These are rather random responses to economic issues:
Let me suggest that the use of the word "entitlement" is probably not helpful. Republicans like it, as they like the word "elite," because it suggests that the people being referred to consider themselves or are considered to be somehow better than everyone else. So, those who are "entitled" or "elite" are perceived to be more than equal and properly resented.
Indeed, when these elementary concepts are compared to the principle of equality, the proponents of "entitlements" come off as hypocrites. For some reason, the point that "entitlements" are merely the practical consequence of citizens actually getting the fruits of our commitment to equal rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is never even discussed.
Perhaps "fruits of our equal rights" would be a more useful and accurate phrase to describe what we are after. After all, an equal right to starve or freeze to death isn't worth much.
@@@@@@@@
At the moment the rationale for reducing the reward for labor is the supposed competitive pressure from cheaper labor overseas, but that's because the real reason would not be well received.
The real reason is the basic principle (prejudice, if you will) of economic science which holds that man is basically lazy and must be forced to work by making it difficult for him to sustain himself otherwise. From that perspective, a rising share in the rewards of productive enterprise will depress the worker's effort and is to be avoided at all costs. If that involves the workers' share being stolen, that's ok.
This pessimistic perspective on human nature accounts in large part for the designation of economics as the "dismal science." The reason it never achieves a higher level of accuracy in making economic predictions, it thinks, is the result of man's flawed being which keeps undermining the models the experts come up with. That their basic assumptions might be mistaken doesn't occur to them, probably because the negative estimate of the ordinary man is in accord with the presumption that because man is evil (lazy) it is good to tell him what to do. Economic science reinforces a basic predilection for telling others what to do and man's iniquity justifies it.
If one were to assume that man is naturally inclined to do good, then it would be wrong to force him to do anything, wouldn't it. The authoritarian personality must assume the worst about human nature.
Posted by Hannah at October 13, 2005 12:36 PM