a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkBoudreaux Channeling Sumner’s Law
Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek:
Although de rigueur among “progressives,” Jim Salvucci is mistaken to describes bourgeois values as “empty” and consumerism as “mindless” (Letters, November 17). Bourgeois values encourage the substantive and mindful traits of hard work, sobriety, thrift, honesty, and self-reliance – all which earn their practitioners the ability over time to enjoy greater material comforts and amusements.
What is truly empty is the value that counsels A to live off of the wealth given to him by B and which B confiscated from C. And what is truly mindless is the notion that society progresses as greater numbers of us live as A’s or as B’s, and all the while thinking of C’s as being nothing more than contemptible cows to be milked for the “general good.”
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
But some of us have known this for a while.
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
Ah, yes – the holy grail of conservatism. 1) I’m only responsible for me, and 2) I just know that somewhere, somebody is getting a free lunch.
Meanwhile, the Iraq War is going to cost me $40,000, and conservatives think it’s a good idea to spend all our money on it. They think it’s a good idea. Why do I have to support their war? I’m Mr. C.
Mark, you have conservatism very wrong.
I was unsure whether to use the word “conservative” or “right wingers” there. But the point stands – we differ in how our surplus wealth is to be used, my side for greater the good – health care and schools and public works, you for greater good through the invisible hand, but only maybe, and if not, so what.
Head cold got the best of me – I can’t piece together a sensible sentence to save my life. Good night.
Mark T, to get a better understanding of conservatism, read some of Russell Kirk’s works. Start with “Politics of Prudence” – easy read and a good intro to American conservatism. If a book is too much, read Kirk’s “Ten Conservative Principles” at http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html . Number 8 is particularly applicable.
It’s hard to respond to your flippant comments without getting a little agitated. Holy Grail of conservatism — only look out for me. What a bunch of crap. Seriously. That’s all it is. It’s such a blatantly ignorant statement but par for the course. I think you have a permanent head cold.
I think the essence of conservatism is social Darwinism – the idea that people who don’t measure up ought to perish. And the most common measuring device available is wealth. Possession of wealth is in and of itself evidence of worthiness. Therefore, George W. Bush, such as he is, is worthy. Adam Smith enabled you some with his invisible hand, justifying selfish behavior as unselfish. So now we have modern conservatism, indifferent to suffering and lower classes and at the same time smug about helping people via selfish behavior.
Mr. Head Cold here has to go plow a 500 foot driveway, then I’ll put on some music and coffee and read Mr. Kirk. But it would be nice, Gman, if you did more than refer me to your authority figures.
Here we go again. Smith spoke of SELF INTEREST, not SELFISHNESS. I don’t expect you to know that nor do I expect you to grasp the difference between the two.
As for referring to my “authority figures,” all I can say is that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Russell Kirk is one of the great conservative thinkers of the 20th Century. That is not an accolade that puny me has afforded to Dr. Kirk, it is one that emanates from his contributions to conservative thought in the 20th Century. He is a prolific writer and rather worthy of the distinction as the “Father of American Conservatism.”
You misinterpreted conservatism, as pointed out by Dave and myself, and I simply mean to set you straight by invoking the wisdom of a thinker that many consider to be an authority on the subject. Of course, you are indeed entitled to your misinterpretation and the platitudes associated with it.
I agree that Kirk is all that James T. could be and more, but I hate these exchanges where one side tells the other to go and read something. If you understand Kirk, tell me in your own words what he says. If you really understand him, it should be easy for you and the words should be few.
“So now we have modern conservatism, indifferent to suffering and lower classes …
Mr. Head Cold here has to go plow a 500 foot driveway,”
…no doubt pondering the suffering of the lower classes while doing so…
It’s 300 feet, I exaggerated. But I pretty well nailed conservatism, doncha think?
No Mark, I don’t think you even came close. And if you read Kirk’s principle number eight (as I can find no reason for Gman to retype what Kirk said) you’ll find the difference between your idea of conservatives’ social Darwinism and its notion of community. Allow me, however, to go a step further.
Kirk believed in the inherent value of tradition and institutions. In those are contained the Judeo-Christian institutions that forge a sense of charity in communities. That sense is quite real in the conservative community and evidenced well by the fact that conservatives give far more generously and devote much more volunteer time than do most self-described “liberals.” Our idea of charity is not to take from C and give to A – it is to give of ourselves.
