It's not just that there's a horror that money might be made. It's a horror that all the things in our society will be replaced with things that make money. Nobody is railing against the book store. But a book store will only sell books that sell, whereas a library will keep books that are old, unused, forgotten. This isn't to say that there's something nefarious about it - it's just the different nature of these things.
Unfortunately, Capitalism does somehow and entirely un-magically cease to exist once redistribution enters the picture. You may not have it both ways. Nobody in the history of the world has ever gotten rich on a weekly paycheck: wealth is earned by sound investments over time. The rising tide that lifts all boats will lift an ore freighter just as much as a canoe.
This strikes me as a fairly bizarre thing for a liberal to say. I guess it's also hard for me to believe given the number of redistributive economies in the world including our own which still somehow manage to generate wealth via capitalist enterprise. We are all still able to invest in 401k plans despite the cut we send to Uncle Sam. The government redistributes our wealth into various programs, schools, food stamps, etc. and we're all still plugging along. I believe the best welfare for anyone is a job, so I'm fully on board with the pro-growth team. Let's grow and prosper and get people jobs. I think we can do that and have a redistributive state that pays for silly things like libraries and public schools.
Isn’t this because libertarians, to a great extent, have decided that conservatives are their brethren in arms rather than liberals?
This is at the heart of what E.D. is getting at in his post. The libertarian mantra seems to be “The market is far and away the best arbiter of value and all other freedoms are lesser than economic freedom” – civil society be damned.
That's a big part of it, yes. Markets and democracy have to work together and sometimes democracy means we're going to fly in the face of sensible profit-based thinking and pay for things with no value whatsoever like libraries and public parks. The notion that relying on the beneficence of generous donors and gregarious foundations rather than on the democratic consensus strikes me as pretty awful actually. I'm all for charity and the very rich kicking in their fair share, but I don't think we should depend on it any more than we should depend on the market to produce public libraries.
Redistribution and wealth generation are both important and a balance must be struck. Nobody wants Carter era rates or wage freezes or any of that. But we are a long ways from Carter era taxation.
Yes, rich philanthropists have funded libraries. Yes, the Gates foundation funds them now as well. This does not mean that publicly funded libraries are any less necessary. I would rather depend on the tax revenues of a democratic society than on the beneficence of a wealthy foundation which can unilaterally change its mind at any time and cut off funds for any reason. I would rather fight it out in the townhalls and ballot boxes of America than grovel for grant money (though there’s no reason we can’t do both).
Nor is this some indictment of capitalism, per se. It’s an indictment of the sort of capitalism that believes that the government simply runs out of money all on its own and therefore, hey we should cut funding to libraries and schools and poor people! It’s out of money! (But let’s not mention that we fought tooth and nail against even the whisper of increased taxes!) Capitalism doesn’t somehow magically cease to exist once redistribution enters the picture either. That’s just a strawman. Rich men like Carnegie would still have been rich with more redistribution and better conditions for workers. Maybe not as rich, sure, but maybe that would have been better to begin with. Not because we necessarily want Carnegie worse off, but because if he’d paid his workers better they would have been able to fund their own libraries and wouldn’t have needed the Carnegie libraries to begin with.
And, while we’re at it, at some point that capitalistic Carnegie foundation must have realized that the libraries weren’t exactly profitable ventures and would be better off in public hands. Or wait, does that make it a socialistic foundation instead?
I’m liking how you’ve developed this “civil societarian” conceit over a couple of different posts, Erik. If nothing else, it’s important not to let the libertarian, anti-government position poison notions of civil society–which by definition doesn’t oppose government (or the market, for that matter), but rather exists alongside them both.
Quite right. I liked the idea of civil societarianism more than the way it was being used, I think, and it bothered me that someone could think that government and public service and things like public libraries could all be stripped so easily from civil society, that these things were little better than weeds. I just don't buy it.
I think libertarianism has some very good ideas, but it's simply too anti-government for me. I look at very successful social democracies and think these look like pretty good systems of governance: free markets, strong middle class (and strong unionization), high standards of living, very high levels of democracy and civic participation. All good things. These nations exhibit quite a bit of civil societarianism. Sound maybe I'm just coming around full circle here more toward your " populist, localist, left-wing democratic socialism" believing as I now do these things are perfectly compatible with free markets.
