« The Good Friday Post | Main | The IPCC Report »
April 06, 2007
Markos Moulitsas Quotation
Yes, a quotation from Markos Moulitsas. Proprietor of Daily Kos, liberal kinda guy, proponent of all sorts of wonderful things like redistributive taxation and so on.
"No matter how much I care about progressive politics, at the end of the day, it's my family and their well-being that's going to come first."
Quite Markos, that's the way the rest of us feel too, why we're against many of the things you hold dear, like that aforementioned redistributive taxation. We'll do what we think is in the best interests of our families, you do what you think is in the best interest of yours and we'll also agree not to use each other's money to do so, eh?
I guess that's the end of progressive politics then.
April 6, 2007 in Web/Tech | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23056/17516386
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Markos Moulitsas Quotation:
» http://instapundit.com/archives2/003958.php from Instapundit.com (v.2)
SOME PERSPECTIVE FROM MARKOS that I agree with: "No matter how much I care about progressive politics, at the end of the day, it's my family and their well-being that's going to come first."... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 6, 2007 11:30:17 PM
» Is Moulitsas a Realist? from Good Will Hinton
Is Moulitsas a realist?
No matter how much I care about progressive politics, at the end of the day, it's my family and their well-being that's going to come first.
Tim Worstall has this to say:
Quite Markos, that's the way the rest of us feel too, w [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 9, 2007 4:08:09 AM
Comments
Ho ho!
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton | Apr 6, 2007 3:45:55 PM
Er, I thought you were in favour of a basic income? A basic income has to be funded be taxation, and so surely you are yourself in favour of redistributive taxation?
I've tried to raise this point a couple of times with you, Tim, so I would like an answer on this one :)
Tim adds: Redistribution qua redistribution, no, I'm not in favour of. Unlike, say, Polly Toynbee and Richard Layard who insist that inequality itself needs to be diminished (although they never quite say what level of it is acceptable).
However, I do agree that we need to have a safety net, a system whereby those through ill chance or inability cannot care for themselves are indeed provided with the necessities (note, necessities) of life.
A citizen's basic income is a less distortionary method of providing this than our current welfare state.
Posted by: sanbikinoraion | Apr 6, 2007 5:31:30 PM
Typically, the Tranzi masquerades as a cosmopolitan, but is only an amoral familist. Think Benan Sevan's aunt, and what a useful little notional money launderer she was. Think of Kofi Annan facilitating his son's tax fraud. Think of the lovely education package the UN provides for the children of its bureaucrats.
Martha Nussbaum thinks cosmopolitan and thinks of Mother Teresa. The reality is that the true cosmopolitans are the Mafia, MS-13, or - more admirably - the Foreign Legion.
Posted by: Tom Kratman | Apr 6, 2007 7:11:56 PM
Funny how progress always seems to come down to someone taking my money for something stupid.
If "Progressives" want money for something stupid: Why doesn't Al Gore sell 1 or 2 of his smaller houses and maybe a zinc mine and give the money for progressivity?
PS Good catch,
So if my family comes first why do I want to have my money absconded by essentially layabouts.
Posted by: Arthur anderson | Apr 6, 2007 11:25:33 PM
Actually I kinda like Larry Niven's idea for a safety net. Government run barracks that you can go sleep at in a safe environment, get nutritious porridge three times a day, take a hot shower, and receive job training. Basically you want someplace that when you are REALLY down and out looks great. But once you have recovered you don't want to be there.
Posted by: Dave T | Apr 6, 2007 11:45:15 PM
Always remind the Markos worshippers that The middle class voted strongly for Bush in 2004, and that Democrats cannot get a strong majority of any income bracket other than those making udner $30K a year.
Why do successful people overwhelmingly support Bush?
Posted by: James | Apr 7, 2007 12:21:01 AM
Hey Markos it's my family and their well-being. Was it in the best interests of your family when you said screw them! regarding the American contractors murdered in Iraq? What was in the best interests of the families of those men when they had to read your statements?
Best interests of your family? YOUR family? Try thinking of the families of victims whom you choose to insult, for a change, you simpering little coward.
Posted by: paul a'barge | Apr 7, 2007 2:29:29 AM
Markos just thinks he's progressive because he doesn't know what a leftist is.
