In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, Blacks will sometimes charge their opponents with “racism.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, Jews will sometimes charge their opponents with “anti-Semitism.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, women will sometimes charge their opponents with “sexism.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, many different groups will charge their opponents with “intolerance.”
In order to avoid discussing legitimate challenges to their positions, wealthy Americans like to charge their opponents with engaging in “class warfare.”
What makes dealing with these charges tricky is that many of these phenomena are real: Blacks have suffered as a result of being Blacks; Jews have suffered as a result of being Jews; women have suffered as a result of being women; and many people have been victimized simply for being different from their neighbors. As a result, I think we should be reluctant to reject charges of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, and intolerance without due consideration.
The wealthy, on the other hand, hardly ever suffer as a result of being wealthy. As a result, when the wealthy start complaining about class warfare, I tend to think that it is just a smokescreen to avoid discussing the merits of which economic policies produce the most benefits for the greatest number of Americans,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The wealthy... hardly ever suffer as a result of being wealthy.
ReplyDeleteBut they are frequently attacked, even disliked, simply for being wealthy. People have a tendency to dislike whoever has more than them, and politicians use that to their advantage.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteStarting with the speculators of the late 18th century who made fortunes buying Revolutionary War bonds issued by the states at deep discounts before they were assumed by Alexander Hamilton’s 1st Bank of the United States, banking fortunes have always been based in large part on doing business in government bonds. The DuPont fortune got its start selling munitions to the Union Army in the Civil War. In the late 19th century, the railroad fortunes depended on government land grants and government financing while the steel fortunes used federal troops to break strikes. Throughout the 20th century, the United States meddled in the affairs of foreign governments on behalf of corporate interests in places like, Guatemala, Iran, and Chile.
There have certainly been some fortunes that were accumulated solely by the innovation and initiative of an individual, but there always have been many that were built and sustained by doing business with the government or influencing government policy. The wealthy have always been much more successful than the poor when it comes to using politicians to their advantage.
"The wealthy have always been much more successful than the poor when it comes to using politicians to their advantage."
ReplyDeleteIs there something inherently wrong with that?
Is there something inherently wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteNot if you prefer hereditary aristocracy to representative democracy.
"Is there something inherently wrong with that?"
ReplyDeleteMakes me wonder what country we're living in and what country we're supposed to be living in.
What happened to the "Corporations and the Free Market" post? It's a good one, but has one serious inaccuracy.
ReplyDeleteIn a market truly free of government interference, a man would only be free to make promises that bind himself and others who expressly authorize the man to make promises on their behalf.
In a market truly free of government interference, promises as we know them would be impossible: They can be enforced only by the interference of the government.
In a truly free market, promises cannot actually bind: you are rationally justified in trusting a "promise" only insofar as keeping the promise is in the long-term self-interest of the person making it.
BB,
ReplyDeleteI had my wife read it and she found a couple of the paragraphs hard to follow so I took it down to rework them a little. I hope to have it back up later tonight. I am vaguely familiar with the argument you are making but it has been a very long time since I have read anything along those lines so I am not sure I can get into it on that level.