RoR: Forum

I was just about to ask if anyone had written a Letter to the Editor in response to Krugman. Glad to see someone beat me to it!

Nate

Post 1

Monday, September 19, 2011 - 8:53am

Indeed - when it is coerced, it is NOT compassion...

Post 2

Monday, September 19, 2011 - 9:14am

If Krugman understood the meaning of compassion he'd quit torturing us with his awful opinions.

Post 3

Saturday, January 4, 2014 - 4:07pm

So you're saying that someone who's for assistance to the poor and unemployed will necessarily fail to assiste someone who's the victim of an automobile accident? Moreover, that they would abuse a trapped victim?

Kindly, sir, explain your reasoning behind this--which seems somewjhat unlike that which might be expected of a PhD in philosophy.

EM

Post 4

Saturday, January 4, 2014 - 5:36pm

Eva,

First I want to point out that you should make your post explicitly to Professor Machan, if that is whose statements you want to address. I started to answer your post as if it was to me, since it immediately follows my post.

Second, putting words in someone's mouth is not a form of argumentation that is going to get you far. It is much better to state your belief and provide the reasoning. And it is more effective to quote what you are refuting, stay with the principles involved rather than concretes (except as examples), and to avoid implied personal attacks or sarcasm... at least when you are communicating with someone who has Tibor Machan's credentials Tibor Machan's credentials.

Third, your argument doesn't make sense in the context of Professor Machan's short article. His argument was that real compassion is private not something administered at the end of the gun belonging to the IRS as they collect, by threat of force, other people's money which is used to engage in their alleged compassion. That's just coercion.
---------------

You wrote:

So you're saying that someone who's for assistance to the poor and unemployed will necessarily fail to assiste someone who's the victim of an automobile accident?

This is putting words in his mouth he didn't say. He said that using the force of government to make other people assist the traffic accident victim would be the equivalent of using the force of government to fund welfare programs. Imagine that you find yourself on a street and a cop is pointing a gun at you and saying you need to volunteer a few minutes to help some victim. It doesn't matter that you would have helped without the threat, or that it only takes a few minutes... wouldn't it make you feel very uncomfortable? Dr. Machan is making the point that taking a small amount of tax dollars from a large number of people, through taxes, to do welfare is ethically identical.
---------------

You continued by writing:

Moreover, that they would abuse a trapped victim?

I think you misread what he wrote. Take a look, because there isn't anything like that.
---------------

If you want reasoned understandings of politics and ethics from the prospective of a ethical egoism, then you'd do well to read more of Dr. Machan's writings. If you want irrational, political propaganda from the far left, then stick with Krugman.

Post 5

Saturday, January 4, 2014 - 11:41pm

Steve,

If you begin reading the paragraph that begins, "Professor Krugman, we may assume..." you'll see that the inference is direct; no words are being put into anyone's mouth.

Likewise, if you're incapable of reading clearly what's on the page, you shouldn't be offering advice to others.

Now if you want to argue this out further, kindly cutnpaste Tibor's article onto your page & we'll discuss. You can take ownership and I'll leave Tibor out of it.

I found Tibor's sarcasm --the suggestion that Krugman wouold fail to render assistance because his compassion lies elsewhere--to be inappropriate character assassination, hence tasteless.

His is is as ad hominem as it gets, other than, of course, his constant referral to Krugman as an 'idiot'.

Having 'credentials' creates no exception, nor will it permit a 'no fly' zone in which sarcasm and personal animosity are permitted by only one party.

Re 'credentials' in general: I've both parents as full professors. What they have to say imparts knowledge to others. And, Krugman has 'credentials, too. So why not offer everyone the same respect?

Lastly, whomever I should read to obtain a particular pov belabors the point. Moreover, that I may agree with privitization and individualism does not keep me from challenging myself with an opposing perspective.

Krugman writes for a newspaper (NYT) that would not permit him to suggest of his political opponents what Tibor has written. He's therefore both enjoyable and challenging.

EM

Post 6

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 2:48am

Eva,

You're apparently fond of Krugman. My sympathies. I have no respect for the man. None. But I don't see any reason to burden you with my opinions regarding his lack of character or common sense.

You missed the point of what I wrote. And it is hard to understand how someone can be as intelligent as you obviously are, and not see the difference between liberty and coercion in the example. But that too is something I don't need to belabor.

Post 7

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 4:33am

Krugman writes for a newspaper (NYT) that would not permit him to suggest of his political opponents what Tibor has written. He's therefore both enjoyable and challenging. (Matthews)

Really? Check the link in Post 27 here:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/2244_1.shtml#27
Krugman's NYT article says, "Conservatives seem, in particular, to believe that freedom�s just another word for not enough to eat." He says Republicans are "meanspirited class warriors."
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 1/05, 7:53am)

Post 8

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 6:36am

AFAIK Krugman is just a poster boy for the banksters. He is where he is because the elite manipulators like him there.

