The Crux of the Problem
In Micheal’s last post he attempts to argue for equivalence between Obama and Palin in dealing with financial problems. I think the argument fails and also underscores why so many on the left fail to understand the objections on the right.
Crucial to his argument is that notion that Palin is asking for others to help her pay her bills. Presumably Michael is arguing that this demand is similar to Barack asking citizens to help pay for the debts he is creating in ‘fixing’ the economy. Thus he argues that the two are similar in principle.
However, Michael fails to draw distinction between the two sources of funding which is absolutely necessary for his argument to work. Palin is asking for private donors to help her pay off her legal debt while Obama is using the state’s monopoly on coercion to forcibly take money from the citizenry to stimulate the economy. In one case those that wish to contribute to Palin legal fund are doing so by their own choice, while those funding Obama’a policies have no choices in the matter. In fact, many of those people don’t even exist yet, as they have not even been born.
I would take no objection to Obama deciding to establish a save the economy fund in which he attempted to get Americans to donate close to a trillion dollars. My core issue with Obama’s policy is that he is taking without consent other people’s money to ‘fix’ a perceived problem. At the end of the day, I don’t care how people spend their money just so long as its not my money they are spending.
In the case of Palin, people are not spending my money to pay for he legal counsel. In the case of Obama people are spending my money to pay for ‘fixing’ the economy. In no way can it be argued that Palin’s voluntary legal fund is equivalent to Obama’s mandated stimulus fund.
While alarming, the fact that Michael confuses coercion with volition is a common mistake many on the left make. It’s how they are able to support expensive legislation without feeling guilt. They simply forget about the part where guys with guns forcibly take your money away from you.
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
Where does this voluntary money come from? Could some it be from political friends?
Any need for future favors? Do you know the heart of a politics is?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I do understand the difference between coercion and volition. What I don’t understand is why you get so defensive when I make a joke about Palin. Do you have a crush on her or something? How much are you donating to her legal defense fund?
March 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
If you are being honest and it was truly only a joke then It’s my bad. However if it was a half joke half ‘i’m going to see if it I can get this by without anyone noticing’ then I feel justified in my response.
Technically I was defensive about the confusion of volition with coercion. Its a very common mistake made by people on the left.
PS: I think it was more the later than the former since you quoted so much text. Jokes work better when you don’t quote 600 lines of text.
March 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
I was trying to squeeze it into your “Much Like…” format. It didn’t stand up to my normal rigorous standards, but that wasn’t my intention. Mainly it was because I don’t like Palin, and I wanted to get a rise out of you.
But I do wish I could get the state to pay for my family vacations and meals like Palin. Now THAT’S coercion.
March 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Just a question Steve if the banks are not bailed out - what do you think should happen to people like me who have lots of money in the bank? Should we just lose all the money when the banks fail?