nothing pathological about life in that subsidized housing at all -- except for the cops and the builder creeps who pounded the anchors of the kitchen cupboards into drywall instead of studs.
with any luck, we can have the world you want and the poor, homeless, jobless, and hungry will make your life even more miserable.
At 12:17 PM 10/5/2005, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Tommy Kelly:
> > http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/04/144244
> >
> > Unlike you people, I am not well educated in Economics, but Dan Mitchell
> > {Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Heritage Foundation} comments
>on
> > these show, just strikes me as a flawed argument:
>
>Why exactly is it flawed?
>
>Is it flawed because you and others disagree with his position that certain
>life styles should not be subsidized? In fact, many on the left do believe
>in subsidizing certain life style simply because they are "working class" -
>cf. Sasha Abramsky's piece "Running on Fumes" in the latest issue of The
>Nation - without any serious consideration why they should be subsidized. I
>can see a benefit of publicly subsidizing something that has public utility,
>but there is little public utility in maintaining life styles described by
>Abrmasky, or for that matter, in subsidizing the poor simply because they
>are poor and need assistance. The mere fact that someone needs something
>does not mean that this need ought to be publicly subsidized. Enron was in
>need of being bailed out, a lot of jobs and pension money was at stake - but
>it does not mean it deserved it. In fact, the argument was made that the
>demise of Enron was a good thing because it eliminated something that had
>public disutility. Why does not the same apply to other form of disutility?
>I do not think that the proponents of subsidies seriously address that
>issue.
>
>Or is the argument in question flawed because it is an intellectually
>dishonest nonsequitur? Specifically, it starts with a valid question why
>should life styles that have no intrinsic public value be subsidized, but
>then jumps to a non-sequitur that all subsidies should be abolished. The
>proper conclusion would be to argue for a form of subsidy that actually has
>some public benefit (what specifically that would be is another issue).
>Stated differently, it is a fallacious argument that start with a true
>premise e.g. there are potholes in the road and they are a bad thing and
>then jumps to a nonsequitur "let's tear down the road" instead of "let's fix
>the potholes."
>
>
>
>I personally think that most, if not all, forms of libertarianism and
>free-marketism are flawed because they are intellectually dishonest. They
>are intellectual Trojan horses that are based on partial truths and good
>feeling buzz-words, such as public good, personal responsibility, efficiency
>etc. but they de facto support positions that are the exact opposition of
>what they ostensibly profess - abrogation of any personal responsibility in
>the form of tax free rides, getting something for nothing, wastefulness,
>dumping ones junk on others, double standards, etc. It is that intellectual
>hypocrisy that really turns me off against these people - they are
>reprehensible pieces of shit if the intellectual standards they advocate for
>others were applied to them. Milton Friedman might have advocated the
>virtues of profit-seeking for others, while he spent his own life at a
>sinecure at a not-for-profit institution (U of Chicago). Ditto for most, if
>not all, like-minded pundits. Stinking intellectual hypocrites!
>
>But that fundamental dishonesty and intellectual hypocrisy of these
>mercenaries for the capital should not lead us to the conclusion that all
>what they are saying is junk. In fact, they are asking some valid and well
>pointed questions - it is only their prescriptions that suck. As the case
>of the Sasha Abramsky's pieces quoted above illustrates, the left does not
>even ask these questions, it blissfully assumes its own position as self
>evident and universally accepted.
>
>But the question remains. Why should the public subsidize unsustainable,
>and arguably wasteful, life styles of California podunks whose economic
>shelf-life has long expired? Likewise, why should the public subsidize,
>say, housing projects that breed crime, learned helplessness, and despair?
>Inquiring minds want to know. Evading this question by
>character-assassinating the messenger (which I am reasonably sure will
>follow) will not bring us any closer to any answers, let alone progressive
>policies.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk