Like Nietzche . . .
. . . I am the most clever man I know.
Take this quote I pulled out of the ether over in the hornet's nest I stirred up about whether or not people should have children they can't afford:
A society that ignores rights to meet needs will find itself without rights and smothered with needs.
How to plead to the charge of Insufferable Smugness, sir?
I plead "Guilty as Hell!"
posted by The Last American at 10:11:00 AM
View blog reactions
2 Comments:
Found your site through the discussion about contraception in Missouri on the firedupmissouri site. You stirred up a hornets nest with very little effort, and nothing offensive. The responses attacking your post manage to accuse you of misogyny, racism, elitism and all manner of evils. The responses also show exactly why politics that place compassion above logic are seriously flawed. I like to call it "the umbrella of concern," and it becomes so big it is impossible to handle as more causes are linked together. They are forced to do this because there are too few "feel good" programs that can stand on their own merits. Instead they assume you must be pro-Iraq war and attack funding for that: there is no debate from them that the Government has the right to spend money, the argument they have is about where it goes. They fail to grasp the basic idea that Government is not there to protect people from themselves, and so they expect programs of all kinds to provide support for bad choices and bad luck.
Imagine if the program was expanded to allow free vasectomies and tube tyings: what do you think the response would be? There would be accusations of "Nazi style eugenics" and all manner of outcry. How about a program allowing married couples who "get fixed" to avoid having kids when finances don't permit it the first chance at adoption if things get better? How about free birth control for all and a means test for having kids? Mandatory vasectomies at age 14, after samples have been preserved for the future when a conscious decision to have children can be made and the fertilization take place?
I am amazed at the arguments used to support subsidies in many cases: it is needed to somehow fulfill a "right." Thinking of US Constitutional rights, I can't find a single case where the right is enumerated and followed by an example of how the government will subsidize it. Imagine if "free press" meant we all got our own newspaper or TV station provided by the Government. The 2nd Amendment would be hugely controversial: do the Government have to provide me with a firearm of their choice or mine?
I favor the expansion of rights, and while the concept of a "right" to contraception does not offend me the idea that somehow Government intervention is a necessary part of fulfilling this right does. Gay marriage? No problem, just don't make me pay for the ceremony. Abortion? Similar thing. Arguing that funding is part and parcel of the concept of a "right" is illogical and dangerous. That being said, there are cases where a logical argument can be structured around economic data; however, none of the folks posting in response to you seem interested enough to seriously try it.
gp:
I think their attacks on me, calling me names, etc. are much simpler than that.
When they can't refute the message, they attack the messenger.
Of course, what else would we expect from those who have built their entire philosophy and worldview on a bedrock of the envy of the success of others?
Post a Comment
<< Home