Spend any significant time with Kiwanis, Rotary, Lyons Clubs, church groups, fraternal organizations and you’ll find them mostly populated by conservatives of one ilk or another. These are the people who organize resources for local charity causes who look to themselves to solve problems – not some body of bureaucrats in far off places. I have spent a lifetime inside these organizations so, when someone (like you in this case) tells me that conservatism is about selfish behavior I’m inclined to think they don’t know the soul of conservatism – which you have repeatedly demonstrated.
It’s a matter of terminology. I’ve often said that Barry Goldwater turned in his grave so often they finally put him on a spit. The reason? People who call themselves conservatives these days. They are mostly reactionary right wingers. They are not terribly thoughtful. Evidence to support this? Normal everyday political exchanges via television and talk radio. And the barber shop.
And I have belonged to K of C, and find their charitable efforts pale in comparison to the fraternal ones. Generally, the charitable function is window dressing. It was more about cheap drinks.
Your statement that these organizations are generally populated by conservatives is reaching and unverifiable. I discard it.
I know what a conservative is – I know about respect for the lessons of the past and gradual change becuase of our humility in not understanding the full impact of our behaviors. A conservative would never do what you and others are attempting to do to Social Security. It’s completely reckless. Barry Goldwater spins again.
And read what I said – I asked Gman to put it in his own words. If I wanted, I could ask him to go read what I read – hell, we could just skip the middle man. I want to know what’s on his mind, and see how well he words it, how clearly he thinks. Frankly, I’m not impressed with the guy. I think he’s a lightweight.
Mark, you began your comments by casting aspersions on conservatism in general and me (because I agree with the Boudreaux letter) in particular. Now, you insult Gman, for whom I have high regard in his level of study on conservative and libertarian ideologies. Furthermore, the generalizations that you portend seem to come from only the “cosm” of pop culture – and I’m sure the barber shop you visit makes for only “nanocosm” of reality.
It’s also fundamentally ridiculous to assert that what me and others would like to do with Social Security is reckless. It is reckless to make promises that one cannot keep and the system, as currently configured, is unsustainable. As you have pointed out on myriad occasions, the funding is highly regressive and the working poor get short end of the stick. Me thinks you contradict yourself.
At the same time you invoke Goldwater, who would be the first to put constraints on welfare entitlements ala Social Security. Goldwater voted against Medicare and was against Social Security. So a little consistency is called for in your argument.
Last but not least, you tell me that my assertion about civic organizations is worth rote dismissal (then you invoke the barber shop.) But I can only say what I know from experience – and my bona fides in that arena are long, deep and diverse. Your experience with the K of C may have been about cheep drinks – as is my experience with the Elks Club, but I have been a member of 5 different Kiwanis clubs in four cities (two in Chicago – no bastion of conservatism it), three Lyons Clubs, and Rotary. I served as Chairman of the Board for Community Counseling Centers of Chicago – Chicago’s largest community based mental health orgaization, Chairman of the School Board for St. Bernardine’s School in Forest Park, IL (for that pleasure I ran the weekly bingo game for four year – feh!) I volunteered as a cook, dishwasher and server at Chicago’s north side Inspiration Cafe (which was founded by a “conservative” ex-cop) feeding homeless people for over two years, and recently I was Chairman of Rocky Mountain Ballet Theatre Company – of which the majority of board members are rather conservative (perhaps because I recruited some of them) So perhaps I can’t statistically verify my impressions – but I’m not speaking out of my ass and I challenge you to visit organizations like that to see for yourself.
Perhaps if you spent more time involved in significant apolitical service organizations your view of conservatism would change.
Well, Dave, it’s hard to give up on Mark T, huh?
I’m trying to figure Mark T out. He rarely says anything of substance yet he accuses others of being lightweights. He spends most of his time coming up with clever one-liners instead of articulating his “philosophy,” yet his opponents are always lightweights in comparison.
It’s interesting, he equates conservatism with, of all things, social Darwinism when social Darwinism is the foundation of leftist, humanistic thinking. Leftists tend to believe that individuals are dispensable in the march toward utopia. In fact, we arrive at utopia via the progression of natural selection — the weak traits are weeded out and we eventually arrive at perfection. (The post-Darwin 19th Century called this eugenics.) That future opportunity to arrive at perfection is like a drug to leftists. Genocide, mass oppression, murder are all justifiable means to an end. Keep in mind that right-wingers — fascists for example — are also guilty of this mode of thinking. Communists and fascists were quite alike, however, in their belief that the totalitarian State was the vehicle to achieve utopia. As we all know, in the minds of leftists and rightists individuals are the enemy of collectivism. Mark T is quite clearly in this camp.
