Over the years, the characters that blog at Too Conservative have changed somewhat. Has that been an improvement? Let the beholder decide.
When I visited, I considered leaving a couple of comments. Instead, I decided to link to a couple of posts that interested me. Both are by Lloyd the Idiot. He has been writing most of the posts at Too Conservative lately. On the other hand, the Liberal Anthropologist is the one replying to comments. Interesting teamwork.
As the title suggests, Lloyd the Idiot has no problems with income inequality, and he makes pretty good arguments in its defense. As a result, his post began a spirited debate.
Here is the comment I considered leaving.
Interesting post and a good debate.
I believe the assertion “Income Inequality Is Not a Problem. In fact, It’s a Good Thing” is only half true. Nevertheless, I concur with the spirit in which the assertion is made.
Income inequality is not necessarily a problem. If some people work harder and smarter and make more money as a result, that should not be cause for complaint. Instead, we should hale such success as a good example. However, in and of itself income inequality is not a good thing. That’s because some people do not achieve high incomes because they work harder or smarter. The most dangerous game the system. These grow rich by buying or acquiring political influence and padding their pockets with other people’s money. Others grow rich by committing straightforward crimes.
When government spends over six trillion a year and issues reams of regulations and tax rules, the opportunities for graft and corruption become immense. And when we, ordinary citizens, give the politicians we elect so much power, we risk losing any practical way of controlling them. Then, instead of protecting our rights, our leaders threaten our rights. That’s why the founders sought to defuse political power between three different branches of government and over local governments, state governments, and the federal government. That’s why the founders promoted limited government. They understood wealth did not pose a threat. The founders feared what happens when we give men great power: they feared the corrupting influence of power.
In this post, Lloyd the Idiot links to a couple of news articles that illustrate the failure of government. One is about impending sell-off of Detroit’s finest art museum. The other considers the pathetic state of the school system in Petersburg, VA. State officials have proposed letting Chesterfield County take over Peterburg’s school system.
Instead of bailing out Detroit or Petersburg, Lloyd calls for fiscal Darwinism.
Here is the comment I considered leaving.
Good links, and “It’s the only way the electorate will learn that there are consequences to electing (and tolerating) poor leaders.” Nevertheless, the term “Darwinism” suggests what I think is an inappropriate analogy. Consider what Socialism prevents. Socialism prevents competition. Because of the Socialists in Michigan and Washington D. C., the manufacturing industry in Michigan (and throughout much of the United States) became uncompetitive. In fact, we have only the collapsing dollar and the value of our wages to thank for the revival of manufacturing in the United States. Yet the term “Darwinism” suggests we should just stand by and let nature take its course.
Similarly, because we have a Socialist school system, that is, a public school system, our school systems perform poorly. So what have our legislators suggested as a fix for Petersburg’s school system? They want Chesterfield County, another government entity, to take over the management of Petersburg’s schools. Is that your idea of “Darwinism”?
Have you considered the fact that if Chesterfield County takes over Peterburg’s schools, the parents of the affected students cannot vote on who runs their schools? Do you really think that would be a good situation?
The appropriate fix is school choice. Education is a parental responsibility, not a job for high taxing/big spending politicians. Let parents decide the who, where, and how of their child’s education. Let schools succeed or fail based upon competition, not the desires of public officials and teacher unions. Let parents decide which schools should thrive and which should fail to survive.