KBD

Keith Devens .com

Monday, March 15, 2010 Flag waving
Cause she's a better fighter than you are, that's why. She's younger, she's stronger, and she'... – "Frankie Dunn" (Million Dollar Baby)
← jwz on Hula, Groupware, and the death of NetscapeEditCSS is a great Firefox extension →

Daily link icon Wednesday, February 16, 2005

OpinionJournal: Socialism's Last Redoubt

OpinionJournal: Socialism's Last Redoubt, "Why do Dems oppose Social Security reform? Because they're committed to government control":

In 1945 Clement Attlee led the British Labour Party to victory over Winston Churchill's Conservative Party. He then proceeded to socialize much of the British economy, for he believed that "the creation of a society based on social justice . . . could only be attained by bringing under public ownership and control the main factors in the economic system." Labour's goal was to get rid of the waste and irrationality that, in the socialist view, doomed market economies to failure.

Fast forward six decades, and you hear an Attlee echo--Sen. Hillary Clinton telling a California audience last summer that taxes must rise because "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

American socialist Noam Chomsky made the same argument concerning Social Security: that allowing people to invest in markets is a bad thing, for "putting people in charge of their own assets breaks down the solidarity that comes from doing something together, and diminishes the sense that people have responsibility for each other."

So the 2005 Social Security argument is an old and familiar one: government decisions versus individual ones, government control of assets versus individual ownership. In short, socialism versus individualism.

...

When you increase an individual's wealth, he becomes less dependent on government, and his attitude towards government changes. Socialists can't allow that, for it erodes their fundamental principle that social justice can only be achieved when important segments of the economy are under government control.

And that is why today's very liberal Democratic Party is so vehemently arguing against personal ownership of Social Security market accounts. The government's Social Security system is socialism's last redoubt, and must be preserved at all costs.

Democrats are only about "choice" in one area.

← jwz on Hula, Groupware, and the death of NetscapeEditCSS is a great Firefox extension →

Comments XML gif

Joe Grossberg (http://www.joegrossberg.com) wrote:

"Democrats are only about choice in one area."

Now that's just idiotic.

I'm no longer a reader of your blog.

If you care, this kind of ignorant oversimplication is why.

∴ Joe Grossberg | 16-Feb-2005 11:53am est | http://www.joegrossberg.com | #7014

Keith (http://keithdevens.com/) wrote:

Well, when it comes to education (vouchers), social security (private accounts, control over your own money, etc.), health care (Dems want government control over it all, Hillarycare, etc.), hiring (affirmative action, quotas), the economy (socialization and gov't control vs. free markets) and so on Democrats are always on the "anti-choice" side. Abortion seems to be the only issue where Democrats strongly argue for "choice". It seems I struck a nerve by pointing out the inconsistency.

Keith | 16-Feb-2005 12:01pm est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #7016

Joe Grossberg (http://www.joegrossberg.com) wrote:

You're right; that is an overreaction on my part.

I think that Republicans aren't in favor of lots of freedom either. As a small "l" libertarian, I think that we should be free to view porn, smoke pot or have gay sex in the privacy of our homes, if not in public. Many conservatives favor the government preventing consenting adults from doing so.

I mean, a constitutional amendment against gay marriage? That sounds a lot like restricting choice to me. (Yes, I am familiar with the silly argument that government inaction would force people to recognize gay marriage as legally valid. But the government also forces racists to recognize interracial marriages, and you don't hear anyone complaining about that.)

∴ Joe Grossberg | 16-Feb-2005 1:35pm est | http://www.joegrossberg.com | #7019

G wrote:

∴ G | 16-Feb-2005 9:18pm est | #7026

Keith (http://keithdevens.com/) wrote:

Joe, I keep trying to respond, but I'm having huge difficulties in getting my content and tone correct. Please check back later Smiley

Keith | 17-Feb-2005 1:14am est | http://keithdevens.com/ | #7031

Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.

Formatting Rules (No HTML):

  • **bold**, *italic*, _underlined_, --strikeout--
  • "text"="url" creates a link, and URLs are auto-highlighted
  • Blockquote: Like e-mail, begin paragraph with > (greater-than sign)
  • Lists: begin paragraph with *,-, or + (unordered), or # (ordered)
  • Code block: ?!code:language=perl|php|sql|javascript|etc.{\n}...{\n}?!/code

:
(will be your IP address if blank)
: (optional)
(Will not be shown on site)

: (optional)
:

March 2010
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031 



RSS feed RSS feed for Keith's Weblog
Atom feed Atom feed for Keith's Weblog
Weblog archive

Generated in about 0.118s.

(Used 8 db queries)