Ygglesias's conflation of these two ideas leads him to this aphorism:
Patriarchal family structures make it possible to get by without a generous welfare state, and an expansive welfare state tends to undermine women's dependence on men.I guess that's true, too, if you think the only alternative to a welfare state is a patriarchal family. But don't we have the option to structure families differently, if we choose? My family is an excellent alternative to a welfare state, but it's hardly patriarchal. And does an expansive welfare state really undermine women's dependence on men? I'd say it just tends to make women dependent on more distant and uninvolved men. Or does Ygglesias think that people who depend on a welfare state aren't really dependent?
It's hard to understand why so many people believe that the only realistic alternative to a welfare state is a lot of naked savages living alone in forests eating grubs.
None of this is the ostensible subject of his article, by the way. He's actually trying to argue that Obamacare properly redistributes wealth from rich to poor and from men to women--so anyone who objects to Obamacare loves the 1% or hates women.
9 comments:
He's actually trying to argue that Obamacare properly redistributes wealth from rich to poor and from men to women--so anyone who objects to Obamacare loves the 1% or hates women.
Well, I guess on his main point I'm hopelessly conflicted. I love women--or at least one in particular especially madly--and I'd especially madly love to be in the 1%.
On your point, it's an amazement to me that folks of a certain bent can't see the mother of all redistribution schemes--a free market.
Oh, wait, there're all those evil unequal outcomes that flow from truly equal opportunity.
Eric Hines
Of course, there's a fundamental flaw in his premise- that if you end up with anything when you die more than the zero you had when you were born, it's redistribution. It ignores the addition to the system you make in your labors and intellectual output. He falls right into the zero sum fallacy, unsurprisingly, I suppose. I guess it makes some sense if you think that you don't really add anything to the system to think that redistribution makes sense, though.
Why "dependence on," rather than "interdependence with," I wonder? The interdependence between men and women, or man and wife, is the sort of thing that is usually a positive good for a just and stable society. But if we call it 'women being dependent' rather than 'women and men forming interdependent unions of their own free will,' it sounds like the kind of thing we need to destroy rather than guard.
I guess it makes some sense if you think that you don't really add anything to the system to think that redistribution makes sense, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkD-kxZEQ6E
Eric Hines
Yglesias is a hack. He has a pulpit (so to speak) but it's not like anyone actually has to pay any attention to what he writes.
The blogger Dennis the Peasant, when he used to blog, regularly picked apart Matty's craptastic writings.
To paraphrase a line from Star Trek: "What Yglesias has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words."
Yeah, I haven't thought about the boy in years.
I always liked his brother Julio better. :P
He's arguing for a Better World. This Better Tomorrow requires some sacrifices on the part of humans.
But it'll be worth in the end.
Matthew is very intellect. It would take quite a bit of IQ to be able to replace 01 with 10 and keep functioning.
The point to keep in mind, is that he, and his ilk, would happily stand us against a wall for target practice.
History suggests they will attempt to do so.
Post a Comment