A market leader in promoting bad pundits.
Oh, boy:
I’ve come to hate the word “greedy.” It’s an epithet used almost exclusively by the Left to demonize somebody in business who is not compliant to the wishes of a politician.
An example is Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is taking to the bully pulpit to persuade those to whom Chrysler LLC owes billions, to surrender the bulk of their claims. “On behalf of Michigan,” she said Wednesday, “on behalf of the thousands of people who will be affected if this company is forced into bankruptcy, I am publicly asking these hedge funds to not be greedy but to do what the banks have done and what everyone else around the table has done [and] take the concessions.”
...
I don’t want government to succeed in nationalizing American industry. I will not buy a car from the government and I won’t invest in banks that its agents control.
Funny, does Wooten use FDIC-insured banks? How about public roads, the post office, the police and firefighters, etc?
I don't think greed and greedy are terms used by the left to demonize businesspeople. Believe it or not, Wooten, but not everything's a vast left wing conspiracy.
I think these terms have a much more ancient root. Like maybe Timothy 6:10:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
For Wooten to glorify greed and defend the greedy at a time where that characteristic has pretty much tossed a molotov cocktail into the global economy -- driven by shady sub-prime mortgage lenders, derivative trader hacks, and Wall Street money-greased politicians -- it really shows how intellectually uncurious he is that he can't possibly bring himself to examine his own assumptions about how unfettered greed and the free market are always good things.
John Gaibraith has the most succinct definition of what Wooten and his clan of far-right pundits are engaged in:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
9 comments:
"Funny, does Wooten use FDIC-insured banks? How about public roads, the post office, the police and firefighters, etc?" -- You're blaming the victim. Again, government holds a monopoly or at least a heavy hand over these services. It is difficult or impossible not to use them because the government has so heavily manipulated the market for these services.
"I will not buy a car from the government" -- I have already decided never to buy another new GM or Chrysler car. Ford deserves high praise for maintaining its principles.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." -- Most theologians do not believe that Saint Paul actually even wrote 1 Timothy. Ignoring that, though, I fail to see how putting a gun to someone's head and taking his money can be considered Christian-like in nature, even if the money is ultimately used for charity (after the bureaucrat takes his cut, of course. And most of what's left is not used for charity anyhow.). Jesus strongly encouraged charity, but I absolutely do not believe he would have beaten or murdered anyone who refused to share.
If you think I'm exaggerating about being murdered for not paying taxes, look at what has happened to American tax resisters over the centuries. They've been beaten, imprisoned, and sometimes murdered at the hands of the state.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- Absolutely. Not initiating aggression against your fellow man is far more moral than threatening to murder him or to send him to rot in some government cage if he refuses to give out his money. If you want to call that "selfishness," then God willing, let me be selfish, even though I think that's an inappropriate label. This is the morally superior position, and I will promote it forever.
Fortunately, Michigan's governor has only made a *request* (at least for the time being) for debt forgiveness, but my comments above are still on-mark and worth considering.
I don't think Wooten wants the government to disappear. But if he could snap his fingers and make all that stuff privatized, and he wanted to, I'd want him to get his wish so he could see what a disaster it'd be.
Why would privatization be a disaster?
Large-scale, long-term privatization has only occurred a few times in history (excluding ancient history, obviously), but as far as I am aware it has been quite successful every time it has occurred.
Most notably, medieval Iceland had a stable, voluntary, no-government, private system that worked well for over 300 years. They even had a private judicial system.
When Pennsylvania was still an early colony, its government collapsed. The colony got along great without it. When outsiders tried to reimpose government on the colony, the colonists resisted.
Even Somalia has benefited from its semi-anarcho-capitalist experiment. Obviously, Somalia is not an ideal example because its anarchism arose through war, fueled in part by US interventionist bullying. However, since the government collapsed, Somalia has been doing better on nearly every indicator of quality of life. The "Somalia-is-a-hell-hole" stereotype common in the West is not true. The average life expectancy, the number of doctors per capita, the number of technological products (TV's, etc.) per capita, and many other indicators have all improved. In fact, Somalia is now one of the best countries in Africa for certain services. And all this has arisen from a country that was violently and forcibly plunged into anarchism at the hands of several competing governments! Imagine if anarchism had arisen in Somalia in a more natural, government-free fashion!
Bryant, do you not remember that part where Jesus comes into Jerusalem and flips over the table of the money-changers in the temple?
Brett: That was because they were desecrating the Temple by being noisy and distracting.
Jesus even justifies his actions by quoting from Isaiah and Jeremiah about how the Temple should be a quiet place for prayer.
His purpose was to restore serenity to the Temple so that people could pray and reflect quietly. He was attacking them because they were causing a disturbance in the Temple, not simply because they were money changers.
And it definitely wasn't because usury among Jews was totally illegal at the time.
Brett: If Jesus supported violent attacks against people who charge interest, why didn't he go around beating up every usurer in Jerusalem? If usury itself was Jesus' target, why did he limit his attacks to just the Temple?
He only chased away the ones in the Temple because while he may have disapproved of usury, he did not support the use of violence against those who practiced it. He only used violence in a very limited way to protect the sanctity of the Temple.
This suggests that unless someone is directly and aggressively destroying your property (The usurers were violating the Temple, which is the property of God and all those who worship him.), then it is immoral to use violence against them.
Violence is only justified to protect one's property, life, etc.
Wait Bryant, so are you saying that Jesus condoned using violence to protect your property? I think he said something more like "Give away all of your property, or you cannot be my disciple" (Matt 19:17-21, Luke 18:22, Luke 12:33, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:33).
John Rose:
"Give away all of your property, or you cannot be my disciple" -- Absolutely. He encouraged people to share with others, but he never forced them to do so. Jesus didn't go around taking people's stuff without their consent, beating them up, and forcing them to join the disciples. Notice how you even used the phrase "give away," which implies that the action is voluntary, not coerced.
By extension from Jesus' actions in the Temple, it seems reasonable to take actions to protect your property, including defensive violence if necessary. It seems to me that Jesus would have been more likely to simply let robbers steal whatever they wanted from him, but Jesus was already in a giving mood to begin with, so it's a moot point. But even Jesus had his limits (i.e., the Temple). Most people have much stricter limits than Jesus did.
If someone wants to keep his property to himself, then it is immoral to forcibly take that property from him. Jesus never did so. He even spoke out against violence, and he only used violence in extremely narrow situations (i.e. at the Temple). Initiatory force is morally unjustifiable. If someone does not want to share, try to persuade him to do so (You could even use Jesus as a role model.), but do not steal his property.
The Temple is a somewhat different issue. It's communally owned, and it belongs to God and his followers, so you can't simply give it away, so to speak.
Post a Comment