What a morally bankrupt viewpoint. People support extending health coverage to fellow citizens in need because they think it “the right thing” — and Samuelson objects. Heaven forbid we ever base political opinions on right and wrong!
What a fine job of missing the point Jim does! He excels at it! His performance in this regard is superlative across the board and no mere mortal can match him!
What’s so hilarious is that Jim simultaneously and stupidly proved Samuelson’s point, and in fact made himself a poster child for it (at least until Chris Gerrib shows up), while completely missing it.
What a morally bankrupt viewpoint.
Looks who’s talking, Mr. “Let’s hurt a lot of people in order to appear to help a few”. The viewpoint may be morally bankrupt, but it isn’t rationally bankrupt. That is a far better currency of trade.
People support extending health coverage to fellow citizens in need because they think it “the right thing” — and Samuelson objects.
I have to agree with McGehee and Rand here. Way to show Samuelson’s point. Even the CBO apparently believed that somewhere around a third to half of the currently uninsured would remain uninsured in 2016. So we passed a huge piece of legislation with many effects, imposing additional costs on most of the US, simply to extend insurance to perhaps 10% more people? It doesn’t matter who gets hurt, it is the “right thing” to do. When law is passed solely on moral grounds, then there will be no compromise and often no net benefit.
Heaven forbid we ever base political opinions on right and wrong!
There’s plenty of vile or weird groups who though they were right. The Nazis thought they were right. The slavers of the 19th century Southern US thought they were right. The creationists of today think they are right.
The thing you don’t understand is that a sense of right and wrong is not good enough. Usually that sense is going to be useless in a political situation, blinded either by self-interest or stupidity.
I try not to comment on pieces that are merely somebody’s opinion, so other than to note my invocation, I won’t comment.
Like the commerce clause, that can be extended to absolutely everything.
I get my self-esteem knowing I’m at least smart enough (unlike some people who post here) not to fall for the Cult of the State. It’s too bad politicians can’t get a feeling of self-worth defending liberty instead of (in the immortal phrase of Bastiat) “legalized plunder.”
The opposition cannot simply be mistaken. It must be evil, selfish, racist, unpatriotic, immoral or just stupid. A culture of self-righteousness reigns across the political spectrum. Stridency from one feeds the other. Political polarization deepens; compromise becomes harder. How can anyone negotiate if the other side is so extreme?
…it is the political class of activists that “dominate the political agenda” and determine “how the debate is conducted.”
Samuelson is more right than he knows — it’s getting visceral out there.
Don’t forget: Self-esteem guru Stuart Smalley is now in Congress.
“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it, I get to legally force my will on others! (For their own good, of course.)”
Titus hits on one of the common political myths: the assumption that the opposition think the world works the same way you think it works. Person A thinks Policy A will bring about X results, thinks Person B thinks it will bring about X results too.
So A thinks B wants a different set of results, that B doesn’t care about the people A seeks to benefit. Welfare opponents don’t care about the poor. Iraq War supporters don’t care about Iraqis. Free trade supporters don’t care about American workers. School lunch program opponents want to starve children (blast from the past, 1995 edition).
Political debate with A is impossible as long as A doesn’t even know what B believes. Garry Trudeau is a shining example. Last week he imagined the Tea Parties as a movement with no message. The message is loud and clear – Washington has escalated spending and borrowing to astronomical levels. It takes a lot of willful ignorance to be this dense. All he has to do is read the signs.
“Garry Trudeau is a shining example. Last week he imagined the Tea Parties as a movement with no message.”
I saw that “Doonesbury” about the Tea Party movement and thought: “WTF–?”
Trudeau is typical of a kind of Sixties’ influenced satirist who, in the Age of Obama, has become simply a Court Jester for the State.
Titus hits on one of the common political myths: the assumption that the opposition think the world works the same way you think it works.
Not only that, Alan, it’s that the values are mis-matched. When you believe that your values are the most imporant values in the world, then you give yourself the moral high-ground to replace the values of others with yours via law, indoctrination or by more physical means.
My kneejerk reaction is: EVERYBODY thinks their values are the most important. But then, I am thinking of “values” as synonymous with “ethics.” You may mean something else – “priorities,” maybe?
The totalitarian instinct is driven by the utopian belief in the perfectibility of government and society. My values say that only the sinless can be trusted with such an endeavor, and mortal humans ain’t sinless.
EVERYBODY thinks their values are the most important.
Yes, to themselves. Reasonable folk understand that last part. That’s the distinction I’m making.
You’re talking about subjective values, evidently. I’m talking about objective values (i.e. objective ethics) – something different.
Let me rephrase what I said: everybody thinks they have a pretty good understanding of what is objectively right and wrong. The lack of consensus over right and wrong spur many political divisions. (Lack of consensus over cause and effect are the other key factor.)
