I posted on Facebook some thoughts about liberal views and thought I might expand here. I recently posed a question to several liberals. "Do you believe in equality?" The answers were universally "yes." But, they stopped appreciating me when I asked how they could support "progressivism."
That is, a progressive tax rate. Why should different people have a different tax rate on their incomes? Does a more wealthy person breathe more air than a less wealthy person? Does he exert more force on a sidewalk that the city must provide? Does he require more protection from the military? If you believe in equality, should you not lobby for EQUAL tax rates?
As it is, the top 1-3 percent pay more in taxes than the remaining 97 percent. Does not sound very equal to me.
As I thought about this (I am not an economist), I also wondered what the impact of government taking our money is. When a business gets a dollar it invests it (or returns it to shareholders who in turn invest it). The government gives us projects like Murtha's private (but publicly-funded) airport, the bridge to nowhere and the F-35 (which even the military did not want). How do you spell are we still building submarines in Groton?
Equality? The greatest Ponzi Scheme in the world (move over, Bernie Madoff; you are a piker) is Social Security. Now, we come to "means testing." First the government takes my money, spends it Ponzi fashion and then tell me I don't "need" as much as someone else. Wow. That's the equivalent of my putting money in the bank and having the bank tell me I don't need it as much as someone else, so they are giving it to another person. Where's the "trust" in Social Security Trust????
We should all be held accountable for our beliefs and liberals constantly espouse "equality," but what they really mean is "to each according to his needs...." Didn't we discover that was wrong 20 years ago? If they mean "equality of opportunity" I can agree. If they mean "equality of outcome" see abov
What a simplistic, ideological post. "Equality" doesn't (and never has) meant "equal." In fact, the political philosophical debate over what "equality" means is a fascinating and complex one. Take a look at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Rosa Parks or James Meredith would agree with this academic hogwash.
DeleteThank you PG... you beat me to it! I was just about to post a long winded response on the same topic (equality vs equal and the loaded language), but then you linked to something that makes my exact point!
ReplyDelete(that is to say makes the point much better than I could)
ReplyDeleteI have no difference with the Stanford article. The Aristotelian citation, "Aristotle formulated in reference to Plato: 'treat like cases as like'” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, V.3. 1131a10-b15; Politics, III.9.1280 a8-15, III. 12. 1282b18-23) seems to indicate an acceptance of equality of opportunity rather than outcome. Liberals appear to want that "equality" of outcome. I would not conflate "justice" with equality--kangaroo courts in despotic regimes throughout history have meted "justice" without equality. I will not stoop to respond to the assertion of "simplistic, ideological" description
ReplyDelete