Capitalists say Socialism is doomed due to lack of motivation and corruption. Socialists say Capitalism is doomed due to greed. Libertarianism says government is mostly unnecessary and only serves to control (granted I'm mixing economic and political systems but bear with me).
There seems to be evidence that all of them are right to some degree. But, if we must have social structure to maintain any semblance of modern civilization, where do the limits begin and end? I have the right to eat, throw away, etc. that which I own and is on my property. What if my discarded food attracts pestilence or carrion hunters that endangers my neighbors on their property? Mainly, however, what is the threshold of this scenario. If my neighbor's practices endanger my or my families health, then this shouldn't be allowed. But who, by agreement, will see it isn't allowed if my neighbor is bigger, meaner, or a better shot than me? What if it's just a major but not life-threatening problem? What if it's just an inconvenient annoyance?
I personally have a very soft spot in my heart for the libertarian philosophy as an ideal. But the practicality of it breaks down very quickly in the real world unless one is willing to accept a "survival-of-the-fittest, let's-all-go-running-back-to-the 'good old days' of-pre-civilization" lifestyle.
Unless we are willing to say, "sorry, you elected to waive any healthcare expenses, you'll just have to lay there and die," then we have no choice but to assume the expenses of the poor (be it in money or judgement). And it's obvious that emergency room care for an undiagnosed and untreated illness is the most expensive form of healthcare and, economically, the most inefficient.
There is a cynicism within capitalist and libertarian rhetoric I can't accept, and a naïve and idealistic kernel of thought within socialist rhetoric I find equally unpleasant.
So get together and come up with a solution, then let me know.
Going back to my underpaid state job as we speak.
ED
-----Original Message-----
From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher J Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Taxes and Ironies
Joe,
Ironies abound. What you call a "forcible extraction" of money from the taxpayer's pocket is only the tyranny of the majority in a representative democracy, which goes to show once again, that a libertarian with courage is still a minority in this country, as is a socialist. My man in the senate is Bernie Sanders. He's a man; he's got courage; he rarely wins.
You're right about the fundamental nature of our difference, but I get to go home with my paycheck knowing that I don't in principle despise the very system which made it possible. I may have mentioned before that I know of three people who accept the label "Libertarian" and all three pick up a state check every month. In other words they profit from the very system they claim they would like to see torn down. That, to my mind, is called cynicism. Something like Jefferson saying "slavery is a great evil," but meanwhile refusing to free his own slaves because they give such great service. You'll no doubt claim that you're only being paid a market value for services rendered. I have no problem with that argument, but then I'm a socialist. The problem with that argument from your own perspective being that the folks paying you are not customers paying "voluntarily," but the very taxed you worry so much about who are subsidizing an institution that could not exist without the subsidy.
Chris
Christopher Stuart
UC Foundation Associate Professor
English Department
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
* UTCSTAFF home page: http://raven.utc.edu/archives/utcstaff.html *
* unsubscribe: mailto:[log in to unmask] *
* subscribe: mailto:[log in to unmask] *
* UTCSTAFF home page: http://raven.utc.edu/archives/utcstaff.html *
* unsubscribe: mailto:[log in to unmask] *
* subscribe: mailto:[log in to unmask] *
|
