Couple of things
- Gov. Sonny Perdue unleashes his harshest criticism yet of the Glenn Tax, and I think he's pretty much spot on. Of course, Erick and guys think Perdue is silly to say there's not problem with the tax system. My take is that it's not that broken, but rather is just in need of some necessary tweaks here and there ... not a complete scrapping of the system replaced with one that is subject to the whims of the market and consolidates power in Atlanta.
- Related to that, I agree with Flack on this ... the state party has shown quality leadership on this matter, but where have the elected officials at the state level been? They've been all but quiet on this front and let the local officials and state party (and Sonny!) take the lead.
- Among other things, tonight the Athens-Clarke County Commission ponders creating distance waivers for businesses to serve alcohol within the restricted areas near churches and schools.
- You've got a good, old-fashioned ideological disagreement between Han Park and Dr. Tom McCormack, but I do want to briefly address this notion that health care is a 'right' ... why shouldn't it be? Then again, why should it be? We act as if the Constitution is end-all, be-all on rights granted to humans, but in reality it's merely an attempt by the Founding Fathers to define what they wished to grant to our citizens. Now there's also a disagreement on whether or not health care is actually addressed in that document (folks split in interpretations of 'general welfare'), but that isn't to say that a community can't come together and determine what rights they wish for their residents to possess. Granted, I'm wading into philosophical waters that I'm not trained to swim in, but it's an interesting question to ponder, isn't it?
- Congrats Giada ... easily the favorite star of The Food Network of Russ and I.
- Programming update ... plans to record our first podcast in weeks are set for tonight, and it promises to be excellent. Hopefully we'll get it up tonight or first thing tomorrow morning.
- Looks like Curt Schilling's coming back ... now let's move on Mike Lowell fellas.
- Related to that, I agree with Flack on this ... the state party has shown quality leadership on this matter, but where have the elected officials at the state level been? They've been all but quiet on this front and let the local officials and state party (and Sonny!) take the lead.
- Among other things, tonight the Athens-Clarke County Commission ponders creating distance waivers for businesses to serve alcohol within the restricted areas near churches and schools.
- You've got a good, old-fashioned ideological disagreement between Han Park and Dr. Tom McCormack, but I do want to briefly address this notion that health care is a 'right' ... why shouldn't it be? Then again, why should it be? We act as if the Constitution is end-all, be-all on rights granted to humans, but in reality it's merely an attempt by the Founding Fathers to define what they wished to grant to our citizens. Now there's also a disagreement on whether or not health care is actually addressed in that document (folks split in interpretations of 'general welfare'), but that isn't to say that a community can't come together and determine what rights they wish for their residents to possess. Granted, I'm wading into philosophical waters that I'm not trained to swim in, but it's an interesting question to ponder, isn't it?
- Congrats Giada ... easily the favorite star of The Food Network of Russ and I.
- Programming update ... plans to record our first podcast in weeks are set for tonight, and it promises to be excellent. Hopefully we'll get it up tonight or first thing tomorrow morning.
- Looks like Curt Schilling's coming back ... now let's move on Mike Lowell fellas.
posted by Jmac at 9:12 AM
20 Comments:
Just to sketch an argument against a 'right' to health:
Rights create obligations on other people. My 'right to life' means that every other person in this society has a moral (and usually legal) obligation not to attack my life. The same goes for the other two traditional rights of classical liberalism: property and liberty. These rights are 'negative', in that they create obligations in others to refrain from certain kinds of activity. My right to property means that other people are obligated to refrain from exercising control over the things that I happen to own. Those are things are for me to dispense with as I see fit. Once I sell my shirt to somebody else, then it becomes his and he has the right to it (and I am now obligated to refrain from exercising control over it).
Contemporary liberalism has tried to introduce further notions of rights that are positive, and among these are the so-called 'right to health.' The problem with 'positive' rights is that they create obligations in others to do certain things, not merely an obligation to refrain from doing something. If I have a right to health, for example, then that means that you have an obligation to give up some of your own time, property, or other resources to make sure that I stay healthy.
In short, positive conceptions of rights are in direct conflict with negative conceptions of rights. You cannot have all of them, and you cannot just pick which rights you like and let the others go. Logically, if I have a positive right to be healthy (whatever that means, whoever gets to define that), then that means that you do NOT have a right to your own property, because if my health is in danger then you now have an obligation to give your property up in order to help out my health.
So, if you want to have newer 'positive' rights like health, abundance, happiness, education, economic equality, etc., then you are actually taking away the more traditional liberal rights of property, life, and liberty.
I am a "classic liberalist" by that definition. Not to an extreme but it does seem to be that the labels "liberal" and "conservative" seem to always come down to what is more important - people or money?
