maternalistic government
April 27th, 2007 by 
bkmarcus
Posted in literature, philosophy, schooling | 
individualism for the masses
BK Marcus is an amateur political economist with no formal education in the subject.
He works from Charlottesville, Virginia, as an editorial consultant for the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
He is no longer a house husband, nor a faculty spouse, but he is still a dilettante, and a layabout, at least in spirit.
search new blog
search old blog
categories
- art
- audio
- autobiography
- culture
- economics
- history
- howto
- language
- law
- literature
- LvMI
- metablog
- news
- philosophy
- privacy
- schooling
- strategy
- technology
- Uncategorized
- video
- war
archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- Before 2007
links
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
Benjamin Tucker Marcus
June 18, 2008
April 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Come now... the mayor of Columbus, Ohio calls it "a warm and wonderful story of commitment to family".
If you're against this wonderful children's story, then you must be against commitment to family.
And if you're against commitment to family, you're a sociopath that should be kept under close watch by the State. Even better, let's just lock you up and throw away the key now.
Then, and only then, can our children walk safely to school.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
cbf is on the right track, but I don't think we need to lock anybody up, really. We can have a robust social democracy without resorting to brute force.
This does underscore an irony of libertarians and conservatives. They say they love the family, but then don't extend the ideas to the country. So if Mom and Apple Pie are so great, why should we deprive the poor of a good maternalistic guidance? Why shouldn't we share our toys?
Just because you have more money doesn't mean you should have more freedom. If Libertarians learned this, they could start winning elections, maybe.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I expect the "little Republicans" version to be identical, except Mommy is protecting the kids from a rabid donkey, rather than a raging elephant.
Oh that and some kids get to go to school in Gitmo.
I mean they are all the same anyway...
April 27th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
"Just because you have more money doesn't mean you should have more freedom. If Libertarians learned this, they could start winning elections, maybe."
They should turn into democrats?
Sharing is fine.
Forcing people to share is not.
I think it's kind of funny how the rich give more than socialist.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
"Just because you have more money doesn't mean you should have more freedom."
Why the hell not?
April 27th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
"We can have a robust social democracy without resorting to brute force."
Well go ahead! Just don't bother me with your taxes, regulations, laws, and tarrifs, and I don't care what political system you have.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
"Why shouldn't we share our toys?"
Because they are our toys, and we would like to decide whether to share them and with whom?
Because we spend working 14 hours a day for a lifetime to earn those toys?
Because they are not exactly toys, but the hard earned fruits of our labour?
Because we are not kids but fully grown adults responsible for our own and our family's survial in a harsh world?
You get the drift...
April 28th, 2007 at 3:40 am
I see the misunderstanding of Libertarianism evident in Gregory Smith's post all over the place.
Just because Libertarians oppose the theft of people's to fund charity for the poor (or whatever worthwhile cause) does not mean that libertarianism is incompatible with charity.
I think we are morally obliged to aid the poor and disadvantaged when we can afford to do so, but no one has the right to force us to do so.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Haha, I, at first glance, glossed over the name "Gregory Swift" and misread it as "Anthony Gregory". I assumed the post was deadpan sarcasm. It was pretty funny! "So if Mom and Apple Pie are so great, why should we deprive the poor of a good maternalistic guidance?"
I was bit crestfallen when I realised this stuff was meant in earnest.