Local

Regular Reading

Insight and Inspiration

Tech

Personal Interest

Listening

Information

Artists

Resources

Powered by:

How to be the liberal version of Bill O'Reilly (Politics)

Friday, August 26, 2005 08:16

I love this:

But just as fascists instively know how to be assholes, many people instinctively know how to be kind and reasonable. So when you're arguing the obvious, appeal to people's empathetic instinct. For instance, conservative intellectuals will pull out all sorts of crazy arguments as to why rich people are inherently good and poor people deserve to starve, but you don't even have to argue against them. This is how you respond:

I don't have to argue with you. All good people instinctively know that it is wrong to be rich while other people starve. If you're arguing against that, it's because you're an asshole. There is something wrong with you. It doesn't matter what fancy words you use to support your position, because if you were a decent person you wouldn't even need to argue.

It does have a certain inflammatory charm, doesn't it? :)

Rich people
by Zan Lynx (2005-08-29 17:38)

It might be wrong to be rich while other people starve, but it is also wrong to force rich people to feed poor people.

If you think about it, it is the desire to become rich that is the surest way to convince people to create new wealth. Take away the ability to be rich and no one will ever bother.

The reverse
by Bitscape (2005-08-30 10:15)

If that's so, then wouldn't it also wrong to force poor people to feed the rich? This would be a much more relevant issue, considering that it happens far more often. Poor people are constantly forced to serve rich people, with the only alternative being starvation.

I would suggest that rather than forcing rich people to feed poor people, as you put it, we elimanate laws that prevent the poor from feeding themselves. Abandoned land that is "owned" by someone who has never set foot on it should legally be returned to those who would use it to grow crops to feed themselves. The same for abandoned urban housing.

Gentrification
by bouncing (2005-08-30 13:39)

There are societies with no meaningful wealth redistribution systems. Mexico, Brazil, and much of Latin America come to mind. Economists have long ago noted that extremely gentrified economies stagnate, and that's why the more successful economies, including ours, have a fair amount of wealth redistribution.

Areas with extreme wealth disparity also require a virtual police state to preserve the social order. The steeper the wealth pyramid, the less stable it is.

Just look at Canada and Mexico -- Canada has high taxes, Mexico low taxes. Canada has a welfare state, Mexico not. But, Canada is definitely a better business environment unless you're churning out vast amounts of crap -- which still requires some basic state intervention. Food for thought.