Today's Pondering
I don't have a lot of time to post because I am trying to finish the book Crunchy Con so I can talk about it on "She's Right" Friday at 5:25 on Channel 17.
One of the things Dreher talks about is our consumerist culture and what is going to happen to our economy when we hit an oil crisis, which will happen, and we can't bring in our cheep goods from China anymore. He argues that we won't have the foundations in place to deal with a more local, less global, economy.
I started thinking that I hope we have our own land by then. That will at least make things easier. See, my dream is to get at least a few acres and grow our own food. And chickens. I long for the day when I can enjoy my very own free-range chicken eggs.
Continuing that thought, it got me thinking about sharing our extra food with neighbors in need, if we were in a depression. Or maybe even bartering.
If we did have big gardens that we tended and weeded and worked on every day for hours and chickens that we raised and fed and collected eggs from, would it be fair or just for the government to come and take our food and redistribute it to people the government felt were more in need of it?
I hope you are saying "no" right now.
Yet, it seems these days, most people think that is okay to do with people's money. They go out and work for it, but the government should be able to take it and redistribute it to people it deems are more in need of it.
Why is that?
25 comments:
Man, I can't stand it when conservatives rant about this one:
Your metaphor is flawed... It would be totally wrong for the gov't to take [tax] your small supply of eggs [money] so that your family could not eat [eat, and buy crap]... But, if you had tons of eggs, and you pile them into huge piles and let them rot because it gave you great pleasure to smell rotting eggs while other people died because they had no eggs [piles of rotting eggs= Mcmansions in Charlotte, slutty designer clothes, other wasteful, ostentatious spending; people dieing= people dieing] then by all means, the gov't ought to come and take some of your eggs and give them to people who need them...
I know a lot of people who don't have a lot of money... I don't know ANYONE who doesn't have enough money to eat BECAUSE of their taxes... Looking back at last year's 1040 rate tables, you don't pay much in taxes at all with an AGI of less than 30k (if you are any kind of family) or 20k (if you're an individual)... While I can certainly attest to the fact that raising a family on less than 30k is not exactly fun, it certainly ain't as bad as it is for those who recieve welfare, food stamps, etc... I know a lot of those folks, and they have it way rough...
I'm not the greatest fan of our system of taxation, our system of budgeting and spending, or even our system of government supported social services... But thinking that we can just quit providing help for these folks and that our communities will step in and fill the void is lunacy... This isn't the 1700's, and we can't go back... If we could go back to living in small communities supported largely by subsistance agriculture, I'd be the first in line (largely because I wouldn't have to change much of what I'm doing now)... But we can't... Our population is too large, we are dependant on industrialized agriculture to provide food in the quantities necessary to support our population... It just won't work... People would suffer needlessly, starve, go without health care, education, and die young... All in a nation that could provide for them it just chose not to because it was too greedy... That's cold, cold thinking...
Two things... your post echoed thoughts I sometimes have... I call them 'when the shit all goes down and hits the fan' thoughts. Our retarded economic policies in this country make me worry about it. And one thing I think is that in Vermont, if that happens. we will be in better shape than other areas of the country because I think a lot of people in small towns will pull together and 'share the eggs' as you implied.
You asked 'most people think that is okay to do with people's money. They go out and work for it, but the government should be able to take it and redistribute it to people it deems are more in need of it. Why is that?'
Well, that's simple. Some of us (and I don't think its 'most') have a deeply held conviction that we are all in this together, and have a sense of the 'common good', in that when all people have better lives, we have a better society, and those who are able to help, should. We have an obligation as humans to see to that. That's the biggest difference between liberals and cons, as I see it.
Now, I don't believe that just because you're born in America, you're somehow entitled to a good life. But that's another discussion all together.
In talking about having your own land, farming and helping our neighbors in need, you're talking about what we were in the past. Many folks (my grandparents included) tended their own food because they were poor. My wife's grandfather was overseer of the poor for much of his life. It was in some ways a better, more human way to live.
But your analogy is flawed. It discounts the fact that our society has moved far away from the community-first nature it used to be, to a me-first culture! To be sure, there are some fantastically rich people out there who give much of their money to help others (Bill and Linda Gates, for example), but there are far more of the really rich who don't want to give a penny to help others. They aren't particularly interested in their community. And they got the money the have by exploiting others.
