03.07.09
The term you can define is dismissed and the one you can’t is all the rage
Neo-neocon has a lengthy and important post that takes up a subject of my recent post in which I look at the question of what, underneath the mad policies he is enacting, is really at TCM’s core as a human being who believes he is qualified to steer Western civilization.
Read her piece. Her thoughts are a worthy contribution to this conversation, as are those of Powerline’s John Hindraker, whom she quotes. (She also includes a great YouTube of Leonard Cohen perfoming a most appropriate song.)
Her riff on the notion of fairness brings me back to something I’ve seen as central to the leftist worldview since I moved away from that side and over to conservatism. It’s why the first point in the Bent Notes Manifesto is “Freedom is the essential condition for human well-being. It is more important thatn fairness.”
I’m starting to see the importance of specificity when it comes to employing terms in arguments. It’s why the use of the word “greed” by leftists discussing economics makes my teeth grind. The most irritating term of all in this regard, though, is “fairness.”
Just what the hell is fairness? Let’s try to come up with something solid by starting with a basic example. If a mommy announces to a roomful of five-year-olds, “I just baked some cookies, everybody!” and they line up for these voluntarily dispensed gifts, she’s morally obligated to give each child the same number of cookies. I think we can all agree that she can’t give her own children three apiece and their guests two apiece.
The important thing to remember about this example is that it has nothing to do with market forces. She’s voluntarily dispensing these goods as gifts.
It tells us nothing about such situations as the disparity between the pay of an executive and a shop-floor employee of the same organization. They are both free agents who, of their own volition, chose to apply for and accept the positions they hold at an organization that is owned by shareholders expecting maximum return on their investment. “Fairness” doesn’t enter into the equation at all.
Liekwise, TCM’s notion that “wealthy” people (that is, households with incomes of $250,000 or more, most of which are far from affluent, but that’s a subject for another day) ought to pay a higher marginal rate than people making barely enough to pay any taxes at all in the name of “fairness” is an astoundingly skewed view of what’s equitable, as well as such considerations as where the government is actually going to get its revenue when you consider the effect on investment and productivity or who pays the overwhelming bulk of taxes already, which are also subjects for a separate discussion. In fact, one could make the case that it’s grossly unfair to have any income group paying a greater percentage of its income than any other.
The danger with “fairness” consuming the leftist psyche as it does is that leftists are driven to impose it on society no matter what the cost. This gets back to what Neo-neocon winds up concluding. They’re not sure they could define it exactly, but they are determined to see that it transcends all other considerations. In Stalin’s case, it means even if millions of Ukranians must starve. In Fidel Castro’s case, it means even if the streets of Cuba are occupied by ancient, poorly running cars. In TCM’s case, it means even if everyone has to work for the government until the day he or she drops dead.
So we’re smashing a civilization it took us five thousand years to build in the name of a phantom virtue. Meanwhile, the key condition for worthwhile human existence – freedom – is seeing its very clear definition obscured, mocked and buried.
Fred said,
March 7, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I’m new to your forum and so far I agree with much you are writing. But my brain is being driven mad trying to find what TCM stands for. Could you share that with me? Right now, not knowing what it stands for is irritating me like a small piece of chicken stuck in between my teeth.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Welcome to Bent Notes, Fred! Make yourself at home. How did you find your way here?
TCM stands for The Chicago Marxist. I’ll bet that relieves a lot of pressure, kind of like a resolute flossing.
Fred said,
March 7, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Thank you Bentnotesmanhisself. You had posted over at neoneocon’s blog and I clicked on your link to check it out. I like to see humor, subtlety of reasoning, good writing, and astute understanding of what the cultural Marxists have done and are doing to our civilization (what’s left of it). I’m also a former Marxist. I left that warren back in 1987, spending a decade of my life in a bookish, academic journey through the Frankfurt School thinkers and Liberation Theology. Long story. Don’t want to get into it now and clutter up your blog with it. But having been over on that side confers some decided advantages when going to war with them. No one hates apostates from the Left more than the collectivists themselves.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 8, 2009 at 12:04 am
Perhaps we’ll have the opportunity to compare notes on our conversions as your visits here unfold.