Liberals tend to think that human needs are more important than building wealth and conservatives seem to favor building wealth for themselves over the needs of humans.
Am I being to simplistic or cynical? You tell me.
Al
What Xon said.
Every time a liberal proposes to add to the roster of rights, it's time to reach for your wallet.
If you're going to obligate someone else to pay your doctor bill, why not obligate someone to pay your mortgage or buy your food or make your car payment?
I'm fine with the rights we already have: speech, assemblage, the right to keep British troops out of my house.
And one ambiguity that I should have addressed is that 'rights' exist differently within different relational contexts. So, for example, Christianity teaches that JMac does have an obligation to help the widow, the orphan, or the poor. This is a 'positive' obligation on JMac of some sort. But this obligation (or, on the flip side, the 'right' of the widow/orphan/poor to be helped by JMac) comes from the fact that, ultimately, JMac does not own his own property, body, or time: God does. For Christianity, God owns everything, and so God can tell us what to do with the things that He has really just 'loaned' to us anyway. So the fact that God gives us obligations to do certain things is perfectly consistent with the argument I sketched above, because we can just say that it is God who has all the 'negative' rights in the ulimtate sense that He is the Creator and He owns everything and so it is all His to do with as He pleases. Which means that, before God, we don't actually have any 'negative' rights to life, liberty, or property at all.
The relationship of God and human beings is one 'relational context.' But, when we talk about civil society, or government, we are talking about a different realtional context. The relational context of government involves human beings relating to other human beings. And, in that context, no one person has any absolute positive right to demand things from another human being. I have no 'right' to demand that you give me some of your property, or that you give me part of your body, etc. Human beings own themselves, relative to other human beings. And this means that human beings have 'negative' rights with respect to other human beings. There is no room for 'positive' rights like that of health.
Al, I think you're being both simplistic and cynical, but neither of those are necessarily bad things. :-) Prophets are usually generalists who paint with a broad brush, and they can always be accused of being 'simplistic.' But I think we need prophets.
And it's hard not to be cynical in this crazy world we live in. Though I realize that this sentiment violates the chosen title of this blog, so perhaps we should be respectful of our gracious proprietor and not be TOO cynical. If we can help it. :-)
Anyway, I think your explanation of liberal and conservative is interesting, but I don't think that 'classical liberals' are really all that different from modern-day conservatives. Reagan and Goldwater were (at least in theory) 'classical liberals' for instance. The government exists to protect the rights of the people, and those rights are life liberty and property. That's classical liberalism, and it's also 'small government' conservatism, isn't it?
"but I don't think that 'classical liberals' are really all that different from modern-day conservatives"
What I meant so say was "...modern-day small government conservatives." Not all modern conservatives are created equal, and many of them (sadly) are not 'small government' at all.
Wow. Al's been called a lot of things, but never a prophet. There's a first time for everything! Huzzah!
Great post Xon . . .
David
Perdue's reaction: Why overhaul a a system that's not broken?
No disrespect to His Excellency, but this doesn't make sense. Just because it's not "broken" doesn't mean you can't make it better. My old Buick was not "broken" in that it still ran, but I still wanted a better car so I got a 4 Runner.
Ah, big government 'conservatism.' Messing with things that ain't broken, because they "could" be better. And, of course, we all know how wildly successful governments have historically been at making things (that weren't even broken in the first place, remember) better.
If we could ever make the people who don't think they pay property taxes understand that they do, in fact, pay property taxes, this thing would pass in a walk.
As it is, the economically illiterate think they're getting one over on The Man.
People would still object to the fact that all the consumption-tax money goes to Atlanta to be disbursed to the politically favorable.
And while I am not a fan of government-managed education, my opinion is in the extreme minority at this point in time and so I'm not sure how local communities are supposed to pay for their schools if property taxes are taken away. They'll end up having to beg the masters in Atlanta, who I'm sure are all fair and well-reasoned statesmen with only the best interest of Georgian everywhere at heart. Or, local jurisdictions will levy other taxes, and so the overall tax-burden is going to go up.
If someone wants to raise taxes, run them out. If they just want to keep things 'revenue neutral', but shuffle around the furniture on the deck, and oh-by-the-way their scheme will suprisingly consolidate power in their own hands, then laugh at them... and then run them out.
The GREAT Glenn Tax on Everything is really just publicly-funded campaign financing.
All the money will go to the places where Glenn needs the votes in his run to be the next Goobernor. Plain and simple - this is NOT tax reform; it IS campaign finance reform.
Al
This proposed Glenn tax is a warning of something looming. People are fed up with the current state of taxation. As a business owner, I am constantly navigating and maneuvering amongst layers of taxation that make little sense and all seem targeted at keeping people from realizing just how much of their money is sent to the government.