You're right, it shouldn't be the government coming in and taking your food and redistributing it to the people who need it - it should be we, the people, who choose to do it because it is the right thing to do.
But at this point...many of us don't.
Mule
One mo' thing... many people who have lots of money don't 'work for it.' That's why I get so pissed off with the Repubs and their braindead tax policies that favor investment income over earned (through labor) income. And I'm not saying that there isn't some skill in being a smart investor, and I'm not implying that none of them didn't work hard to get where they did with sweat and blood. But many of them didn't.
Comrade Lenin would be proud of some of the commenter here. Let’s kill the Kulaks. Long live Chairman Sanders. The politics of envy has really taken hold in the Green Mountains.
"It would be totally wrong for the gov't to take [tax] your small supply of eggs [money] so that your family could not eat [eat, and buy crap]..."
Who decides what is crap and what is not crap? Are you the conspicuous consumption police? I don't know about anybody else here, but I have the freedom to buy whatever the hell kind of "crap" I want. You can pry the crap and my right to buy it from my cold dead hands (in the words of Bob the Optimizer).
"While I can certainly attest to the fact that raising a family on less than 30k is not exactly fun, it certainly ain't as bad as it is for those who recieve welfare, food stamps, etc... I know a lot of those folks, and they have it way rough..."
Well then those people can take out a student loan, go to community college or trade school, get an education, and get off their fat duffs and work for a living like the rest of us. I did it. It sucked, but not as much as a life of freeloading and scrimping. Getting off welfare and food stamps is hard work, but isn't it worth it?
If people who can better themselves do so, it frees up money for people who ACTUALLY need it (people with disabilities, the elderly, children, etc). And I don't mind helping them out.
As for the sharing eggs thing, I think it's a good idea. I think people want to share. I do. Eggs and money and lots of other things to help my fellow human beings. But I don't want my government or anyone else dictating where my help should go. This is a recipe for corruption.
Oh man, so many things I want to say, but I have to go lie down. I think I am coming down with the flu. I will respond to comments later or tomorrow. Thanks for commenting, though.
And J.D., I love that you are not too PC to use the word "retarded."
Hey, Tirade! I am glad I saw your comment before I got this to post. You are so right, as usual. And way to go quoting Bob the Optimizer! You rock, girl!
Ok... So I use "crap" sarcastically... By "crap," I mean "stuff," essential and non-essential... I didn't mean to poke you in the self-rightious-consumer-of-garbage-button...
As far as the rest goes, I spent about a year and a half as a caseworker for one of the social services programs that you mention (not in Vermont... This was in the little period where I decided that I had only ever lived in Vermont and had to leave, then realized that the rest of the country sucks beans and moved right the hell back) And I can garauntee you that there ain't many people recieving welfare who could jump up and go to college, or get a job for that matter... Certainly there was a few, but not fricking many... That was a lot of tough folks. Additionally, a lot of these folks DO (as you did) go on to get off welfare and into the workforce (that was my job, to help them identify what they needed and where there was opportunities for the taking)...
As far as I'm concerned, we are a rich enough nation to support the few (and they are really few) cheating freeloaders who ride the system, while we do a good job of supporting those who need our support...
We all wish our tax dollars were spent a bit differently than they are, but that's the cost of living in a democracy...
BTW: Where is the corruption you point to? Who is it that is being helped right now that you don't want to help?
I don't understand you all conservatives on this issue... You yell loud about generalities, then when it comes to specifics, you get all squirmy... Where is the problem? What programs would you cut? What elegibility requirements would you change? Who would that affect? Don't give me metaphors about eggs here....
Charity,
Have you been eavesdropping on our dinner conversations over here in NH? This post could have been uttered by either myself or my dh -esp. the chicken part.
I think that people helping people could really work - esp. in NH and VT. Perhaps not so much in the larger cities. Just in my small circle alone, those with gardens always share the surplus with those in need.
Do you freecycle? Would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
I think a couple of you miss the point, it is not that conservatives do not think we should take care of people; they think that the government should not (1) be the agency in control of distributing those services and (2) compel people through taxation to support the programs that it (the government) deems necessary.
The fact is, we are removed from our communities. A lot of people would rather write that tax check than have to face the fact that there are people in need in their own communities. The government programs are a barricade that keeps us from caring about our neighbors, not an expression of a compassionate society.
