This would be like former President GW Bush all of a sudden coming out and saying "we" should never have gone into Iraq, with this alleged libertarian talking about "civic culture".
But this article here at PBS is otherwise interesting too in that this Murray guy, who alleges himself a 'libertarian', makes the case for a Basic Income Guaranty and he even has a proposed amount per month; which is not nearly high enough imo but at least what we see here may be a crack in the libertarian armor starting to manifest.
Another thing that is nice to see is that this (alleged) libertarian doesn't fret about "how are we going to pay for it?!" or "redistribution!" or "what will it do to the deficit!?" or any of the usual fiscal ignorance we always see from these libertarian type people.
Here are some excerpts:
Charles Murray: The society is too rich to stand aside and say, “We aren’t going to do anything for people in need.” I understand that; I accept that; I sympathize with it. [Ed: Then you are not a libertarian Murray.... helllloooooo!]
What I want is a grand compromise between the left and the right. We on the right say, “We will give you huge government, in terms of the amount of money we spend. You give us small government, in terms of the ability of government to mess around with people’s lives.”
So you have a system whereby every month, a check goes into an electronic bank account for everybody over the age of 21, which they can use as they see fit.
They can get together with other people and then combine their resources. But they live their own lives. We put their lives back in their hands.
Murray addresses some of the reasonings against the idea of a BIG (pot smoking all day, surfing, etc...) so this might be interesting to our readers who are BIG advocates.
I'd advise this Murray to consider that he is truly not a libertarian.
10 comments:
Milton Friedman was a libertarian. He explains his stance on the relationship of personal freedom and minimal government to social welfare here.
http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26936.
The permanent income is one of his proposals.
The Permanent Income Hypothesis
Tom c'mon look at this guy from my excerpt:
"They can get together with other people ...... We put their lives back in their hands."
this is "illogical" or something.. what is it you tell me?
the guy ADMITS that the people have to "get together" and then in the next breath he asserts their "lives are in their (own) hands..."
?????????????
None of us can do it all alone what is it that these people are so afraid of????? too many people walking around with smiles????
Just f-ing admit it... we NEED each other to get thru this what is so hard about this for these morons?
Matt, I think you are overgeneralizing, in fact, stereotyping. There is a whole range of views on each axis of the political compass.
I would say the the vertical axis is better characterized as Law & Order — Freedom instead of Authoritarianism — Libertarianism and the horizontal axis as Communitarianism — Meritocracy rather than Left — Right. These are more traditionally the way these polarities are discussed.
Matt,
How many people do you think constitutes "getting together" to form responsive civic culture for the individual to flourish within? Do you view civic culture and the individual therein as mutually exclusive concepts or can both function in a larger society?
I have 30 or so friends and family that I interact with daily. They are my immediate and by far most meaningful associations, and I favor them, again, by far, over the nebulous 300+ million that inhabit my country, much less the almost 7 billion occupying the planet. I still care how the 300 million/7billion plus get along in the broad sense of the word, primarily because their collective well being makes my limited associations with the 30 all the better. Does that make me a scorner of civic culture, because I only really give a shit about the folks I rub elbows with mostly on a daily basis? No.
Here's what I think. Charity begins at home and with yourself. If you love you and those closest to you then your love will resonate beyond the small enclave of friends and family. However, most of your efforts of meaningful love or action will take place in the small rather than the large super-state. That probably explains why I loathe nationalism. The converse also explains why some on the left and right love nationalism--all they can do is think big, and in a self loathing fashion at that.
It has always seemed to me that the MMT JG was conceived in the same spirit of compromise that Murray mentions. Left and right both agree on the value of work, right? The right doesn't like "welfare" and the the left says, "well ya gotta do somethin."
In short it would seem that the JG is the natural compromise, and yet it is the most controversial topic within the MMT community itself, to say nothing about how it would play on the larger stage. Consider that Medicare, for example, was originally a compromise, now it's just "big government" and unthinkable in the present policy climate.
I have learned, following Tom, to look for the agenda and the hidden agenda. Many compromises are pretty obvious if not necessarily easy to achieve. The question is whether people are really interested in compromise or even serious about solving the problems they purport to be interested in.
"In short it would seem that the JG is the natural compromise, and yet it is the most controversial topic within the MMT community itself, to say nothing about how it would play on the larger stage."
Maybe call it a full employment program instead of a jobs guarantee.
Probably the best way to get a JG "full employment" program enacted is to hire Frank Luntz to write the pitch.
Mal,
"Does that make me a scorner of civic culture, because I only really give a shit about the folks I rub elbows with mostly on a daily basis?"
I have a hard time believing that this is an accurate description of yourself.
I'm sure you "give a shit" about more than just your 30 closest people.
so I dont know about your illustration here...
FD: I look at the parable of "the good Samaritan" as illustrative of how we really are if left to act without "external constraints" rather than a parable about "something we should attempt to will to live up to..."
rsp,
When people on the right talk about a basic income, what they're really pushing for is a huge cut in spending, at least spending directed at people in the lower classes. And for all their talk of liberty and freedom, and the state playing no role, who exactly do they believe is going to set the amount of this basic income? and if not the state, why on earth do they believe they have the right to decide how basic someone's life should be?.
If it's not the state tyrannizing over someone's life, it will be a private entity of some description, why do they believe that's acceptable? Basically, they talk absolute nonsense, because eventually everything comes back to some kind of state action, from property to welfare. Yet they still can't accept it, maybe it's because if they did, it would lead to some very uncomfortable questions that they just don't want to face.
"Yet they still can't accept it, maybe it's because if they did, it would lead to some very uncomfortable questions "
Right James, but this from Murray here may be indicating the start of some change... there are reports of some libertarians doing an about face right into full MMT ...
rsp,
Post a Comment