On the other hand, conservatives and libertarians believe that individuals have inherent value and exist independent of the State. Their rights precede gov’t and therefore supersede the power of gov’t. One of gov’t’s truly legitimate purposes is to protect those rights. For the most part, this view of the person emanates from the belief that human beings are created in God’s image (Imago Dei). Hence, no earthly entity has the authority to violate the inherent value ascribed to individuals by the Creator. It was a “conservative” act on the part of our forefathers to state in the Dec. of Ind. that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights….” The Enlightenment thinkers were tending away from this seminal belief, admittedly because of the abuse of ecclesiastical power, but to have our forefathers affirm this is demonstrative of their Judeo-Christian worldview. Rationalism was embraced merely by a minority.
You learn from Russell Kirk that the fundamental distinction between the social Darwinists (leftists) and conservatives is that leftists are quite willing to dispense with certain individuals to achieve some abstract collective goal, while conservatives protect the inherent value of the individual so that the general welfare of all can be achieved through social cooperation. From this spontaneous social cooperation comes what Kirk referred to as ordered liberty. Kirk warned in “The Politics of Prudence” that leftists (he called them ideologues) seek to give us a terrestrial heaven yet always wind up giving us a terrestrial hell. The way Mark T blindly trumpets the virtues of collectivism it’s obvious that he is utterly oblivious to the pitfalls of it. The common man he is so concerned about wouldn’t be enjoying the highest standard of living in human history if not for the tenets of Western Civilization — individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise.
Conservatives/libertarians want individuals to be free to pursue their lives as they see fit. Legitimate restrictions on that pursuit come in two forms: 1) that the pursuit doesn’t infringe on the natural rights of others (the truly legitimate role of gov’t); and 2) from local folkways and morals that have stood the test of time. Kirk called it an enduring moral order. He also extolled what he called “the permanent things.” In other words, there are certain things about human beings that are objective and inviolate and not subject to readjustment as the statists see fit. For example, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, short of some dissertation, this is the best I can do, with limited time, to explain “the conservative mind” and contrast it to social darwinism. Again, Mark T, I don’t expect you to understand why comparing conservatism to social darwinism is patently ridiculous.
Happy Thanksgiving all!
I invoke Goldwater as the symbol of conservatives everywhere to emphasize the point that the name has been co opted by reactionary right wingers.
Social Security is on sound financial footing, solvent until 2018, and, if people keep promises, well into the 2040’s or 50’s. Can General Motors say as much?
It is reckless to take a program that serves to many so well, and willy nilly throw its precepts out the window and try to replace it en masse with unproven and untested theories on how the investment streets will serve retirees better. That is loose and reckless. The basic precept of conservatism is gradual change, as humans are not so wise as to understand the full impact of their actions, especially on a large scale. Furthermore, a conservative precept is to understand that people who came before us were neither wise nor foolish, but reacted with the best knowledge available to solve problems which really do not change over time. You and those who would ditch Social Security are radical reactionaries, and not conservatives.
Social Darwinism reached its apex with the Nazis, hardly a left wing phenomenon. It fell out of favor, of course, as did anything associated with Nazism. There’s been a push for many years now to assign Nazism to the left, so I take it as a given that you would try to assign social Darwinism to us as well. Nice fricking try.
Gman draws a false distinction, to say there are individualists and collectivists. We are all both – none of us can survive alone, all of us dance to our own tune. That is the great failing of conservatism, to fail to understand our mutual dependency. It has created this myth of the rugged individual who never existed and does not exist now. Me, the “collectivist”, I merely understand our mutual dependency, and try to use our most effective organization, government, to help our fellows out. This can be counterproductive, and there is that underclass that does not stand well alone (always will be – though many are the lingering victims of slavery), but for the most part, government is an effective tool to use in advancing human good. Social Security is a fine example, health care would be another if only you woudl stand aside and allow some progress.
No matter how many organizations you belong to, none can begin to match what government can do to assist the needy. My experience as with KC and Shriners. In addition to cheap drinks, they also told great jokes. they had their charities, that was their supposed reason or existence, but I wasn’t buying. It was about guys and drinking and a place to go to be away from the wife and kids. Wives were absolutely not welcome.
My own charity is my own business.