The question was not whether or not we should give to our neighbors; it was whether or not it is right for the government to take what is ours and determine who needs it more. It is not right.
There seems to be consensus that if someone has too much they should have to share it, but who determines what is too much?
If we decide as a society that we should take care of people, then we should take care of people. I think it is rather cynical to think that if there was no government safety net that people would not step up. What happened before there were government programs? Did people do nothing?
People say that conservatives don't care about the poor because they don't like the idea of government as caretaker, but I think it is the liberals who don't think very highly of their fellow man to say that we won't do it without government force.
NYPaleocon - I read a little about distributism on some of the links you had a while back. It sounded to me too much like communism. I mean, the land was privately owned, but the government would limit how much one can own.
I tend to think that the government should not force people to do what is right. I think that people are wholly capable of starting their own movements and bringing our society to a higher standard.
Perhaps I am naive.
Susan,
I definitely think that in rural areas it is more practical. I am not sure how it would look in the urban areas, but I am not convinced that it would not work. Obviously, it would not look the same. I think it is more difficult to be poor in urban areas because you are certainly not able to grow your own food.
I am on the freecycle group here. I just started. I think it is a great idea. It allows people to get rid of stuff in a responsible way and people who need stuff to get stuff they need without having to pay for it. It's great for a family like ours that doesn't like to buy stuff new.
If you look at the intro on my blog, it says 'not for the ultra-PC or hypersensitive'..... Believe me, I have a lot of issues with many of my buddies on the left in that regard...
With all due respect, Charity, yes, I do think you're being a bit naive. Given the opportunity to help others, many will, even when they don't have much themselves. Many more won't. By your logic, don't you think that people would have already done this to an extent (please don't tell me that they don't because of the social welfare programs already in place)? It's like the poster on here a few days ago that mentioned the small town thing in regards to healthcare. Is that small community going to help me out when I have a 10K medical bill from a car accident? ANd, no, putting money in a can at the local gas station with my picture on it is not what I'm talking about.
And to tirade25.. your attitude personifies, more than any other thing I've read on here, why our country is so f-ed up. This whole, "I'm an American, I can do whatever the hell I want and the hell with everyone else.' mindset is akin to how a 3 or 4 year old thinks. You're completely oblivious to what your actions mean on the big picture. And, no, I'm not proposing we legislate away your right to buy as much crap as you want to fill whatever void it is in your life that needs filling, but, man, what a selfish turd-like way of living in the world. How do you sleep, man?
Well, first of all, I don't see Government as some "Force" that determines who is needy and who is not... Government and community are one and the same... I'm a member of my local government in several (minor) capacities, the people who make up my government at the local and state levels are the same people who I work with, who I drink with, who I argue with, and who I call to pester when I don't like the way things are going. So my first point would be that if you (or anyone else) doesn't feel that their government is an extention of their community, just try harder... Here in Vermont, we have one of the most accessible governments anywhere... I mean hell, our highest representatives have listed phone numbers, and they answer their phones...
Now, as to the cynicism... Yeah, it's a bit cynical to think that folks won't pitch in to help their neighbors, but I think it's realistic... Looking at the CIA world factbook (just because it's the easiest reference for this sort of thing), at a quick glance it seems that the nations with the lowest rates of poverty, the most availible health care, lowest rates of infant mortality, and best educations are those with the most extensive systems of social services...
You bring up the "before there were government programs" bit... And here we are... Before there were government programs we had high rates of poverty (looking at the years between 1900 when the modern poverty line was adopted and the 1940's when we got the New Deal), we had short life expectancy (From the 1700's on to now), high rates of malnutrition (hard to track in the 17 and 1800's but they tie it to instances of specific diseases that resulted from lack of food in general or lack of certain foods necessary to fend off those diseases)... You could claim that all of the advances we have made are due to better technology, but that doesn't play out when you look at other countries that have access to the technology but don't have our social services systems...
That's just the beginning, but I have to get back to work... This has already been too long a lunch break...
"Government and community are one and the same"
I don't buy that. At a minimum, you are advocating for state control over such issues because there is no way that you can say the federal government is an extension of our communities.
One more note, as far as infant mortality rates...in many European countries, newborns are categorized as fetuses, not infants. So, it's a comparison of apples to oranges. At least that's what I have read.
Okay, I have to lie down.