MR. Dings said,
March 8, 2009 at 12:57 am
Hey, we got some neo-con flirtation going on over here. Far be it from me to interfere. We’ve taxed the rich before and will give them a break again. Ride the seesaw.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 8, 2009 at 2:10 am
If you tax me ten percent or fifty percent or what the frick ever, tax everybody else at that rate, too.
MR. Dings said,
March 8, 2009 at 2:13 am
Somebody asked me why you defend the rich. I said I didn’t know, he might be one of them.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 8, 2009 at 2:27 am
The rich show the rest of us what’s possible.
archtop said,
March 8, 2009 at 3:40 am
I find it interesting that all of the discussion about taxes (everywhere) are about the fed. income tax rate and how the rates in the past were higher. The fed rates are a small part of the taxes people pay. Property taxes are 4 & 5 times what they used to be & state income tax, sales tax, many excise taxes (read your phone bill latley) gas taxes, its endless and all of these taxes are added into the cost of doing business with every product or service we buy,,,,, and the country keeps becoming less productive as a result.
MR. Dings said,
March 8, 2009 at 4:10 am
Yeah, the likes of Bernard Madhoff, Ken Lay, Nancy Temple (Andersen Legal Dept. Arthur Andreson is dead but rolling over in his grave) and David Duncan (Lead Partner for the Enron account), Charles Keating sure show me what’s possible, and those are just a few of a growing number of them that may become household names in the very near future. There’s more scandals every day than there were hit tunes coming out in the 60s. Reverse karma.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 8, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Mr. Dings, beyond the laws already on the books and the enforcement mechanisms for them, what do you propose for addressing these scandals?
MR. Dings said,
March 8, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Ask that of your Dow, bro, it’s why it’s tumbling. You keep blaming everything else. Their collective pants are caught in the down position. The uncertaintly about what deception lies uncovered is simply wrecking the daily average. More to come and, God help us, hopefully there’s something left somewhere when this all plays out, because they truly have left the door wide open for the socialism you so fear and detest.
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 8, 2009 at 8:27 pm
So even with all the laws and regulations we currently have on the books, including Sarbanes Oxley, we somehow still need more?
I don’t blame “everything else.” I just blame TCM for talking about hiking capital gains taxes, corporate income tax and personal income taxes on “the wealthy.” And subsidizing unprofitable “green” energy sources. And getting ready to socialize health care.
Investors aren’t pulling their money out of stocks because they think there are a gazillion Ken Lays about to get busted.
MR. Dings said,
March 8, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It is not that they Ken Lays of the world get busted, it’s that their high jinks now have the market in fear. If it is not fraud, it’s mismanagement, or it’s outright greed (paying no mind to the eventual consequences) that got the market where it is. The rich have been taxed before without huge global economic repercussions such as we have now. So investors are pulling their stocks out because of Obama? I’m not. Those in the know, in the fray, so to speak, are pulling out, because they know damn well the chickens are coming home to roost. What we have here is a big bubble bursting. How to prevent future ones? Not at all sure here, because everyone will be too busy dancing within it to stop it again when it comes. Our upteenth bubble breakdown…
Bentnotesmanhisself said,
March 8, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I’m afraid your lack of specifics utterly undermines the legitimacy of your position. “High jinks having the market in fear,” “mismanagement,” “chickens coming home to roost,” and your favorite, “greed.” This is not what drives investor decisions. People want to know that their money is going to grow. If companies they have bought ownership in are going to be taxed more, or put at a market disadvantage because the government is going to subsidize alternative products, or told what kinds of products to make regardless of demand, they are going to say, “Bad deal. I’m pulling out.”