Oh, it's Isaiah Berlin who came up with foxes and hedgehogs, is it? I remember a particularly pointless conversation in Jamaica once trying to work out who was who -- and then, when that got too stultifying for words, trying out the cavalier/roundhead distinction instead. But since none of us really knew what we were talking about, it was all pretty unedifying. In general, I'm very suspicious of all "there are two kinds of people in the world" arguments -- but then again, aren't we all?

Friedrich -- glad to hear you're doing your bit to support the US economy. I don't think I said you were a bad guy, although I would dispute your implicit assertion that your family doesn't maybe get its full $10k's worth of govt spending because you're not on Medicare. For one thing, there are really big items in the budget like defense spending and interest expenses on the national debt which you can allot the benefits of as you please, but which certainly don't accrue to the poor any more than they do to the rich. For another, people in richer neighborhoods generally get better policing, roads, education, etc than people in poorer neigborhoods.

Still, I'm happy to concede that you put in more than you take out. Pretty much anybody who pays a six-figure tax bill would fall into that category, unless they're some kind of government employee or contractor. Are you aggrieved at this state of affairs? Of course it could hardly be otherwise: if we forced each American to shoulder their share of the national debt (ie the national debt divided by the number of Americans) then the country would go bankrupt overnight, and none of us wants that. (For an example of what happens when a country goes bankrupt, I would point you to Argentina, whence I have recently returned, although I did do a bit of wireless blogging while I was down there.)

You seem caught up on -- let me see now -- violence, intimidation, tyranny and oppression. And how freedom from these is the greatest freedom of all. Agreed. But surely you'd agree that freedom doesn't end there? And I'm interested that you say that "solving people's material problems is not a magic cure all for tyranny or oppression" -- I'm actually right-wing enough to believe that, to all intents and purposes, it is. Can you give a counterexample? The closest I can think of is Singapore, which certainly doesn't have the tyranny, and which is hardly in the major leagues in terms of opression, either.

Oh, and as for my scores, I posted them above.

Posted by: Felix on February 26, 2003 06:32 PM

I was indeed thinking of Berlin's ideas of positive and negative freedom, and I fully endorse the recommendation of his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty". It's one of the major essays of twentieth-century political philosophy. Let me make it quite clear that I'm bang up alongside the idea of negative freedom. That's what the quiz questions on authoritarianism/libertarianism are about, and if you recall I come out strongly libertarian in those terms. However, negative freedom is not enough. We also need positive freedom -- the freedom to direct our own lives, rather than be directed by others. Right-libertarians generally fail to recognise that aspect of freedom. Indeed, I think "libertarian" is a bit of a misnomer when applied to those folks, as they tend, at bottom, to favour an ideal of justice rather than an ideal of freedom.

The idea that, by paying taxes which will fund healthcare amongst other things, but not using that healthcare oneself, one is necessarily a net contributor to society is a bit naive. Your own health, prosperity and, yes, freedom, depend on a whole lot of other people all doing their bit to maintain and improve society, and an awful lot of them have recourse to healthcare at some point in their lives. The same goes for many other budget areas. I don't have kids, yet my taxes help pay for education. Am I being ripped off? Hardly. The taxes I'm paying now will help educate the doctors who cure me, the drivers and pilots who transport me, the public health officials who maintain my clean environment and the engineers who create lots of cool new stuff for me to play with twenty years from now.

Regarding Michael's point about two political temperaments, let me pass on this quote from Nick Clegg MEP:

"In the end, our differences are an expression of one of the enduring faultlines in politics between conservatives and progressives: you believe change is dangerous and should be treated with caution; I believe change is inevitable and should be treated as an opportunity."

Posted by: Iain J Coleman on February 26, 2003 07:10 PM

Hey Felix --

The fun response is "there are two kinds of people, ones who don't find the 'two kinds of people' comparisons helpful, and the ones who do find them helpful." You're right, though, that's too easy. But I'm eager to find out what the Cavalier/Roundhead comparison is meant to signify. Explanation please. I dimly recall what Cavaliers and Roundheads were, but what's the point of the comparison in the present day?

Hey Iain --

Excellent quote from Nick Clegg, thanks. Exactly.

Hey Friedrich --

I forget sometimes that you aren't a guy who's been working ultra-long hours for over two decades in a tough competitive environment to keep a small business afloat, meanwhile contending with high taxes and a ton of excessive and silly regulations. Sorry. Remind me occasionally to remind myself that what you are in fact is a plutocrat, exploiter and ingrate who doesn't understand what society has given him.

Hey, all: 32 posts -- some kind of record. Whee. Still eager to hear from more women, though. Or have you banded together and decided to let Laurel speak for all of you?

By the way, y'all fell for this silly political thing, and yet no one saw fit to comment on some of our truly high-class postings? Like the Mariel Hemingway one a few postings down? I mean, really. Don't you care about real culture?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 26, 2003 09:03 PM

Hey Friedrich -- I forget sometimes that you aren't a guy who's been working ultra-long hours for over two decades in a tough competitive environment to keep a small business afloat, meanwhile contending with high taxes and a ton of excessive and silly regulations.

If California's taxes are "high" and its regulations "excessive and silly", then presumably you can point to an economy where neither of these two conditions obtains, an economy, moreover, which will presumably be much more successful and entrepeneurial than California. Or do your adjectives just jerk out of you, as if your knee's just been hit by a reflex hammer, despite the fact that really you consider them wholly redundant?

And what is it with Blowhards and straw men? Who among us is accusing Friedrich of being a plutocrat, let alone an exploiter?

As for Cavaliers and Roundheads, here's something pulled off the web at random:

The "Roundheads" and the "Cavaliers" fought each other in the English Civil War of the 1640s. In the centuries since that conflict, the distinctive character of the contenders has become part of the language of English-speaking peoples: Roundheads are industrious, middle-class, thrifty, sober, and puritan in their religion and lifestyle; Cavaliers are carefree, aristocratic, stylish, fun-loving, and easygoing in their religion and politics.

Of course, given that distinction, everybody would like to consider themselves a Cavalier, with the possible exception of John Ashcroft. But it can still come in useful sometimes, especially when limning the difference between libertarians and conservatives.

Posted by: Felix on February 26, 2003 09:59 PM

Michael accuses of us not caring about real culture, and neglects to mention that he begged for comments here even more piteously than usual. Then he complains when we oblige him.

Posted by: Aaron Haspel on February 27, 2003 12:25 AM

Caught out by the God of the Machine once again! That's the last time his poetry postings get linked-to by this blog, that's fer damn sure.

Beware the wrath of 2Blowhards! Shameless link-and-comment whores though we may be...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 27, 2003 01:14 AM

Michael Blowhard
EMAIL: michael@2blowhards.com
IP: 207.237.195.74
URL: http://www.2blowhards.com
DATE: 02/26/2003 12:55:39 AM
And where are the women? 2Blowhards wants to know your scores, gals. Lynn? Laurel? Alexandra? Tank Mommy? Alice? Let us hear from you!

Posted by: on May 8, 2003 04:24 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?