your point about non-necessity goods. e.g. “I really want to take time off to be a comic book writer/actor/whatever but is it worth having to give up my car and take the bus everywhere. Maybe I’ll get a McJob and work on my passion when i can.”
My point about means testing was that i don’t see any reason for the taxpayer to pay for cold medicine for a single person making 40K. For instance. If you can pay your own way, (or your kids way) you should. If that means you have less ski vacation, (or an older car, whatever) than so be it.
I can’t remember the last time a person who wasn’t ron paul tried to actually shrink the government. This doesn’t seem pressing for the government we’ve got.
People like me agree with the founders of this country that powerful central governments are to be both distrusted and avoided as much as possible, that what power a government does have should reside in local governments as much as is possible, and that private action is preferable.
Well, it’s always good to have the Framers in one’s corner, but it’s also good not to oversimplify their approach. If they really thought as you claim they did, we’d still have a confederacy and we would not have a standing army or any public works. (Private action is “prefereable” to what?)
Libertarians admire the Framers, but that doesn’t mean the reverse is true.
Actually, they did think as I outlined. That’s why the Articles of Confederation were first written the way they were and were used to govern the U.S. for a number of years before the Constitution was written and adopted. I don’t think that the Federal government should have no power, but it should have as little as possible. It turned out that the degree of power it had under the AoC was insufficient. The writers of the Constitution recognized the need for stronger (a relative term, note) central government, so the Constitution gave it more than the AoC did. But they still distrusted a strong central government, so they separated the powers of the government into 3 different departments and gave each one a check on the other. They also ensured that the States still retained significant sovereignty and had a direct role in that government, including a) their role in electing Senators (since abandoned) and b) their ability to amend the Constitution without the permission of the Congress.
Actually, they did think as I outlined. That’s why the Articles of Confederation were first written the way they were and were used to govern the U.S. for a number of years before the Constitution was written and adopted.
Yet, oddly, they scrapped the AoC and now we live under a system with states that are subordinate to a Federal government, yet still have a balance of powers.
In what way is “no power” not “as little as possible”?
Yet, oddly, they scrapped the AoC and now we live under a system with states that are subordinate to a Federal government, yet still have a balance of powers.
I addressed that. Yes, they are more subordinate in some things. In other things they are not. And quite frankly, I think that over the years and especially after WWII, they have become more subordinate. This is in great part because the Federal government has become the money source for a great many things and is able to use that as a club against the States.
Also, the balance of powers has shifted quite a bit. The judiciary especially has become akin to an appointed legislature, drifting away from interpreting what legislation and the Constitution actually say to imposing what the courts think they should say. The judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts is a prime example; the Massachusetts Supreme Court actually told the legislature to pass a law to create it. There never was and is not any provision or intent under thte doctrine of “balance of powers” for the judiciary to tell a legislature to pass a given law. I do wonder what would have happened if the Massachusetts legislature had told the Court to stuff it. There’s a reason why the legislature has the power to pass laws but not enforce them, the executive can enforce laws but not make them, and the judiciary can adjudicate law but neither make nor enforce them. Those lines are being crossed more and more these days.
The judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts is a prime example;
Y’know, I am really, REALLY tired of conservatives pretending that a court is engaging in “judicial activism” any time it reaches a ‘liberal’ result, whereas a court that reaches a result conservatives like cannot possibly be activist, no matter on what it bases its decision.
What the Legislature in Massachusetts could have done, of course, is to amend the state’s Constitution to eliminate the unconstitutionality of its marriage law. They still could. Guess The People need to get off their ass and get amending if they really want to express their will in that direction.
And, by the way, when you start talking about some vague trend happening “more and more these days”, you seriously need to run Old Fogey Remover on your fact-checking device.
Y’know, I am really, REALLY tired of conservatives pretending that a court is engaging in “judicial activism” any time it reaches a ‘liberal’ result, whereas a court that reaches a result conservatives like cannot possibly be activist, no matter on what it bases its decision.
Me too. That’s why I don’t do it.
I’m also curious why you would set the word liberal in quotes and not the word conservative?
RonF, you are assuming that a court telling a legislature “your law is unconstitutional; you need to make the law constitutional” is some kind of wacky activist thing. I assume you’re not one of that handful of paleocons who thinks Marbury v. Madison was judicial overreaching. The 180-day requirement is odd, but hardly a mark of the dark hand of liberal activism. The idea here is that instead of rewriting the law, or throwing out the law entirely (which would have left Massachusetts with no marriage law at all), the Court says that the legislature needs to fix the problem.
I put “liberal” in quotes because conservatives don’t seem to pay much attention to what the court’s reasoning was or whether it actually created new law; they see a result that they perceive as something that would make Liberal Q. McLefty happy, and call it judicial activism.
I have to agree that Goodrich–which i support–is easier to attack as activism than some decisions. Mostly because it’d been around for a while. More often laws are passed and are challenged reasonably quickly. It’s less common (and looks more like activism to some folks) when a law is on the books for a long time and then gets declared invalid.
[shrug] but hey: it’s not the JUDGES’ fault taht nobody brought the case. Don’t blame them.
I have to agree that Goodrich–which i support–is easier to attack as activism than some decisions. Mostly because it’d been around for a while.
That seems like kind of a lame reason to me. As you say later in your comment, it’s not the judges fault the suit wasn’t brought earlier.
Didn’t exactly the same thing happen in Hawaii in 1996? Only in that case, the legislature enacted changes to keep SSM illegal. I think. It’s been 11 years & I may not be remembering correctly.
Tangentially, this article relating to Hawaii’s rulings is hilarious:
http://starbulletin.com/96/12/03/news/index.html
I can’t answer for conservatives, but as far as I am personally concerned Marbury vs. Madison is fine. But what the courts did here was rewrite the meaning of the word “marriage” completely, as opposed to making sure that it applied to every one equally.
If this was a case of saying (for example) that “marriage is denied to interracial couples, that’s unconstitutional”, that’s fine. Black people got married. White people got married. To say that thus black and white people should be able to marry each other makes sense. But marriage was and is and always has been based on the concept of a bond between a man and a woman, and it’s been up to each couple to define the basis of that bond otherwise. The Massachusetts Supreme Court redefined marriage so that the emotional and material basis for the bond was the point and that the genders of the couples was variable. That’s absurd, in my view, and bypassed the right and indeed the obligation of the legislature to make the determination that homosexual relationships deserve the same state sanction as heterosexual ones.
The court has an obligation to see that marriage was applied to everyone equally; instead, they invented something new and called it “marriage” and then told the legislature to adopt that into law. It’s the twisting and redefinition of marriage by the courts as opposed to the legislature that I see as objectionable.