Totalitarianism is rooted in specific ethics. A lot of people who think they perfectly understand what’s morally perfect aren’t totalitarians, for one or two of the following reasons:
1. Their concept of morality rejects the notion that it is ethical to coerce other people’s beliefs.
2. They’re not utopians – they don’t trust that there are a great many people who likewise know what’s morally perfect, and thus do not trust any oligarchy that would micromanage the citizen’s ideology.
What a morally bankrupt viewpoint. People support extending health coverage to fellow citizens in need because they think it “the right thing” — and Samuelson objects. Heaven forbid we ever base political opinions on right and wrong!
What a fine job of missing the point Jim does! He excels at it! His performance in this regard is superlative across the board and no mere mortal can match him!
What’s so hilarious is that Jim simultaneously and stupidly proved Samuelson’s point, and in fact made himself a poster child for it (at least until Chris Gerrib shows up), while completely missing it.
What a morally bankrupt viewpoint.
Looks who’s talking, Mr. “Let’s hurt a lot of people in order to appear to help a few”. The viewpoint may be morally bankrupt, but it isn’t rationally bankrupt. That is a far better currency of trade.
People support extending health coverage to fellow citizens in need because they think it “the right thing” — and Samuelson objects.
I have to agree with McGehee and Rand here. Way to show Samuelson’s point. Even the CBO apparently believed that somewhere around a third to half of the currently uninsured would remain uninsured in 2016. So we passed a huge piece of legislation with many effects, imposing additional costs on most of the US, simply to extend insurance to perhaps 10% more people? It doesn’t matter who gets hurt, it is the “right thing” to do. When law is passed solely on moral grounds, then there will be no compromise and often no net benefit.
Heaven forbid we ever base political opinions on right and wrong!
There’s plenty of vile or weird groups who though they were right. The Nazis thought they were right. The slavers of the 19th century Southern US thought they were right. The creationists of today think they are right.
The thing you don’t understand is that a sense of right and wrong is not good enough. Usually that sense is going to be useless in a political situation, blinded either by self-interest or stupidity.
I try not to comment on pieces that are merely somebody’s opinion, so other than to note my invocation, I won’t comment.
Like the commerce clause, that can be extended to absolutely everything.
I get my self-esteem knowing I’m at least smart enough (unlike some people who post here) not to fall for the Cult of the State. It’s too bad politicians can’t get a feeling of self-worth defending liberty instead of (in the immortal phrase of Bastiat) “legalized plunder.”
Samuelson is more right than he knows — it’s getting visceral out there.
Don’t forget: Self-esteem guru Stuart Smalley is now in Congress.
“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it, I get to legally force my will on others! (For their own good, of course.)”
Titus hits on one of the common political myths: the assumption that the opposition think the world works the same way you think it works. Person A thinks Policy A will bring about X results, thinks Person B thinks it will bring about X results too.
So A thinks B wants a different set of results, that B doesn’t care about the people A seeks to benefit. Welfare opponents don’t care about the poor. Iraq War supporters don’t care about Iraqis. Free trade supporters don’t care about American workers. School lunch program opponents want to starve children (blast from the past, 1995 edition).
Political debate with A is impossible as long as A doesn’t even know what B believes. Garry Trudeau is a shining example. Last week he imagined the Tea Parties as a movement with no message. The message is loud and clear – Washington has escalated spending and borrowing to astronomical levels. It takes a lot of willful ignorance to be this dense. All he has to do is read the signs.
“Garry Trudeau is a shining example. Last week he imagined the Tea Parties as a movement with no message.”
I saw that “Doonesbury” about the Tea Party movement and thought: “WTF–?”
Trudeau is typical of a kind of Sixties’ influenced satirist who, in the Age of Obama, has become simply a Court Jester for the State.
Not only that, Alan, it’s that the values are mis-matched. When you believe that your values are the most imporant values in the world, then you give yourself the moral high-ground to replace the values of others with yours via law, indoctrination or by more physical means.
My kneejerk reaction is: EVERYBODY thinks their values are the most important. But then, I am thinking of “values” as synonymous with “ethics.” You may mean something else – “priorities,” maybe?
The totalitarian instinct is driven by the utopian belief in the perfectibility of government and society. My values say that only the sinless can be trusted with such an endeavor, and mortal humans ain’t sinless.
Yes, to themselves. Reasonable folk understand that last part. That’s the distinction I’m making.
You’re talking about subjective values, evidently. I’m talking about objective values (i.e. objective ethics) – something different.
Let me rephrase what I said: everybody thinks they have a pretty good understanding of what is objectively right and wrong. The lack of consensus over right and wrong spur many political divisions. (Lack of consensus over cause and effect are the other key factor.)
Totalitarianism is rooted in specific ethics. A lot of people who think they perfectly understand what’s morally perfect aren’t totalitarians, for one or two of the following reasons:
1. Their concept of morality rejects the notion that it is ethical to coerce other people’s beliefs.
2. They’re not utopians – they don’t trust that there are a great many people who likewise know what’s morally perfect, and thus do not trust any oligarchy that would micromanage the citizen’s ideology.