Proof: See what he says about gold or bitcoin.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/05, 6:39am)

Post 9

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 9:00am

Steve,

You don't need to be fond' of anyone to say that they would assist a trapped motorist.
Perhaps you care to disagree?

That I read anyone in particular has no real bearing as to what I believe, anyway. that's because I read to challenge myself.

Perhaps, you, oth, reading only what you already believe thereby seeking only reinforcement?

Both you and Tibor seem to think it proper to judge character by virtue of another's stated beliefs in how things work. I, emphatically do not.

That you would acuse me not not comprehending the distinction between liberty and coercion is outright silly--if not altogether a spate of well-poisioning a la Tibor.

EM

Post 10

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 9:20am

Merlin,

Thanks for the heads-up.

If Tibor's remarks were merely a matter of retaliation, it would be somewhat understandable. Otherwise, the entire tenor is both uncomfortable and disruptive to a newcomer.

Perhaps, then, he should have better contextualized his sarcasm. I see enough pissing contests already, on campus, among the obvious future drop-outs of the newly-arrived freshman class.

Conservatism basically believes that market institutions best allocate goods and services for the entire population. Likewise, it best rewards success, thereby encouraging initiave.

Poverty, then, is not an intended outcome. Nor is it fair to state that those who do not accept re-distribution simply don't care. Rather, again, their solution lies elsewhere--with the market.

Krugman, of course, should be obliged offer proof to the contrary--that there is some intent by 'conservatives' to intentionally harm others.

IMHO, the NYT should do a far better job of editing. Perhaps, regrettably, he slides under the radar because of his 'credentials'... as always, totally unacceptable.

EM

Post 11

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 11:34am

Eva,

You don't need to be fond' of anyone to say that they would assist a trapped motorist.

That is obviously true - taken by itself.

Perhaps you care to disagree?

No, but then it wasn't what I was saying. I don't find any joy in responding to that kind of argument. I picked up from your posts about Krugman that were fond of him or his ideas. If I was mistaken, then you can just say so. You were clear that you don't want my advice so it there is very little reason to explain that making that kind of "A = B therefore C = D" argument doesn't hold water.
-----------------

Perhaps, you, oth, reading only what you already believe thereby seeking only reinforcement?

Another bad argument. You start with an unfounded assumption that I only read what is friendly to my beliefs, then you engage in mind reading by asserting that I do so because I'm seeking reinforcement. And, by the way, putting a question mark at the end of an insult doesn't take away the ad hominem nature of the remark.
-----------------

Both you and Tibor seem to think it proper to judge character by virtue of another's stated beliefs in how things work.

False assumption. I do judge character, but not where I have a sense that the person is simply stating an honestly held belief.
-----------------

That you would acuse me not not comprehending the distinction between liberty and coercion is outright silly--if not altogether a spate of well-poisioning a la Tibor.

Go back and reread what I said and pay attention to the phrase "in the example." My assertion was that you missed the point, and that includes not seeing the difference between a volunteer act and a coerced act "in the example.".
-----------------

This kind of to and fro isn't the sort of posting I come to RoR for. I want to argue or discuss intellectual distinctions of principles and their applications in areas that are important. The thread can weave here and there and get off track, but if it becomes like our latest posts, it brings me no joy. You don't want any advice from me. You don't respect my opinions. Sad to say, there seems to be little reason for us to exchange volleys.

Post 12

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 12:59pm

Steve,

Of course I don't want any advice from you...do you want any from me?!

Working on the assumption that you agree with Tibor, again, feel free to post his article as your own and we can discuss.

You might also offer a quick summary as to what Tibor was trying to say.

Then we can refer back to the written text to determine whether or not Tibor's intentions cohere to your understanding, or mine.

You're likewise free to explain why you think Krugman is not honestly expressing his beliefs, in which case you'd 'judge' his character (per last post).

EM

Post 13

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 6:35pm

Eva,

Of course I don't want any advice from you...do you want any from me?!

OF COURSE I DO! If a person is intelligent, and they are well read in areas of interest to you, and they are offering what may well be valid, useful knowledge - custom tailored for you based upon posts you've made - and it's free - who wouldn't be willing to spend the time giving it a quick glance. I don't know about you, but I have learned enormously from people who have offered me advice. Sure, you get lots of crap, lots of well intentioned but unneeded advice, and lots of arguments masquerading as suggestions... but I've improved my critical thinking from advice on how to make a sounder argument. On forums like this, I've learned over a fairly short time, which members are worth reading carefully, and which to ignore pretty much all the time.
-------------

I believe that Professor Machan was saying that charity, or compassion, must be voluntary in order to be charitable, in order to be compassionate.

