tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1495601837554159435.post2074710569744905869..comments2023-08-08T02:26:23.907-05:00Comments on Blog of Timothy, Son of Peter: Why Liberals Should be LiberalTim Faragehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08104599438906310838noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1495601837554159435.post-84587735717342383772010-02-13T23:28:36.304-06:002010-02-13T23:28:36.304-06:00Bert,
I pretty much agree with your comments. I ...Bert,<br /><br />I pretty much agree with your comments. I do think that government-subsidized education is a good thing to do, although I would let parents decide what school to send their children to with this money.<br /><br />I would also like to see basic health care for all. But there is a big caveat here. First, I'd create a health savings account for all Americans, and put around $600 per month per adult in this account. Each adult would be required to buy a high-deductible insurance policy for about half of this, leaving about $300 per month as health-care cash. Furthermore, the amount would go up with inflation, and would have to be paid for without deficit spending.<br /><br />This would replace Medicare, Medicade and all other medical subsidies, and still provide people the freedom to choose their own doctor, etc.<br /><br />In place of Social Security, I would require everyone to invest around 15% of their income for retirement and disability insurance. Of course, a long transition would be needed, but at least each person would own their own account, and there would be no unfunded liability.<br /><br />I would have one more subsidy: a natural resource dividend that would be paid to every American adult. It would be the same idea as Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend. I'm not sure of the amount but it would likely around $600 per adult per month.<br /><br />And then I would not have any more subsidies at all.<br /><br />Related to the Constitutional side of this, I would amend the Constitution to allow Congress to provide a health-care subsidy and a natural-resource dividend. I would also amend it to be able to tax the use of natural resources, and the remove the amendment that allows Congress to tax income, sometimes called "The Evil Amendment."<br /><br />To be clear about my what I was trying to say about the Constitution. It is not that it shouldn't be amended, but that we should follow it as is, with the current amendments. If we wanted something like Social Security, it should have been amended to allow for it.<br /><br />If we treat the Constitution as something whose meaning can change over time, that means that the Supreme Court is writing the Constitution and not interpreting it. At that point, it is virtually meaningless.<br /><br />Two-Thirds of Congress, and 3/4ths of the States, made up of a bunch of white guys, voted to amend the Constitution to stop denying blacks the right to vote. And a bunch of other guys voted to stop denying women the right to vote. This was done as it should have been, and that is all I ask for the future.Tim Faragehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08104599438906310838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1495601837554159435.post-64352487794904969782010-02-13T09:50:34.072-06:002010-02-13T09:50:34.072-06:00My Dear Friend,
Your definition of liberalism is s...My Dear Friend,<br />Your definition of liberalism is spot on. However, I do not agree with your argument that government programs such as social security and medicare are contradictory to the fundamental principle of liberalism as you have defined it - the primacy of individual liberty and freedom.<br /><br />I see two problems with your argument. First, the U.S. Constitution is not the perfect expression of liberalism, so I would not rely on an argument that says that something inconsistent with the Constitution is anti-liberal. We must use philosophical arguments, otherwise the Constitution will not evolve as it should. Remember, we were a nation that denied the vote to women for generations and kept more than 10% of its inhabitants in slavery and then in second-class citizenship until our lifetime.<br /><br />The second problem is that the maximization of individual liberty cannot occur at the expense of that liberty. This problem is as old as democracy and has been addressed by many of the world's greatest political philosophers. I believe programs such as social security and medicare (although perhaps not in their present form) are necessary for the maximization of individual liberty. John Rawls has articulated the case for this better than anyone in A Theory of Justice or Justice as Fairness. I cannot be fair to his argument by trying to recap it here, but his argument that a liberal democracy requires the basic safety net provisions of the welfare state is an argument that must be met by any political philosopher or commentator to follow him. Agree or disagree with Rawls, there is no denying that he is probably the greatest political philosopher since J.S. Mill and one of the greatest in the history of western philosophy and politics. You must speak to Rawls' arguments before making the claim that income transfer programs such as social security and medicare are inconsistent with true liberalism.Albert Brennerhttp://www.aametrics.comnoreply@blogger.com