Elizabeth Warren, challenging Scott Brown for his Senate seat from Masachusett, became the darling of progressives when she succinctly stated the "what's yours is ours" case"
There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. .?.?. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Then came the inveitable and welcome pushback from people near my end of the political spectrum who pointed out what collectivist drivel this was. George Will says it nicely:
Such an agenda's premise is that individualism is a chimera, that any individual's achievements should be considered entirely derivative from society, so the achievements need not be treated as belonging to the individual. Society is entitled to socialize — i.e., conscript — whatever portion it considers its share. It may, as an optional act of political grace, allow the individual the remainder of what is misleadingly called the individual's possession.
Will says of Warren, as William Buckley said of Kenneth Galbraith, that she is "a pyromaniac in a field of straw men." She refutes something nobody claims, that we are all automomous individuals who owe nothing to the social context in which we operate. The social contract between the individual and the group is a given; the only thing to decide is how much weight we give each as we enter into negotiations. The emphasis in this country -- indeed, the whole point of the founding of this country -- is that the main purpose of the contract is to protect the rights of the individual, not the privileges of the group. Progressives don't like that whole concept, so their main mission, as Will says, is "to dilute the concept of individualism, thereby refuting respect for the individual's zone of sovereignty" in order to make it easier for our betters in the regulatory state.
Comments
What I think Warren made have been trying to point out is the fundamental delusion of Libertarianism: That all rich people got there through hard word and determism, with luck playing no part; and all poor people are poor because they are lazy - bad luck never figures in.
The only super-rich person I know well is Sen. Jay Rockefeller, for whom I once worked. He never worked a day in the private sector. All his wealth comes from Exxon stock. At least he has the decency to be self-deprecating about it, and gives the vast majority of it away.
Littlejohn, once again you employ the ridiculously broad brush appealing to the emotional side of the reality.
Could you cite for us in Libertarian doctrine (or conservative doctrine) where you found this little gem: " That all rich people got there through hard word and determism, with luck playing no part; and all poor people are poor because they are lazy - bad luck never figures in." ???
You can't because it's nothing more than your own personally concocted and twisted, jeaolus assumption that the whole world owes you.
It's disheartening to see so many like you, a large chunk of society now, that honestly have no intestinal fortitude and no sense of personal responsibility just sucking the financial life out of everyone else and (mistakenly) believing we have some moral obligation to pat you on the forehead and hand over our wallets.
You suffer from what my father refers to as "optirectosis" which is where one's optic nerve becomes inextricably crossed with one's rectal nerve thus creating a sh*tty outlook on life.
From Althouse:
"In Tuesday's debate
Tim - Small Place To Take A Pee may suffer from Optirenalrectosus - Where one's optic nerve becomes inextricably crossed with both one's bladder nerve AND one's rectal nerve thus creating a sh*tty, pissed-off outlook on life. (also leading to an email id like his)
I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Warren and here is why:
"Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: on the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity.This principle is not opposed to the right to private property but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means.
The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good. Man
Ms. Warren and CED have a screwed-up outlook on ownership - hers in a secular way and CED in a religious way.
Personal ownership is a myth - we are only stewards of the gifts we receive through God's grace - and not one of us deserves any part of them! So in that way, Ms. Warren is probably corect - but please don't take that as a reason for anyone, other than God, to "regulate" the use of these gifts!
Mr. Kalb:
Do you really believe that what I posted is just my own personal opinion ? It is chuch teaching. I am not saying you have to believe in it -it is pretty obvious that you do not. I do, and that is why I posted it, since what is taught by the church has a great deal more validly to me than any philosophy that smacks of the kind of warped view of personal property rights that you and others like you espouse.You seem to lean toward the kind of insanity preached by Ayn Rand, an avowed athiest and virulent anti-Christian. That is your right, of course, but it doesn't mean your view is in any way correct.