And therefore when government coerces money out of taxpayers and then spends it in attempts to help others, that isn't real charity or compassion. It is government enforced, taxpayer funded welfare. Professor Machan was criticizing Krugman for an attack on Ron Paul and others who don't believe in government welfare programs - an attack that accused them of not being compassionate. (An attack which would be an ad hominem, false assumption, straw-man argument, by the way.)

(Ron Paul, as a libertarian, doesn't only believe that government welfare is not compassionate since it is done with money extorted from others, but he also believes that it is not practical since the unintended consequences of welfare actually make things much worse over the long-run, and he believes that it is unconstitutional, hence illegal, and that it is immoral to take one person's money by threat of force - even if it were going to a good cause.)

Post 14

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 7:01pm

Steve,

If you define 'compassion' as an intention of good-will--a mental state, as it were-- both personal charity and organized welfare flow from the same source.

The objection to welfare lies elsewhere: redistribution of taxes into the hands of those defined as 'needy' prohibit direct transfer.

In other words, as the taxed individual, I'm denied the personal touch of demonstrating compassion via personal charity because the compassion-fund has gone into a general pool.

Moreover, the taxing agent has co-opted the privelege of charity from whom he/she has taxed. It's the state that appears generous at the expense of the individual.

Organized 'doing good' (caritas, agape) justifies its methods of redistribution from the pov of efficiency, much like waging war and utilities, by claiming individual charity is inefficient, while welfare works.

this switches the axis to that of cost/benefit, without casting aspersions on intent--a dead end argument, in my opinion.

If Tibor was just going afer Paul for his attack on Ron...okay...whatever. iIve already stated my opinion that Paul was out of line, and should have been edited by his employer, the NYT...

Eva

Post 15

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 7:45pm

Eva,

Reading your last post, I think we are mostly on the same page. But, I would say that a good definition of compassion would go beyond the intention of good will. It must also carry an emotional component - and that makes it more personal. It is literally about sharing feelings for another's plight. I might be very rational in the actions chosen to help another, but its understood that I'm moved by sympathy for the people needing help.

Here is an example where there is helping, and it is intentional, personal and non-government, but yet it isn't compassionate: I could be hired by some private charitable organization to do good works, and I might intend to do good works, yet when it came time... I might not feel any compassion for the people being aided.
-------------------

You mentioned an objection to welfare. I have many objections to federal government sponsored welfare

Immorality of taking money from one to give to another
Economic burden of unproductive spending
Give legitimacy to collective, socialist concepts
No constitutional authority, thus illegal
Creation of dependency and a sense of entitlement
Use of hand-out programs (to individual or corporations) to buy votes, repay supporters, feed special interest groups, shift the Overton window to the left
Division of the populace into dependents versus producers, rich versus the poor and the conflicts these causes
Harm to the self-esteem and integrity and honesty of those who live at the expense of others
Growth of the government which in itself endangers liberty

Post 16

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 8:28pm

"Don't feed the bears"

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 1/05, 8:29pm)

Post 17

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 8:44pm

Steve,

I believe that you've raised a good point that although the designers of welfare act out of compassion, the actual hands-on work is just a job for those twho perform the task.

The point, however, is that we frequently trade off direct compassion for efficiency. Think of a surgeon, or simply that most necessary tasks are impersonally performed.

Most of your stated reasons for not having welfare involve paradox and discomfort. These are discussable issues, but insufficient for a refusal to redistribute to the needy.

Two of them I'll dispute:
* 'creation of dependency and entitlement'--no evidence of this other than the anecdotal
* 'causes dependency vs production' -- do trees make the wind blow?

Eva

Post 18

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 9:04pm

Eva,

1. You are telling me that if the US gov stopped redistributing wealth, you don't think a large portion of the US population would die? There's a huge swath of our population depending on Fed redistribution. I'd call that dependency. Now as for the "entitled" aspect... I'd just say that there are more people who feel entitled because if it were not for the forced redistribution many of those people would be dead.

2. The Feds stealing from producers to give to others makes producers dislike the others. I think this is a pretty clear and easily accepted premise... but if you doubt me... then ask some business owners or professional workers how they feel about their money being redistributed to lazy government workers and lazy welfare recipients. (Not implying that all of them are lazy)

Post 19

Sunday, January 5, 2014 - 9:35pm