The Incomplete Cynic

politicalprof:

So the blogger who (partially) inspired my post yesterday has responded. You can read his piece for yourself here. You, of course, will draw whatever conclusions you will. For my part, his claim that things like clean water, clean air and clean food are only “supposed” goods not necessarily worth making cross-generational commitments to ensure pretty much exposes the uselessness of libertarianism as an actual plan for social action, as opposed to a tool of social and political criticism.

Just fyi—

I’ve read this whole thread…starting with the post that inspired your initial response. After taking it all in, it’s pretty clear that, in this argument, you’re losing badly and know it. I can’t think of any other way to explain the blatant misdirection and dishonesty.

From your use of exceptions (infants and psychopaths) to disprove the rule (sound-minded adults) of the inviolability of self-ownership, to your quoting of the word “supposed” above (a word which doesn’t even appear in LA Liberty’s response), you refused on all counts to engage with his ideas.

You suggest that because he believes no one should be forced into cross-generational commitments, that he is against them in principle; that he believes that “commitment[s] beyond…one-to-one agreement” are unnecessary. You ignored the responses to your argument and decide instead to disparage him for something he didn’t even say.

Also, I can’t help but point out that shortly after saying that “a blanket statement ‘never’ is, well, silly,” you say that you’ve “never, ever heard a libertarian even vaguely hint at an” alternative to coerced cross-generational participation. An assertion that is both silly and shocking, since I, in the course of my varied careers in food service, ministry, graphic design, and web development, have encountered a number of specific and general alternatives; how is it that in the course of your study and teaching of Politics and Government you haven’t?

A woman I work with is really dedicated to the Occupy movement. She works some evenings and weekends so that she can be involved there during the week, and she talks about it effusively at the office. I hadn’t thought the movement, from what I’d seen and heard, was worth my attention, but she’s a nice lady. I decided to look into it. Turns out I was right in the first place…

Here’s what I found:

Statistics Fail: The first link on occupywallst.org today promised to explain how the Bush tax cuts “only benefit the richest 1% of Americans in any kind of significant way.” That was a big fat lie. 

It links to a lovely graph that show the average tax cut for the “richest 1%” compared to the “poorest 60%”. First, who in their right mind would consider the guy at the top of that “poorest 60%”, the one who makes more money than 59.9% of all Americans, “poor”? Second, the average savings for the 60% was about $500. That’s a lot of money to most of us. President Obama even wanted praise for securing a tax cut of just $400 for us last year. Third, in 2008 40% of wage-earners paid no federal income taxes. So 2/3 of the entries used to come up with the average savings for the bottom 60% were zeroes! Think that drove the number down a bit?

But those aren’t the real problem…significance is relative. $500 is significant to me, and I think it is to most of the people in the “poorest 60%”.

I’m sorry, what? Occupy Dallas is calling for a General Strike. After reading their manifesto (?), I started to think that these people have no idea what the world is like. And they definitely don’t know anything about what the world was. And whatever group of people got together to write this - with their extensive use of “whereas”, “consensus” and present participles - stopped going to English class after 8th grade.

Enjoy this smattering of phrases:

The Occupy movement represents those that feel disenfranchised from the current socioeconomic system because of policy passed by our political institutions and the actions of those in control of the unprecedented consolidation of wealth.

Translation: “We’re sensitive and you’re mean!”

Whereas by consensus we view that for the first time in American history, current generations will not be as prosperous as preceding generations. This denial of the American Dream is at the heart of Occupy Movement.

I have great confidence in your consensus opinion. I love the way you can stare in the face of great historical trends and not even care. “What? The prices of durable goods, clothing, and food have been falling steadily for 250 years? Well, it’s all over now! Head for the bunker!”

Whereas by consensus we view that the social system has become tilted against us by:

This is gonna be great…I can feel it…

1. Unfair treatment and discrimination against individuals based on Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Race, National Origin, Physical Ability or any other factor that minimizes any person’s individual worth

“Become tilted”? Can someone point out a time or place in history where people of different national origins, races, religions, and sexual orientations so freely participated in a society, both politically and economically? Can a group of people be so historically illiterate and presently unaware, yet still believe themselves to be forward-thinking? 

2. The commoditization of individual privacy

What does this even mean?

3. Profit driven news sources with individual agendas

Again, “become”? 

4. Narrow definitions of what constitutes a family

Back to #1, the definition of family is about as broad as it’s ever been. That was the end of that list, thankfully.

Jeopardizing the future of social security through investiture and privatization schemes

Um, I think the future of Social Security is a giant empty hole, slowing being filled in with the hopes and dreams of those of us who are paying for it, but will never receive it. Just sayin…

By reducing funding to our education system our future generations are provided a lesser education that previous generations received because of increased class size and reduced resources.

This, along with the complaint about high student loan debt, makes me think these people never figured out that there’s no such thing as a money tree. Look, college is expensive. It costs a lot of money to maintain those facilities, to keep hold of professors who could double their money if they went to work for pharmaceutical companies or hedge funds. It costs more money to maintain money-losing athletic programs (thanks Title IX), and even more to provide discounted tuition to every person in the state who manages to pull off a B average in high school. Now add in community colleges. Where’s the state supposed to get money for the bureaucratic monstrosity that makes up public K12 schooling? God only knows. The problem isn’t that we aren’t spending enough money, it’s that we have no restraint, and no direction. But I can see that the Occupy movement isn’t going to be any help in those areas.

The rest of the document is a whining rant about not getting things like paid sick and maternity leave, defined benefit pensions, and health insurance, and some vague statements about “unethical business practices”. I’ve decided I know all I need to about Occupy whatever. Now I’m going to peacefully occupy my living room.