People are pissed at the lack of transparency and I'm one of them. The Glenn tax is a bad idea but I'm worried people will pick anything to get away from the crooked system we have now. I think the best defense against the Glenn tax and other poorly planned concepts is for people to start acting in earnest for an overhaul of the tax system. BTW, if you think school systems don’t beg the government for dollars now, you’re kidding yourself. Clarke County schools has not employed a grant writer to fill out the faculty basketball team.
We need a system with less loopholes and one that does not penalize saving. We need a system that does not reward people for spending more than they have only to tax them wildly when they are elderly with a fixed income. We need something better than we have right now.
And Al a prophet? The joke is too easy.
Snowden, I agree wholeheartedly that we need comprehensive tax reform. In this country. In this state. In this world. And by "comprehensive reform", I mean "kill them. Kill them all." So, there you go...
I also recongize that school districts beg for money already, but taking away their primary source of local revenue and funneling it through the golden dome in Atlanta will not help that situation, will it? Like I said, I am against government-managed education anyway, and I am well aware of the inherent problems of politicization that come with such a system no matter what the precise tax structure. But, all that said, some tax structures are worse than others, and the Glenn Tax is terrible.
But your points on the need for reform and transparency are spot on. A Xon administration would be your friend for sure.
for once, I agree with Snowden:
A prophet?! where the hell did that come from?!
I appreciate the compliment but I know better. ;-)
Al
Well, I only used prophet of an example of 'simplistic' people who are needed by society. I didn't call you a prophet, Al. :-)
hehehe....thanks, Xon.
I'm just sitting here bored trying to watch the M&C meeting but my internet connection keeps going in-and-out.
BTW - I should have said thank you for the thoughtful and considered response.
I am simplistic in the sense that I try to cut through to what is motivating people in their views and actions.
It still seems to me that it often comes down to people vs. money and which you value more. But, there are plenty of exceptions and nobody lives on the extremes. I care a lot more about people than money but I have not given all my worldly possessions to charity and I'm not walking around penniless wearing only a dirty loincloth. So, I'm a hypocrite in the eyes of many. Xon, on the other hand, is not (to my knowledge) selling crack to school kids or making porn movies or selling weapons to rogue nations on the black market so, he obviously does not care only about maximizing his personal wealth. (Not meaning to pick on you, Xon.)
So, it's not one or the other - it's a gradient and we each choose where we want to be on the scale.
I agree with the fact that it often comes down to people and money and that such is often more a gradient than black and white but it will be often that we disagree on the methods.
I know that some efforts (bike lanes, Green Space acquisition, zoning issues) will benefit the quality of life for people. I know other issues (mid-industrial job recruitment, city water and fire protection, tax relief for the elderly) are issues that affect other groups of people. You may support the former and you're not necessarily wrong. I support the latter because I think such issues truly help the impoverished class. That does not make you a "money" person rather than a "people" person. We just have differing opinions about what helps people the most.
It is somewhat like the parables. Jesus healed some people by laying hands on them others by putting mud in their eyes and still others from afar. He might have used different ways but his action was always to heal. None was wrong.
And for the record I am not equating any of the M and C with Jesus.
late to the party, ya'll...
Xon, we agree a whole lot on this issue. Snow falls in hell and all that.
However, I do think the current system is "brokeish" -- there are ways in which it should be tweaked.
For starters, many of our community hospitals are failing to to the increasing cost of indigent care. This is because emergency rooms cannot turn away anyone -- regardless of whether they have an actual emergency, or whether they've paid for previous visits to the same emergency room. Some of this won't change -- we're going to have to take the costs of providing truly emergency care to the poorest of our citizens, and it's gonna be pricey. But we can simplify the existing patchwork of clinics, social services orgs, etc., in such a way that someone with minimal money can get non-emergency care and not get it at a premium.
That's what I think of when I think of universal healthcare. I don't think we can go to a system in which the rich can't buy better healthcare -- no one has done it. Nor do I think we can provide public healthcare that rivals private healthcare. But we can address more of the public's issues in a way that also addresses our economic needs.
Nicki, thanks for the kind words. I often find that reasonable people of goodwill will end up disagreeing in ways that are fairly superficial when the underlying principles that motivate both of them are actually brought to the surface. The truth is, most of us want pretty similar things, though we often disagree on how best to get them.
As for the current state of healthcare, I would say that it is more than just 'brokeish'. I think it stinks, plain and simple. I imagine you and I would disagree to some extent regarding the proper fixes, but I am not 'happy' with how healthcare currently works in this country.
Post a Comment
<< Home