Jack comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong

13 Post author: ChrisHallquist 27 November 2013 05:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (510)

CC Licenced

Comments (510)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jack 24 November 2013 12:09:25AM 13 points [-]

There are plenty of liberals who think other liberals need to pay more attention to market incentives. Or I suppose Bill Clinton was off the reservation, too? Matt Yglesias? Jimmy Carter? His analysis isn't libertarian, it's merely informed by basic knowledge about economics.

Uh oh. That's an idea from libertarians like Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. Are you sure you're a liberal?

It's also an idea supported by lots of people who call themselves socialists. It's almost like arguments aren't soldiers and winning a debate doesn't force your opponent to agree with you about everything else.

Leave a line of retreat.

Comment author: buybuydandavis comment score below threshold [+] (5 children)

Comment author: Jack 24 November 2013 04:05:45AM 4 points [-]

Since he was talking about Walmart, liberals, and Medicaid, I took the context as the US, where few call themselves socialists, and liberals usually protest loudly when they are.

What I'm telling you is that the BIG is a policy that has been loudly lauded, not merely by run-of-the-mill progressives, but by people so far left they happily call themselves socialists.

Any prominent US liberals calling for a basic income guarantee, and in particular, as an alternative and not an add on to the regulatory welfare state?

Read the list of people involved with The U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network and tell me it is a libertarian stronghold.

Liberal pundits tend to have considerably more political power than libertarians and so don't spend a lot of time calling for remaking the entire US social welfare system from the ground up. And they tend to think the ongoing existence of people living in poverty is a bigger priority than shrinking the government regulatory state. But they certainly show willingness to replace some government programs while implementing a BIG and discuss it positively as an alternative to other means of alleviating poverty for exactly the same reason libertarians like it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/17/guaranteed_basic_income_the_real_alternative_to_the_minimum_wage.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/08/obama-doesnt-want-to-just-write-welfare-recipients-checks-but-what-if-we-did/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/how-to-cut-the-poverty-rate-in-half-its-easy/280971/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html

Comment author: buybuydandavis 24 November 2013 08:49:10AM * -1 points [-]

If you read the articles you cite, you'd see that they refer primarily to Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.

The only reference to a prominent US liberal I see is one to Martin Luther King Jr.

It would be great if more liberals got on the train, but from your comments, they're not really on board.

And they tend to think the ongoing existence of people living in poverty is a bigger priority than shrinking the government regulatory state.

Problem is, if they're of the disposition to meddle in people's lives, it seems unlikely that the poor will be left out of their tender ministrations. Keeping the current punitive welfare programs intact would keep all the perverse incentives, but at a higher benefit level, making for an even larger trapped and dependent class.

Comment author: Jack 24 November 2013 07:39:35PM * 1 point [-]

If you read the articles you cite, you'd see that they refer primarily to Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.

The articles I cite were written by progressive pundits. And the biggest organization dedicated to it is mostly made up of socialist academics.

The percentage of self-identified libertarians who support a basic income guarantee is certainly higher than the percentage of liberals who support a basic income guarantee. Hell, it's probably higher than the percentage of liberals who have heard of a basic income guarantee. I don't even know that that is indicative of some special trait about libertarians --not having any political power or influence makes it much easier to defend only the best ideas. But if you want to claim victory for your tribe, no one will stop you.

Libertarians 1, Progressives 0! Go Greens! Down with the Blues!

Problem is, if they're of the disposition to meddle in people's lives, it seems unlikely that the poor will be left out of their tender ministrations. Keeping the current punitive welfare programs intact would keep all the perverse incentives, but at a higher benefit level, making for an even larger trapped and dependent class.

I already agree with you.

Comment author: [deleted] comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Jack comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong

Article Navigation

Comments (510)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (510)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login