Comments on: Better Check Yo’ Selfish Before You Wreck Yo’ Selfish http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:30:34 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/comment-page-1/#comment-3158 Anonymous Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:33:34 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2033#comment-3158 I can name at least 3 moderately prominent libertarian proponents who are trust-fund babies. I can name at least 3 moderately prominent libertarian proponents who are trust-fund babies.

]]> By: Thomas Nephew http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/comment-page-1/#comment-3157 Thomas Nephew Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:35:50 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2033#comment-3157 Hi Julian, thought I'd pop by and see what you're writing about. It was a pleasure meeting you at Welch's book party last night. <i>What exactly is our stake in the tax burden on the top one percent supposed to be? A big payout for our loyal hackwork from the Gnomes of Zurich?</i> I've wondered that myself, but with slightly different tonal emphases. Given your implied lower tax bracket, and assuming you're arguing for flat tax, no tax, or no single payer healthcare (I'm not going to visit McArdle's post to get the specifics) I suppose your stake is (a) the pleasure of advancing something altruistically, on behalf of those richer than yourself, because it's in line with libertarian policy prescriptions, and/or (b) your hope of eventually reaching those higher tax brackets and reaping the rewards at a later date. Re (a): while libertarian altruism seems counterintuitive to me, maybe it isn't; I just don't know the libertarian canon well enough. Re (b): Good luck! Really. <i>They really are screwed if their only advocates are money-grubbers so dim as to eschew law or consulting for journalism.</i> Who says you're their only advocates? You're just the ones that cost the least. :) Change that as quickly as possible. Hi Julian,
thought I’d pop by and see what you’re writing about. It was a pleasure meeting you at Welch’s book party last night.

What exactly is our stake in the tax burden on the top one percent supposed to be? A big payout for our loyal hackwork from the Gnomes of Zurich?
I’ve wondered that myself, but with slightly different tonal emphases. Given your implied lower tax bracket, and assuming you’re arguing for flat tax, no tax, or no single payer healthcare (I’m not going to visit McArdle’s post to get the specifics) I suppose your stake is (a) the pleasure of advancing something altruistically, on behalf of those richer than yourself, because it’s in line with libertarian policy prescriptions, and/or (b) your hope of eventually reaching those higher tax brackets and reaping the rewards at a later date.

Re (a): while libertarian altruism seems counterintuitive to me, maybe it isn’t; I just don’t know the libertarian canon well enough. Re (b): Good luck! Really.

They really are screwed if their only advocates are money-grubbers so dim as to eschew law or consulting for journalism.
Who says you’re their only advocates? You’re just the ones that cost the least. :) Change that as quickly as possible.

]]> By: Justin http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/comment-page-1/#comment-3156 Justin Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:56:49 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2033#comment-3156 Gil, I'm just talking about taxes, not expenditures. There's a reason we have a big deficit, and that's becaues outside the pundit class, there really is no liberterian constituency. Julian, I'll just agree to disagree on this one. "Selfishness" (as opposed to cruelty, on occasion), is a political message - and as above, liberterians are not that important to the political debate because they have no constituency. Gil,

I’m just talking about taxes, not expenditures. There’s a reason we have a big deficit, and that’s becaues outside the pundit class, there really is no liberterian constituency.

Julian, I’ll just agree to disagree on this one. “Selfishness” (as opposed to cruelty, on occasion), is a political message – and as above, liberterians are not that important to the political debate because they have no constituency.

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/comment-page-1/#comment-3155 Julian Sanchez Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:43:25 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2033#comment-3155 Justin- That would be at least a potentially valid argument, but it's also clearly not what about 90% of the people who talk that way mean. Justin-
That would be at least a potentially valid argument, but it’s also clearly not what about 90% of the people who talk that way mean.

]]> By: Gil http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/comment-page-1/#comment-3154 Gil Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:06:53 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2033#comment-3154 Justin, Who are these libertarian plutocrats? Most of the wealthy who influence policy try to turn it to their advantage, not reduce its scope. At least, that's what the unprincipled selfish ones are doing. Justin,

Who are these libertarian plutocrats?

Most of the wealthy who influence policy try to turn it to their advantage, not reduce its scope.

At least, that’s what the unprincipled selfish ones are doing.

]]> By: Justin http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/10/22/better-check-yo-selfish-before-you-wreck-yo-selfish/comment-page-1/#comment-3153 Justin Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:38:40 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=2033#comment-3153 Julian, that's because people who talk about it in those terms aren't aiming their arrows at you. They're aiming them at how policy actually occurs - over the plutocrats and voters who actually fail to take into consider the disenfranchised in their policy initiatives. Liberal policymakers are willing to engage you on the merits (or ignore you), but when they bring out the populist rhetoric, theyre actually making a cognicent point about Marxist (qua descriptivist, not qua communist supporter) political realities. Julian, that’s because people who talk about it in those terms aren’t aiming their arrows at you. They’re aiming them at how policy actually occurs – over the plutocrats and voters who actually fail to take into consider the disenfranchised in their policy initiatives. Liberal policymakers are willing to engage you on the merits (or ignore you), but when they bring out the populist rhetoric, theyre actually making a cognicent point about Marxist (qua descriptivist, not qua communist supporter) political realities.

]]>