I don't necessarily see this as peculiar. It's what we do (both individually and collectively) every day: decide what we think is the best way to distribute (or save) our money, taking into account, hopefully, (however, understanding Hegel would help) how society's goals affect our personal goals. (see The Geist of Credit Default Swaps link under the post "For Philosophy Lovers Only in October 2010)
It's just another organization like the teachers' union, 65 Roses, or or the BOP.
What I do see as peculiar is the assumption that we know how to distribute our money better than the government. In a democracy that seems like a contradiction in terms. What he really seems to be saying is "Democracy, at least how we practice it, is not working."
I'm suffering from a very bad head/throat cold today, so I'm not sure what I wrote above makes a lot of sense. I guess I was a bit upset with the tone of the article, but giving money to people, who you think deserve it more than you do, seems like it is usually a good thing.
I agree on this point: while there is no question that there is government waste -- although the level of waste is debatable -- the suggestion that government social spending is always less effective that private charity is nonsense. Lots of good things happen from private charity, but few private efforts have ever matched the impact of, say, the Marshall Plan, the GI Bill or social security.
The article doesn't suggest, however, that government can't spend money effectively; it criticizes the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Since a lot of the federal budget -- like the 24% that goes to defense -- will not act as a stimulus, this article says that we ought to just do it ourselves.
5 comments:
Sorry about the loopy link (again!). It's been fixed.
I don't necessarily see this as peculiar. It's what we do (both individually and collectively) every day: decide what we think is the best way to distribute (or save) our money, taking into account, hopefully, (however, understanding Hegel would help) how society's goals affect our personal goals. (see The Geist of Credit Default Swaps link under the post "For Philosophy Lovers Only in October 2010)
It's just another organization like the teachers' union, 65 Roses, or or the BOP.
What I do see as peculiar is the assumption that we know how to distribute our money better than the government. In a democracy that seems like a contradiction in terms. What he really seems to be saying is "Democracy, at least how we practice it, is not working."
I'm suffering from a very bad head/throat cold today, so I'm not sure what I wrote above makes a lot of sense. I guess I was a bit upset with the tone of the article, but giving money to people, who you think deserve it more than you do, seems like it is usually a good thing.
I agree on this point: while there is no question that there is government waste -- although the level of waste is debatable -- the suggestion that government social spending is always less effective that private charity is nonsense. Lots of good things happen from private charity, but few private efforts have ever matched the impact of, say, the Marshall Plan, the GI Bill or social security.
The article doesn't suggest, however, that government can't spend money effectively; it criticizes the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Since a lot of the federal budget -- like the 24% that goes to defense -- will not act as a stimulus, this article says that we ought to just do it ourselves.
Post a Comment