My experience with Gman has not been that of the thoughtful conservative, but rather with a rather shallow fellow who shoots from the bushes and retreats quickly as he did recently over at mtpolitics, saying I had done so many “economic fallacies” that he couldn’t begin to address them and by the way, bye bye. That’s the Gman I know. This is the first I’ve seen of the thoughtful conservative, and frankly, I’m not buying.
How can cheerleading for the current system we have, which leaves tens of millions uninsured (not to mention the plight of the insured ones) be construed as anything other than social Darwinism?
Just askin’…
Steve, tell me just who is “cheerleading” for the current system in health care?
Mark, I have to call you out on consistency again re: Social Security. Repeatedly you have said something like “a tax is a tax is a tax” regarding payroll taxes. You have also pointed out in the past that those taxes are used to fund general expenses. So, on the one hand, you admit that the Social Security Trust is not being funded but, rather, the moneys are being used for other things and then argue that the trust is solvent until such ans such a date. It seems to me you can’t have it both ways. But what you rally argue is that there are surpluses created by payroll taxes relative to entitlement payments – which is true – and using that accounting you can surmise some sort of program solvency.
However, there are no surpluses in the general account – which includes entitlement payments. Accordingly, unless significant changes are made by either raising taxes or cutting expenses there is no solvency possible in overall government spending.
Currently the federal government collects in taxes about 18% of GDP (that is, if you believe the DoC on the GDP number – some say it’s quite a bit lower than reported) but spends something like 21% to 23% on federal expenses. So to make the books balance today we would have to have a 3% to 5% overall increase in tax collections – and that’s before the impact of demographic changes on Social Security and Medicare. By 2018, in order to make the book balance the estimates are tax revenues will have to be in excess of 30% of GDP. It is hard for anyone to say that this may have serious consequences on the economy. Hence on wonders what is more radical – maintaining the status quo or looking for a solution.
One more thing, you use a tiny part of conservative ideology to say that changing SoSec is reckless but then you propose sweeping changes in health care policy – seemingly avoiding the discussion of unintended consequences. It is true that SoSec and Medicare appear to be functioning properly and health care doesn’t but that is only true while avoiding the Net Present Value of the entitlement programs. Again, I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
Mark T: “Social Darwinism reached its apex with the Nazis, hardly a left wing phenomenon.”
Gman: “Keep in mind that right-wingers — fascists for example — are also guilty of this mode of thinking. Communists and fascists were quite alike, however, in their belief that the totalitarian State was the vehicle to achieve utopia. As we all know, in the minds of leftists and rightists individuals are the enemy of collectivism.”
Maybe you didn’t read my comment?
Mark T: “Gman draws a false distinction, to say there are individualists and collectivists. We are all both – none of us can survive alone, all of us dance to our own tune. That is the great failing of conservatism, to fail to understand our mutual dependency.”
Gman: “…while conservatives protect the inherent value of the individual so that the general welfare of all can be achieved through social cooperation. From this spontaneous social cooperation comes what Kirk referred to as ordered liberty.”
Maybe you missed this one, too.
To elaborate on the issue of the individual v. the collective. As I see it, to state that you embrace individualism does not mean that you dismiss the need for cooperation and order. Although Mark T will likely skewer me for this, I invoke Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” Individuals pursuing their self interest must associate and cooperate with other individuals to achieve their material (not to mention non-material) goals. Out of this comes spontaneous order.
My father has often bragged about his self sufficiency and rugged individualism. Comparatively speaking, my father is much more self sufficient than the average American. However, I’m quick to reming that, for example, he didn’t build his Toyota Tacoma. He doesn’t produce the electricity that comes to his home. He did just purchase a generator, which lends itself to self sufficiency. Yet, he didn’t build it and didn’t refine the fuel he needs to power it.
So on, so forth. The miracle of the free market is that my father has the ability to associate and cooperate with others to arrive on mutually beneficial exchanges with others. He provided his vocational expertise to an employer who paid him market wages. My father utilizes his earnings to satiate his needs and wants by paying producers for their goods and services. You can call them voluntary exchanges.
Now, stop and think of all the ways that gov’t interferes with these free exchanges and thereby disrupts the social cooperation achieved by free individuals and groups. This gov’t intervention actually generates interest groups that are pitted against each other as they compete for gov’t favoritism and largesse.
It’s ironic that what Mark T wants — mutual cooperation — is engendered by the free society and compromised by gov’t intervention.
I summarily dismissed Mark T. when he failed to define “surplus wealth†in his second comment, which is too bad because he was off to a great start.