Posted by: Miracle Max | Apr 7, 2007 4:03:29 AM
Socialism is something we little people are told to practice by our posh betters like Viscount Benn and Tony Blair. It's good for us, but not for them.
Posted by: pete | Apr 7, 2007 6:57:06 AM
There's an interesting article about Noam Chomsky too:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2912626.html
Maybe The Times should have a socialist rich list?
Posted by: Tim Almond | Apr 7, 2007 9:40:55 AM
Leftists think they are progressive simply because they are labelled "leftist". Little do they know that the left's identification with Islamism, anti-colonial ultra-nationalism and fascism, and misogyny in the Middle East puts them squarely in the reactionary camp. Their claim to progressivism is just form and style. Heck, they don't even agree on the common definition of "progress".
Posted by: Hamid | Apr 7, 2007 10:14:54 AM
Government run barracks
We had those in the UK until 1930, but we called them "workhouses".
There are many moral reasons why we switched from workhouses to welfare, but even the most rightwing free-market economist would agree that it's likely to give rise to greater utility if you give someone money and let them spend it as they choose rather than dedicating a bureaucracy to spending it on their behalf.
Posted by: Gdr | Apr 7, 2007 1:36:39 PM
"There are many moral reasons why we switched from workhouses to welfare,"
I'd be interested in reading what those are, cause I like the idea.
"but even the most rightwing free-market economist would agree that it's likely to give rise to greater utility if you give someone money and let them spend it as they choose rather than dedicating a bureaucracy to spending it on their behalf."
Greater utility for the person receiving the money? Probably. By their own definition - such as another bottle of booze or another bunch of lottery tickets. But that much freedom also encourages them to stay on the welfare teat forever, or at least as long as they can get away with it. And it's not all that hard for the bureaucrats to figure out where to spend the money in the workhouse scenario: shelter, food, job training. That's it. Nothing else. Not that difficult. And if the people who desperately needed the "safety net" want to be able to spend money, let them get their own.
Qwinn
Posted by: Qwinn | Apr 7, 2007 9:28:16 PM
It would be worth your while reading up on workhouses: workhouses.org.uk is a good reference with lots of primary sources. There are some well-known portrayals of the system in English literature that are worth reading, including Jack London's People of the Abyss, George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London.
The moral arguments for the end of the workhouse system are quite straightforward: the element of compulsion made workhouses into places of punishment for being poor; the segregation of men from women and children destroyed family life; the long manual labour and lack of freedom made it impossible for the inmates to search for paying work and so get themselves out of the workhouse; taking people away from houses and possessions made it much harder for them to regain these things later.
And the practical implementation of the system was ridden with disease, squalor, indifference, cruelty and corruption.
We couldn't go back to a workhouse system without derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights, as the system violated (at least) articles 4, 5, 8 and 12.
(I can hardly believe I'm actually seriously debating the morality of workhouses with someone. Please tell me you're just pulling my leg.)
Posted by: Gdr | Apr 8, 2007 1:26:44 PM
Read what Qwinn proposed: it's not actually the same as a workshouse, in that they offer education rather than work. They are particularly different if they don't make the education compulsory. Then they would be a perfectly good way of dealing with homelessness by offering the poor a free roof over their heads.
Monetheless, actually handing out money is always going to be utility maximising as a safety net, because bureaucracies act in their own interests, and cost money. By contrast, even people who get money for free have an incentive to spend it wisely when it's all the money they have. They'd be able to spend it to better effect than the bureaucracy, saving taxpayers money, and helping themselves more.
Finally, if you were going to spend £x on a tramp, what does it matter to you if he spends it on housing or alcohol? You still spend the money, but at least he gets what he wants the most.
Posted by: Marcin Tustin | Apr 8, 2007 11:06:21 PM
Apparently I can no longer type properly.
Posted by: Marcin Tustin | Apr 8, 2007 11:08:28 PM
Yes, I understand the concept: "Citizens Centres; the cleaner, brighter workhouses of the future". Nonetheless it seems to me that only someone who was utterly certain that he would never become an inmate (and who had no sympathy for the people who would) could ever dream of proposing such a thing.
Posted by: Gdr | Apr 9, 2007 12:50:39 PM
