|
February 28, 2009
Tea for tyranny?
While I'm not about to go to any demonstrations (especially when it's in the teens), I think the Tea Party movement (that Glenn Reynolds covers in a number of posts) provides a much-needed reminder of two things: While high taxes alone might not constitute tyranny, when the ruling classes behave as if they are exempt from the rules they impose on others, that is tyranny of the classical variety. Ditto the idea that it's fine for the ruling classes to have guns, but not the ordinary people. The damned government ruling class people should take the Tea Party movement as an early warning sign. Americans have a long history of not tolerating tyranny. Trouble can start over this stuff. Speaking of early warning signs, I enjoyed this one from Ed Driscoll that Glenn linked earlier: Only because the sanctimonious left is so fond of accusing people of being selfish, I thought I'd change it a little, to make it, you know, more altruistic. Reminds me of my favorite slogan from the 90s.... DEAR GOD, PLEASE DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT HELP ME ANYMORE. posted by Eric on 02.28.09 at 11:52 AM
Comments
"Please don't let the government help me any more". Eric, they have their hearts in the right place...in our hands and pumping for tax dollars. Up to us to let them die, or not. Anonymous · February 28, 2009 07:50 PM But her mortgage, if it's headed toward default, may very well be my problem. Perhaps it should not have become so, but that was then and this is now. We find ourselves on a precipice of our own making, but a precipice nonetheless. And it may well be that her bad mortgage (multiplied by hundreds of thousands and more) will bring down my bank, your bank, your employer, your IRA, etc. Perhaps this isn't the exact right moment to take up questions of moral hazard and just desserts. HMI · February 28, 2009 10:38 PM her bad mortgage (multiplied by hundreds of thousands and more) will bring down my bank, your bank, your employer, your IRA And whose fault is that? Mine??? I never approved of the lowering of standards. As I tried to explain in previous posts, banks are supposed to protect themselves by not making bad loans. They used to require good credit and 20% down. The former makes defaults unlikely, and the latter offers insurance that the bank has a marketable security even in the event of default. That was all thrown out the window, thanks to the government lowering standards: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/09/post_883.html So why should ordinary taxpayers be stuck holding the bag? Perhaps (as you say) "this isn't the exact right moment to take up questions of moral hazard and just desserts," but I wrote about it in September too. Or wasn't that the right moment either? Are there "right moments" on blogs? Eric Scheie · February 28, 2009 11:40 PM This crisis was not exactly unforeseen; I spent most of a decade reading the Economist with their wonderfully prescient predictions of what would likely happen and why. I will agree 100% that you did well to point out the moral hazard issues. And it still remains the case that we are all now victims of and stuck with the aftermath of actions that we disapproved both then and now. "Too big to fail" is not just a catch phrase. If Citibank and BA truly go down the tubes, most of us will be sucked along in their wake. Maybe the dam operator should have used more concrete in the foundations, as many of us said all along; but now the flood waters are cresting. Shall we just send out a note to abandon the town and "sauve qui peut"? HMI · March 1, 2009 10:14 AM Ok, i just have to defend the girl in the picture since it is all over the blogs and there have been some unkind remarks. That "lady" is my 18 year old, and she made the sign herself..no one told her what she should say. She remembers the crappy little condo that she spent the first 10 years of her life growing up in ( no complaints from her) it was a 50k property that was our first home while my husband went to college. She remembers the house we rented when we moved to Ca, it was nicer than our first property but we certainly could not afford to buy a home in CA. 2 years ago we bought our 2nd home, and yes it's nice and we worked hard and sacrificed for years to get to this point. That lovely girl who is not selfish in the least understands the process of saving and making tough choices for the future she wants for herself. She is the girl when there is a group assignment in class that ends up staying up all night because most of the other kids failed to do their part or were too busy or some circumstance came up and they could not fulfill their obligation....so i'd say she gets the concept. She understands that these huge expenditures by our government will be up to the producers of her generation to pay off, and she is rightly pissed off about it. So we took our kids out of school for the day and drove 3 hours so that we could all "vent" our frustrations. BTW you should see my 10 yr olds sign.....she gets it too. Kristine · March 1, 2009 10:01 PM Kristine, I don't really want to try to speak for Eric, but he didn't say that your daughter was being selfish -- just that "the sanctimonious left is so fond of accusing people of being selfish," and that he quite liked your daughter's sign. Me, too, incidentally. You don't say if your daughter is being bothered by the "unkind" words that you're seeing on blogs or not, but it definitely sounds like you are. Hopefully, some kind ones will take some of the sting out of the unkind ones: I'm unfortunately a bit too far from any of these protest so far to join any of them. I greatly appreciate every one of you who are there, just because you're doing something I can't. Thank you, and the rest of your family, for your efforts. Robin S · March 1, 2009 10:34 PM My comment was really for the anonymous poster and for the few blog posters who called her selfish,which really were not that many. I didn't mean to come off as super sensitive! I'm just a momma bear i suppose. I actually had to switch signs with her because her other sign was attracting more attention and i got cornered by MANY people over it and she doesn't have conservative claws yet (she's learning though). Kristine · March 2, 2009 10:12 AM Only because the sanctimonious left is so fond of accusing people of being selfish, I thought I'd change it a little, to make it, you know, more altruistic. And that moral concession, in a nutshell, is *why* we are galloping towards tyranny. That process will not and cannot be halted until enough people have the moral fortitude to look at the outstretched hand of need, and say "No -- my freedom to choose is MORALLY antecedent to your need." Altruism is NOT about benevolence or generosity -- it is about the *unchosen obligation*, or duty thereof. There are no unchosen obligations -- no moral duties -- under liberty. That is the only moral context within which a proper, non-altrustic generosity can find expression -- charity done in *recognition* of every individual's right to help or not. As Billy Beck recently put it: When people are forced to live each others' follies, what happens is that they just don't care. I've said it before: "I don't care. This government has priced me right out of that market." Pay close attention: what you're seeing is a stake driven right through the heart of one of the most beautiful attributes of the American character: a people who were always among the kindest and most generous on earth, until their government began teaching them that "we're all in this together," and enforcing it. Do you think this culture is getting "coarse", now? You ain't seen nothin' yet. Seerak · March 3, 2009 02:30 PM Kristine: your daughter owes nobody an apology. I hope she understand that those who think she does, are the morally bankrupt ones. Seerak · March 3, 2009 02:44 PM I didn't think I was really making much of a moral concession so much I was making a bit of a tongue-in-cheek joke! However, if my offhanded remark is "why we are galloping towards tyranny" then I really should apologize. So, to the entire country, let me say I'm sorry for all the tyranny! I really didn't mean any harm! Eric Scheie · March 3, 2009 03:36 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
March 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2009
February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Latest entry in the national routine
Browsing in the marketplace of ideas Obamanomics in a nutshell The turtle and the cat The ongoing war on rot Climate Action Does zero intolerance lead to zero tolerance? Banning Mercury What's scientific about consensus? Tea for tyranny?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
(Laughs out loud.)
It's really the same thing, after all. My liberty to succeed is equal to your liberty to fail.
.