Bread machines are great. We're looking at getting a new one soon (along with that beer kit you recommended!) We're also on the verge of getting out first house, which is smallish with a smallish yard, and south-facing with good solid windows. Small is good, keeps the bills down and the energy costs to a minimum. South facing is good in a place that can get five feet of snow in a week.
Lovely post, as usual Lisa. I completely relate to this. We changed churches often and plenty growing up. It wasn't until recently that my parents began going to Catholic church full time (my mom was born and raised Catholic and my dad just converted recently). I flounder about, drawn to that church and the deep traditions of that church, but incapable of committing fully.
Homemade bread, however, is divine. We've been doing a lot of that lately, and Mr. Comstock has almost convinced me to start doing the same with beer.
TycheSD - I dunno. Most governments were (and are) certainly not established either to protect rights or at least not just to protect rights. As Pirate says, they do a lot of other things and were established with the intention of doing a lot of other things. Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but saying they should do nothing but protect rights isn't saying much at all. I mean, the expensive transplant - well our core rights are the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness right? Doesn't the state - at least in this day and age - have some obligation to not simply let someone die who could otherwise be saved?
So "society" should step in instead? Isn't a democratic government an expression and a vehicle of society? Isn't it merely a method of organizing society to achieve certain outcomes - like saving lives?
Meh. This sounds a lot more like what opponents of the bill wanted people to think than anything really specific to the bill itself. Misgivings are no reason to not pass legislation. "Pushing" a bill is, well, that's politics. What exactly don't you like about the bill? To me, it looks a lot like what the Germans have and I would gladly take the German system over our status quo.
I want more than vague misgivings.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “AOL buys the Huffington Post”
We have no revenue or profits and aren't for sale.
On “The Ghost in the Square”
It's not just that there's a horror that money might be made. It's a horror that all the things in our society will be replaced with things that make money. Nobody is railing against the book store. But a book store will only sell books that sell, whereas a library will keep books that are old, unused, forgotten. This isn't to say that there's something nefarious about it - it's just the different nature of these things.
"
BlaiseP:
This strikes me as a fairly bizarre thing for a liberal to say. I guess it's also hard for me to believe given the number of redistributive economies in the world including our own which still somehow manage to generate wealth via capitalist enterprise. We are all still able to invest in 401k plans despite the cut we send to Uncle Sam. The government redistributes our wealth into various programs, schools, food stamps, etc. and we're all still plugging along. I believe the best welfare for anyone is a job, so I'm fully on board with the pro-growth team. Let's grow and prosper and get people jobs. I think we can do that and have a redistributive state that pays for silly things like libraries and public schools.
"
DensityDuck - some might say the government has run out of money thanks to greedy capitalists.
"
62across:
That's a big part of it, yes. Markets and democracy have to work together and sometimes democracy means we're going to fly in the face of sensible profit-based thinking and pay for things with no value whatsoever like libraries and public parks. The notion that relying on the beneficence of generous donors and gregarious foundations rather than on the democratic consensus strikes me as pretty awful actually. I'm all for charity and the very rich kicking in their fair share, but I don't think we should depend on it any more than we should depend on the market to produce public libraries.
"
Redistribution and wealth generation are both important and a balance must be struck. Nobody wants Carter era rates or wage freezes or any of that. But we are a long ways from Carter era taxation.
"
I said it was groveling to depend on one major donor or foundation or at least that is what I meant.
"
Quite right, Joseph.
"
Nuance and pragmatism? Crazy talk.
"
All good points Russell. Free trade is just shorthand here for essentially liberal markets.
"
Thanks, Bob.
"
Yes, rich philanthropists have funded libraries. Yes, the Gates foundation funds them now as well. This does not mean that publicly funded libraries are any less necessary. I would rather depend on the tax revenues of a democratic society than on the beneficence of a wealthy foundation which can unilaterally change its mind at any time and cut off funds for any reason. I would rather fight it out in the townhalls and ballot boxes of America than grovel for grant money (though there’s no reason we can’t do both).