I can't believe a bunch of Vermonters would say that... For christ sake... I live in a town of about 650 people... I'm just a young'un and in the past few years I've been on the water board, the school board, I've been a lister, and have run (and lost) for several other spots... Everyone in my immediate neighborhood serves or has served in our local government in some capacity... As far as state government goes, I usually go to the bar on thursday nights and nine times out of ten I run into my local state rep (a republican) there... If I don't see him there I can give him a call pretty easily... As far as DC goes, we only have three representatives, and while I don't know crap about Welch, the other two are listed in the damn phone book... I've talked to both of our senators about everything under the sun, and usually it's as easy as calling up and saying "can I talk to Bernie," and if he isn't there "can you have him give me a call, here's when I'll be around."
I don't know how anyone in Vermont can say that government is not a part of their community... I mean jeez... You all just astound me...
I suppose that if I really viewed the concept of
"government" with the fear and loathing that you conservatives do (unless that government happens to be invading other countries or passing flag burning amendments, in which case y'all seem to be thrilled), then I might be terrified of food stamps as well... But hell, I'm part of the government... How can it be that bad if its made up of my neighbors and the guys at the bar...
As far as infant mortality #'s go, I re-checked the CIA world factbook and they use a standard definition for all countries:
"This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country."
I don't know where you got the bit about feti (is that the plural of fetus?)... I couldn't find any reference to that anywhere...
And also... (You can tell I'm a bit worked up, it's 'cause I just opened a keg of my latest attempt at copying a great Quebec beer called Maudite, and while it's not a great clone, it's still pretty damn drinkable)... What do you mean by saying that this has "degenerated into a mindless argument over issues?"... What the hell is there besides "issues?" And how is discussing the role of government in society "mindless?"... If you want to have a discussion where we all agree and there is no "argument," you certainly aren't going to find it on a political blog. (which, by the way, is subtitled: "A look at the ISSUES of the day....")
Lamoillistan, sorry I missed this opportunity last night.
First, I think fear of the government is warranted. I mean, they can knock on my door right now and drag away my chldren. Um, yeah, I'm afraid of it getting too powerful. I don't live in fear, but when talking about policy, I favor less power over more. (And I was opposed to the flag burning amendment, BTW.)
Vermont has one Representative out of 435. Tell me again how the federal government is our community. And, Bernie returns all calls is a myth. I contacted him with no response and so have others. Besides what I have to say would make not one iota of difference to him, I would be willing to bet.
So are you telling me that the policies of No Child Left Behind had in mind our rural schools in Vermont? No, it was a cookie-cutter solution based on failing inner-city schools.
That is just one example of why I favor less federal power and more local.
You would be surprised how "liberal" I am when it comes to local politics. There are local policies that I think are important for our communities that I would never favor on a federal, or even state, level. When the decision is made locally, it is our community and has the best interest of our community in mind. And the decision makers have to look people in the eye. You lose that as you go ut to the state and federal levels.
This will be short because I have to be back to work, then I have a water board meeting tonight, so I probably won't add more till tommorow... So, first point only:
Your neighbor could break into your house right now and kill you and your family... Those kinds of things have been known to happen... Does that mean you live in fear of your neighbors? A tree can fall and crush you... Do you live in fear of trees?
The VTDCF statistics page is not working right now, but as I recall, there's not an awful lot of kids in DCF custody in VT at all, and most of them were transferred to DCF custody with good reason... Additionally, they can't (as I recall from my mandated reporter trainings) take your kids without a hearing unless danger is imminent (like the cops come to your house and you are standing over your kid with a knife)...
All I'm saying is that that's a pretty lousy reason to be afraid of your government... I'd be willing to bet that there's a dozen things in and around your house that have a greater chance of doing serious and irreperable harm to you and your family than DCF that you haven't given the slightest bit of thought to...
And I never said that "bernie returns all calls." All I have to work with there is my own experiences and I've never had to wait more than 48 hours to hear from Bernie himself if I want to talk to him, which I have probably half-a-dozen times, and he doesn't know me from a hole in the ground... I've never donated money to him, never volunteered for him, nothing like it....
More tomorrow...
"And, no, I'm not proposing we legislate away your right to buy as much crap as you want."
Good, That was my only contention. I was being facetious when I phrased my comments the way that I did. I was trying to make a statement about my view of the role of government. Do I think that globalization and free trade are the best things ever? No. A lot of people get screwed so that people here can buy the cheap crap they 'need.' That sucks and I want the system to change (stricter regulations for corporations, giving countries the choice to close their economies to foreign investment if they wish, etc). What I don't want is my government telling me what I can and can't do with the money that I earn. Its that simple.