<>
Seems to me that it's a pretty common claim of the pseudo-conservatives that we ought to have minimal or no taxes, because it's not the government's money. And it's not a new claim, either - that assertion was refuted in Matthew 22:17-22.
More importantly, we have a massive national debt, and to reduce taxes at a time when are accumulating more debt seems disreputable.
There used to be a story about the guy who was drafted by the party to run for Congress when the incumbent suddenly died. A reporter asked him, "What do you think of the Jackson-Morrison bill?" and the candidate said, "If we owe it, we ought to pay it."
Dick Cheney's "deficits don't matter" ranks right up there with General Sheridan's "the only good indian is a dead indian" as a horrible quote to be remembered by.
So how is it still OK for there to be corporations here paying no taxes and not giving anything back?
"...the main purpose of the contract is to protect the rights of the individual, not the privileges of the group."
Unfortunately we screwed up along the way, treat corporations as "individuals," and in effect give privileges to groups.
CED - From your comments, can we assume that you are refering to the teachings of the papal leadership of the Roman church? If so, a review of these in regard to social teaching starting with Rerm Novarum from Leo XIII in 1891, through Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, John XXIII's Mater et Magistra in 1961, John Paul II's Laborem Exercens in 1981 plus his Centesimus Annus in 1991 and finally, Benedict XVI's Cartas in Veritate in 2009, we learn that the Roman church's teaching on the Rights of Ownership has changed very little over the last 120 years and it confirms that they support man's natural right to ownership of private property. Please refer to www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-1/universal-destination-material goods for a sumary.
As I have often stated in the past, I am not a believer in Ayn Rand's athiestic philosophy and I am a confessing Christian- a life-time member of a conservative Lutheran Christian church. I do not profess to the Roman church's "universal destination of material goods"belief, although I do take Jesus' comand to share my gifts from him with those in need - BUT- that does NOT include the secular government's claim to my personal property to fulfill their idea of distribution of individual wealth.
Mr.Kalb:
What I quoted is verbatim from the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of The Church" -emphasis on the word doctrine-, available at www.vatican.va. As I said, you do not have to believe it, but I do. If you read all of this lengthy tome, you actually will find several instances of positions which support conservative positions. However, its main intent is to define the church's position regarding how and why society should be organized to be consistent with the social teachings of the church for two millennia. For instance, in pronouncements elsewhere, the church regards universal access to health care as a moral imperative. I would guess you do not. You may claim to disavow the Ayn Rand philosophy, but a lot of it seems to have crept into your thinking.
On a side note, I note especially that you are wont to refer to the "Roman" church. Shall I refer to your faith as a German Lutheran, Protestant church with conservative overtones? For your information, the 65 million believers in my faith in this country call it the Catholic Church. Thank you.
CED: "the church regards universal access to health care as a moral imperative."
I would respectfully submit that your church (much like any major political party) has hijacked a very simple premise of helping those among us in need for it's own political purposes of advancing a socialist society.
Tim - I second that!
And CED, I also consider my congregation to be members of the catholic (meaning universal) church. Only the Roman Catholic church captalizes catholic and only Roman Catholics use the word "church" to mean only the Roman one!
I do consider the Roman Catholic church as a Christian organization since they do believe that Jesus Christ, Second Person in the Holy Trinity is our Lord and Savior. In fact, I have two daughters who married Roman Catholic guys and four grandchildren who are being raised as Roman Catholic Christians- for which I am thankful .
In addition, the founder of Lutheran Christianity was an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. Our Bible class is presently using Saint Augustine's "Confessions" as a study guide and we believe , if he were living, he would make a very pious Lutheran Christian!
OK, you have stated what you believe and I have stated what I believe. We're not going to change each other's minds. However, I will tell you that since you obviously believe everyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a socialist, your statement about the church's agenda doesn't surprise me, Mr. Zank. Mr. Kalb, here's an easy solution: You call your church Lutheran and I'll call mine Catholic.
I
John Kalb: "Only the Roman Catholic church captalizes catholic and only Roman Catholics use the word