Nor is this some indictment of capitalism, per se. It’s an indictment of the sort of capitalism that believes that the government simply runs out of money all on its own and therefore, hey we should cut funding to libraries and schools and poor people! It’s out of money! (But let’s not mention that we fought tooth and nail against even the whisper of increased taxes!) Capitalism doesn’t somehow magically cease to exist once redistribution enters the picture either. That’s just a strawman. Rich men like Carnegie would still have been rich with more redistribution and better conditions for workers. Maybe not as rich, sure, but maybe that would have been better to begin with. Not because we necessarily want Carnegie worse off, but because if he’d paid his workers better they would have been able to fund their own libraries and wouldn’t have needed the Carnegie libraries to begin with.
And, while we’re at it, at some point that capitalistic Carnegie foundation must have realized that the libraries weren’t exactly profitable ventures and would be better off in public hands. Or wait, does that make it a socialistic foundation instead?
"
Russell:
Quite right. I liked the idea of civil societarianism more than the way it was being used, I think, and it bothered me that someone could think that government and public service and things like public libraries could all be stripped so easily from civil society, that these things were little better than weeds. I just don't buy it.
I think libertarianism has some very good ideas, but it's simply too anti-government for me. I look at very successful social democracies and think these look like pretty good systems of governance: free markets, strong middle class (and strong unionization), high standards of living, very high levels of democracy and civic participation. All good things. These nations exhibit quite a bit of civil societarianism. Sound maybe I'm just coming around full circle here more toward your " populist, localist, left-wing democratic socialism" believing as I now do these things are perfectly compatible with free markets.
On “Ordinary Blogs”
Probably RSS feeds in the sidebar.
"
I plan to.
"
I'm glad you think so!
On “Bachmann, Burr, and Patriotism”
Well said, BlaiseP. Mythologizing our leaders is a foolish thing to begin with, but the way Reagan has been carved in ivory is absurd.
On “Zeal of a Convert”
Bread machines are great. We're looking at getting a new one soon (along with that beer kit you recommended!) We're also on the verge of getting out first house, which is smallish with a smallish yard, and south-facing with good solid windows. Small is good, keeps the bills down and the energy costs to a minimum. South facing is good in a place that can get five feet of snow in a week.
"
Lovely post, as usual Lisa. I completely relate to this. We changed churches often and plenty growing up. It wasn't until recently that my parents began going to Catholic church full time (my mom was born and raised Catholic and my dad just converted recently). I flounder about, drawn to that church and the deep traditions of that church, but incapable of committing fully.
Homemade bread, however, is divine. We've been doing a lot of that lately, and Mr. Comstock has almost convinced me to start doing the same with beer.
On “Occasional Notes: Political-Aesthetic Musings”
I like Willie Nelson a lot. Most new stuff - meh. I like the 'alt-country' stuff a lot more.
On “Bachmann, Burr, and Patriotism”
Good stuff, Will.
On “Occasional Notes: Political-Aesthetic Musings”
Which country artists would you recommend, Sam?
On “The Importance of Being Insured”
See I just get beat up everywhere I go...
"
TycheSD - I dunno. Most governments were (and are) certainly not established either to protect rights or at least not just to protect rights. As Pirate says, they do a lot of other things and were established with the intention of doing a lot of other things. Whether that's right or wrong is another question, but saying they should do nothing but protect rights isn't saying much at all. I mean, the expensive transplant - well our core rights are the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness right? Doesn't the state - at least in this day and age - have some obligation to not simply let someone die who could otherwise be saved?
So "society" should step in instead? Isn't a democratic government an expression and a vehicle of society? Isn't it merely a method of organizing society to achieve certain outcomes - like saving lives?
"
Meh. This sounds a lot more like what opponents of the bill wanted people to think than anything really specific to the bill itself. Misgivings are no reason to not pass legislation. "Pushing" a bill is, well, that's politics. What exactly don't you like about the bill? To me, it looks a lot like what the Germans have and I would gladly take the German system over our status quo.
I want more than vague misgivings.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.