Re: [Pen-l] Going Dutch

[Bill Lear <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, May 6, 2009 at 18:03:15 (-0400) Doug Henwood writes:
>
>On May 6, 2009, at 5:55 PM, raghu wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>  
>> wrote:
>>> C'mon folks. Is it because you've never been on the right that you  
>>> can't
>>> imagine an intelligent answer to this sort of claim? They're  
>>> different from
>>> welfare recipients because they're working hard and increasing  
>>> their earning
>>> potential, which will more than pay off society's investment in  
>>> them over
>>> the long term. Welfare recipients are just a deadweight loss.
>>
>>
>> That is an "intelligent" response?? I'll assume you were being  
>> sarcastic.
>
>Look, I don't agree with it at all, but it's an argument that needs  
>refutation, and not something you can dismiss with an eyeroll.

Yup, I can't agree more.  This is what gets lefties into trouble:
often supercilious contempt for a plausible argument.  And then when
forced into a corner, the lefty just mumbles something that simply
cannot be understood and the right is left victorious.

I would think that the way to start addressing the concern is to
address the underlying assumptions: it is assumed that only those that
are joining the cycle of production are worthy of support.  That's not
a lame-brained first stab at an argument.  It needs refuting with
patience, clear language, and examples, for example showing how those
who receive welfare but are not joining the cycle of production 1)
deserve compassionate support (e.g., ever hear of Jesus?) and 2) are
actually contributing something to society through their non-paid
work.

I don't pretend to have a good retort, or reasoned response, to Doug's
hypothetical (which, for Christ's sake, can't you see Doug is not
endorsing this?), but surely we can do better.


Bill
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l