"You're completely oblivious to what your actions mean on the big picture."
No, I'm not. I don't personally fulfill voids in my life by buying crap. I recycle, support local and organic farmers, share, buy used. I don't have a car, I don't dress stylishly. I'm a vegetarian too. I give one third of my meager income to the government to pay for all the programs which help people (deserving and undeserving alike). So no, I'm not oblivious to what my actions mean for the big picture. And I sleep very well thank you.
Fascinating conversation,
Here are the fundamentals as I see them: The same corporations that own the media and the (federal) government, the ones that produce the 'crap' out of the oil that we are now beginning to run out of and tell us we need to keep buying it and that our identity is the sum of our material possessions (Just like a corporation) have conditioned us through media to talk about conservative, socialist, democrat,libertarian, republican, communist,red, blue, right, left, pro-life, pro-choice, feminist, politically correct, and a bunch of other labels that serve only to divide us when the time for unity is now(if it hasn't already passed)
Whew, How's that for a long sentence.
The only place we can have these civic discussions are forums that are not owned by the corporations like public access television and the internet, and both of these forums are under constant attack: FreePress.net
As a young person, I'm scared shitless by the power that the corporations have over our thought and their short-sighted motives, in VT we are small enough and community oriented enough that our governments still work for the people. But because most of us still get our information through a corporate filter it's hard for our votes to really reflect the golden rule that we ALL try to follow: "treat others as you'd want to be treated."
Instead we are forced to work 60/hrs a week so that some asshole doesn't have to work 30 and we think to ourselves that maybe if we keep it up for long enough that maybe just maybe we can become that asshole. I for one don't want to be that asshole.
the corporate/government/media oligarchy can't abide by the golden rule because their responsibility is only to their stockholders/campaign financers/consumers not to their fellow citizens. They bought the political system so they wouldn't have to follow this most basic of beliefs reflected in every single religion.
Fundamental change will come. The only question is how prepared for it we will be? Vermont is better off then most we have great soil and and well designed cities unfortunately elsewhere in America more than 50% of the people live in the oil powered suburbs.
What will happen when those people figure out that they've been used and exploited by their beloved federal government/multi-national corporations?
Some reading:
American Conservative Magazine article on VT Secession
Rolling Stone article on The Long Emergency
What's Wrong With Corporations?
Bill Moyers' Speech to the National Conference for Media Reform"Our democracy is in danger of being paralyzed"
Second Vermont Republic For those of us who only see hope in enacting change from the bottom up, those of us who still have faith in local government.
Oh and Clear Channel just got bought out by a private investment group for 19,000,000,000 Dollars.
This is VERY bad for democracy, at least with Clear Channel on the stock market they were kind of owned by the public.
Ivan, thanks for commenting. That was a lot to digest. You are totally right about the labels being used to divide us. So many of the Washington politicians are on the corporate payroll and fighting for the same side. Sometimes it seems like they make up the partisan bickering to keep the American people divided.
Man, I am starting to sound like a fringe, third-party loony!
I think you could argue that until we have real campaign finance reform or media reform every one of them is on the corporate payroll fighting only to stay on the corporate payroll.
I don't know if you're loony yet, it's been a process really but you're getting there, I've been watching you get more and more radical for like 3 years now, you used to be less interesting then Kurt Wright and now you have one of the most thoughtful VT blogs. You'll be a socialist in no time... just kidding.
Check out these Loony movies:
The End Of Suburbia:This is a classic came out a while back just recently got uploaded to YouTube.
Freedom To Fascism: kind of a sensational title but the director is a hollywood producer so that's to be expected. This documentary can kind of drag but it shows how the bankers took over the government by privatizing the federal reserve in 1913 and that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitional.
oh and by radical I mean real. Reality is radical because these times are unreal.
I'm glad someone brought up the issue of big corporations and their allegiances with government.
Personally, I fear big government, but I also fear big business.
This mistrust of big business is always in the back of my mind, especially when healthcare and healthcare "reform" are discussed. (it's an aside, but I believe the real problems in healthcare are the first the insurance companies and second the pharmaceutical ones).
Great discussion, BTW.
Post a Comment