Mike - agreed on the interaction bit. Working on that. Re: comments, I'm somewhat crippled in my ability these days to comment quickly to everyone, and I'll admit that if I don't get to a thread until it's like 60 or 70 comments I give up. It's just as though the conversation has moved past me at that point.
I agree. I'm constantly challenged in the comments here. Mainly, I was referring to a possible need for the site's writers to interact more - not anything lacking in the combox.
I find myself increasingly annoyed by those who claim to hold such truths, so calcified and absolute - or at least by their current manifestations.
In any case, this goes way beyond you, Freddie. You just inspired me. This applies to plenty of people. And guess what - it also can apply to conservatives. Both sides do it! So do moderates! It's human nature.
That's God's honest truth.
I state pretty clearly that I don't think the distinction lies between pro and anti market types but between decentralists and centralists. That may not always boil down to people who believe in overt central planning vs. those who don't, but if you pare it back far enough that's what it pretty much boils down to (though it's likely more of a sliding scale, not simply two polar beliefs).
There is a significant difference between a safety net and an entitlement. Indeed, the answer is in the question. Whether people think of them as the same is not the issue. In fact, I think my post was actually asking that people stop thinking of them as the same...
North these are good points and I wish I could address all of them but I'm short on time. First, preventative care is something that people really just have to choose to do. Even having insurance doesn't make people do this, and indeed often creates an incentive not to. I have insurance but I'm lousy at the preventative stuff. So that's just another story altogether.
Also, with old age, I think you run into complications. I do think, however, that many people could pay a great deal more in their old age than Medicare recipients pay - especially if they were to put money into some sort of investment vehicle/health savings account. There are so many other ways to think about these things, we just never do because we've become reliant on the idea of Medicare. But what happens when it's no longer sustainable? Massive tax increases and the resulting economic slide simply to pay for old people's insurance? All old people too, not just the poor?
Re: pre-existing conditions, I recommend looking into health status insurance, something that Michael Cannon has written on extensively.
Sam, thanks, you've actually really made me re-think the entire experience. It's interesting how we humans work, how we establish narratives and histories for ourselves based on passed assumptions which we never question until someone does it for us....
RTod - really excellent points. I think the trick is to make healthcare more affordable in general. There's no reason that more competition, more supply, larger pools, etc. couldn't start to reverse the trend. Similarly, less regulation, better options for catastrophic coverage - these things can make younger people more likely to buy in to the larger pool while giving them time to accrue wealth so that they can afford better coverage later in life. Health status insurance is one way to purchase insurance very cheaply when you are young to insure against the problem of pre-existing conditions (like age!) later in life.
I'd say it means quite a lot - and probably a lot of that has to do with the shift in the proportion of government that has shifted from state/local to federal over the years (decades...centuries?)
Thanks RTod. Dude, Bob, if you want to be endlessly hostile to me that's up to you, but it grates after a while. I think, as the quote above proves, I fairly directly approached the idea of the mob and tyranny - the masses and the elites who manipulate them. That I did not use the word 'elite' doesn't change the fact.
First of all, I'm not maligning either the Cro-Magnon masses, the Cro-Magnons themselves, or the Athenians - though I would dispute the "freer than anything we have now" bit on grounds that, well, that's ludicrous. However, when lots of generally bright, thoughtful, independent people get all whipped up into a populist frenzy (or a mob, for that matter) they can change. Become less reasonable. Become more like followers than individuals. I mean, this is not anything profound or new I'm saying. This has been played out time and time again throughout the course of history, almost always with bad results.
Now - I'll grant that non-violent populism can have benefits as a resistance movement, which is why this post is not aimed so much at the tea-partiers themselves, but at the petty pundits and political elites who do their best to continually manipulate the situation in their favor. That's the bunch to watch out for. The non-violent movements (civil rights, Ghandi's thing, Nelson Mandela, etc.) are wonderful expressions of populism and rebirth. I have nothing against these. And their leaders were generally not petty at all, but fiercely passionate about a dire and important cause. They were seeking to restore something important. What irks me so about this movement is not the tea parties at all, but rather the cynical people attempting to harness them. Even the most well-intentioned movements can be distorted and misused by ill-intentioned or dishonest leaders.
Indeed, Rufus. But that is also what I'm driving at. Populism is a better vehicle for revolution than for limiting the state, and typically at the end of a populist uprising (either leftist or right-wing) there is a consolidation of government power. The pigs take over the farm. Meet the new boss same as....
I welcome strong leadership, and I'm not against taking shots at the other side, or arguing passionately for your cause (or against the other guys). I just think that populism is the wrong vehicle. Maybe a dash of it here or there, but not outright, full-blooded populism. And not at the expense of integrity.
Political speech is not mob behavior. Nor is that the point. The point is that populism has unintended consequences, primarily in the way populism transforms into a movement led - typically - by a very strong, centralized figure. I believe this sort of movement is anathema to the cause of limited government. The trick with grassroots is that while it remains decentralized it is true to its initial cause, but it almost inevitably becomes centralized, spear-headed, etc. Etc.
Worrying about one thing is not mutually exclusive with worrying about other things. I can worry about all sorts of things at once. I'm a multi-tasker.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “On Blogging”
Thanks, Dan. That's not the first time the interaction critique has come up, so that's good to know...
"
Mike - agreed on the interaction bit. Working on that. Re: comments, I'm somewhat crippled in my ability these days to comment quickly to everyone, and I'll admit that if I don't get to a thread until it's like 60 or 70 comments I give up. It's just as though the conversation has moved past me at that point.
"
Aziz - the cure for feeling adrift at Beliefnet is to link to the League more of course!
"
I agree. That North character has got to go...
"
I agree. I'm constantly challenged in the comments here. Mainly, I was referring to a possible need for the site's writers to interact more - not anything lacking in the combox.
On “Angry white racist rednecks filled with rage and fear”
Exactly. The prejudice goes both ways. Everyone wields caricatures.
"
That's right. Nor was I particularly subtle.
I find myself increasingly annoyed by those who claim to hold such truths, so calcified and absolute - or at least by their current manifestations.
In any case, this goes way beyond you, Freddie. You just inspired me. This applies to plenty of people. And guess what - it also can apply to conservatives. Both sides do it! So do moderates! It's human nature.
That's God's honest truth.
On “Liberaltarianism is dead”
I state pretty clearly that I don't think the distinction lies between pro and anti market types but between decentralists and centralists. That may not always boil down to people who believe in overt central planning vs. those who don't, but if you pare it back far enough that's what it pretty much boils down to (though it's likely more of a sliding scale, not simply two polar beliefs).
On “In defense of quality not quantity: the case for better safety nets, not more entitlements”
There is a significant difference between a safety net and an entitlement. Indeed, the answer is in the question. Whether people think of them as the same is not the issue. In fact, I think my post was actually asking that people stop thinking of them as the same...
"
North these are good points and I wish I could address all of them but I'm short on time. First, preventative care is something that people really just have to choose to do. Even having insurance doesn't make people do this, and indeed often creates an incentive not to. I have insurance but I'm lousy at the preventative stuff. So that's just another story altogether.
Also, with old age, I think you run into complications. I do think, however, that many people could pay a great deal more in their old age than Medicare recipients pay - especially if they were to put money into some sort of investment vehicle/health savings account. There are so many other ways to think about these things, we just never do because we've become reliant on the idea of Medicare. But what happens when it's no longer sustainable? Massive tax increases and the resulting economic slide simply to pay for old people's insurance? All old people too, not just the poor?
Re: pre-existing conditions, I recommend looking into health status insurance, something that Michael Cannon has written on extensively.
"
Sam, thanks, you've actually really made me re-think the entire experience. It's interesting how we humans work, how we establish narratives and histories for ourselves based on passed assumptions which we never question until someone does it for us....
"
RTod - really excellent points. I think the trick is to make healthcare more affordable in general. There's no reason that more competition, more supply, larger pools, etc. couldn't start to reverse the trend. Similarly, less regulation, better options for catastrophic coverage - these things can make younger people more likely to buy in to the larger pool while giving them time to accrue wealth so that they can afford better coverage later in life. Health status insurance is one way to purchase insurance very cheaply when you are young to insure against the problem of pre-existing conditions (like age!) later in life.
"
Only six months!??!
"
What Jaybird said.
Might I add that you have been on fire in the comments lately, Kyle. Good stuff all around.
"
Francis - the whole smug, holier-than-thou condescension is precariously wearisome at this point. Go do it somewhere else. I'm done listening to you.
On “The politics of pettiness ctd.”
Why not read somebody else then?
"
I'd say it means quite a lot - and probably a lot of that has to do with the shift in the proportion of government that has shifted from state/local to federal over the years (decades...centuries?)
"
Hidden depths, Sam....
"
Maybe so, Mike. It certainly does seem more hopeful than ever that this may be happening....
"
Thanks RTod. Dude, Bob, if you want to be endlessly hostile to me that's up to you, but it grates after a while. I think, as the quote above proves, I fairly directly approached the idea of the mob and tyranny - the masses and the elites who manipulate them. That I did not use the word 'elite' doesn't change the fact.
On “The politics of pettiness”
First of all, I'm not maligning either the Cro-Magnon masses, the Cro-Magnons themselves, or the Athenians - though I would dispute the "freer than anything we have now" bit on grounds that, well, that's ludicrous. However, when lots of generally bright, thoughtful, independent people get all whipped up into a populist frenzy (or a mob, for that matter) they can change. Become less reasonable. Become more like followers than individuals. I mean, this is not anything profound or new I'm saying. This has been played out time and time again throughout the course of history, almost always with bad results.
Now - I'll grant that non-violent populism can have benefits as a resistance movement, which is why this post is not aimed so much at the tea-partiers themselves, but at the petty pundits and political elites who do their best to continually manipulate the situation in their favor. That's the bunch to watch out for. The non-violent movements (civil rights, Ghandi's thing, Nelson Mandela, etc.) are wonderful expressions of populism and rebirth. I have nothing against these. And their leaders were generally not petty at all, but fiercely passionate about a dire and important cause. They were seeking to restore something important. What irks me so about this movement is not the tea parties at all, but rather the cynical people attempting to harness them. Even the most well-intentioned movements can be distorted and misused by ill-intentioned or dishonest leaders.
"
Indeed, Rufus. But that is also what I'm driving at. Populism is a better vehicle for revolution than for limiting the state, and typically at the end of a populist uprising (either leftist or right-wing) there is a consolidation of government power. The pigs take over the farm. Meet the new boss same as....
"
I welcome strong leadership, and I'm not against taking shots at the other side, or arguing passionately for your cause (or against the other guys). I just think that populism is the wrong vehicle. Maybe a dash of it here or there, but not outright, full-blooded populism. And not at the expense of integrity.
"
Political speech is not mob behavior. Nor is that the point. The point is that populism has unintended consequences, primarily in the way populism transforms into a movement led - typically - by a very strong, centralized figure. I believe this sort of movement is anathema to the cause of limited government. The trick with grassroots is that while it remains decentralized it is true to its initial cause, but it almost inevitably becomes centralized, spear-headed, etc. Etc.
"
Worrying about one thing is not mutually exclusive with worrying about other things. I can worry about all sorts of things at once. I'm a multi-tasker.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.