Bono, Jefferson, and the American Idea

Daniel - could you define for us what are collective responsibilities the government is obligated to provide?

It depends on who is making the decisions. If you decide to help a poor person, fine. If government points a gun at your head, takes your money and gives it to that poor person, not fine at all.

In a free society, millions of INDIVIDUALS are making such decisions FREELY.

Wow!

That's tellin' 'em!

The expenses of [the elementary] schools should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor.
--Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.

The tax which will be paid for [the] purpose [of education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
--Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786.

Not trading in caricatures? That's ballsy, muirgeo. Nice move.

Looks like Thom missed something. Now we have elected kings and nobles with the wholehearted support of the people indoctrinated by the education system to believe that their individual votes at the polls is worth more than the votes they make with their dollars in the market.

Gadzooks! Did Thomas Jefferson utter those lines? Nah! Hogwash! Evil statists made up those quotes and put them into his mouth! Thomas Jefferson was man of freedom and would never have said such things!

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson said a lot of contradictory things. It's disingenuous for a lefty to use the quotes he likes and forget about the pro-freedom stuff.

He insisted that his work in education be one of the three things etched on his tombstone - it was extremely important to him. I don't think Jefferson would consider muirgeo's citation disingenuous.

What Jefferson might consider disingenuous is the insinuation that this somehow contradicts his work on the Declaration or his "pro-freedom stuff", as you put it.

I know you desperately want to believe that anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom, but it just ain't true arrowsmith.

If muirgeo's quotes are correct then it quite clearly shows Thomas Jefferson supported government schools.

But do you think Jefferson would approve of teaching kids to hate America and read Howard Zinn?

Huh? They can plenty of America hating from LewRockwell.com.

Another nutcase.

Muirgeo,

"kings, priests and nobles"

Yeah, like we have no political class. And like the political class doesn't use the education system to secure and maintain its privilege.

Sure we have a political class and I have a solution for them consistent with Jefferson. Tax them right the heck out of their class and put an end to them for the betterment of all.

Muirgeo,

You know, I like that idea. I have proposed that what we really need is a way to tax the political class. Its not gonna happen of course. The idea that it is possible to tax the powerful is a myth because, by definition, a tax is an application of power. But still, one can dream...

So says the commie muirdog.

You are easily proven wrong on Jefferson's position. It was quite consistent with what Bono said.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bN74NHm8_uY/SKtimN-sxcI/A...

An interesting opposing view. After sifting through lots of words, I think the core difference of opinion b/w Profs. Boudreau and Bainbridge come down to whether individual stocks are close substitutes -- i.e., Prof. Bainbridge suggests that I might be just as happy with stock in ACME, Inc. as Zenith, Inc.

Maybe I'm an odd duck of an investor, but my preference in stock is very idiosyncratic. I don't buy a share unless I understand the business very well and feel comfortable with that specific company's business model and ability to execute. For example, I don't see DO and RIG (two oil drillers that are often discussed as competitors), as being close substitutes.

I suppose Prof. Bainbridge would say that my voice is drowned out by the millions of day traders, but I don't think so. They're a constant baseline of noise --albeit liquidity-providing noise -- spread across the spectrum of stocks. Just as many sales as buys (tautology intended). The marginal difference in demand over a long enough run (i.e., weeks, not seconds or minutes) are professional investors and individuals like me. Or so I think.

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbai...

All of which seems perfectly plausible, but for the inconvenient fact that a given security represents only a particular combination of expected return and systematic risk, for which there is a vast number of substitutes. The correct measure for the supply of securities thus is not simply the total of the firm’s outstanding securities, but the vastly larger number of securities with a similar combination of risk and return. Accordingly, the supply/demand effect of a relatively small number of insider trades should not have a significant price effect. Over the portion of the curve observed by individual traders, the demand curve should be flat rather than downward sloping.

oops, wrong thread.

This is interesting - the guy that likes to talk about spontaneous order (and I agree with you on spontaneous order) is quoting a single dead president to challenge Bono on what the "American idea" is.

I agree with Jefferson, but I don't see how my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness contradicts my responsibility to my fellow man. I'm pretty sure Jefferson wouldn't see a contradiction where you've identified one either.

Daniel - it's wonderful that you view this "responsibility to your fellow man" as something that obligates you. Why don't you volunteer your time and money to a local charity and stay the fuck out of MY business?

If you don't feel obligated, don't do anything.

Ah, but your kind is already taxing me(theft) and giving it out to causes I don't believe in. I don't exactly get a real choice in the matter.

Oh - I didn't realize this was another conversation about the government. I thought it was just about obligation to our fellow man.

>>Oh - I didn't realize this was another conversation about the government. I thought it was just about obligation to our fellow man.<<

I'm calling "Bullshit!" on this one. You're smart; you undoubtedly knew. To claim that you didn't has you come across as disengenuious, clueless, or some weird combination of both.

daniel kuehn: "I didn't realize this was another conversation about the government. I thought it was just about obligation to our fellow man."

Honestly, daniel? Did you read the section of Bono's editorial which included the quote Don referred to?

Bono referred to these words by President Obama:

"“We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.”

Do you honestly believe that Obama was referring to private voluntary actions rather than government-funded fulfillment of "our obligations to our fellow man"?

Here's what Bono said about Obama's statement:

"I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action."

Do you honestly believe that Bono was meaning voluntary private action by Obama rather than government-funded action?

Perhaps you did not follow the link to the Bono editorial. I did, and I certainly interpreted Bono's message as a call for government action - action that would, of course, be funded by involuntary taxation.

All of my comments have been in response to Don's letter, which was about the "American idea" more generally than the specific components of what Bono was talking about.

daniel kuehn: "my comments have been in response to Don's letter,"

Don Boudreaux: "“What distinguishes the American Idea from the superstitions, stifling traditions and the various forms of collectivism ..."

Don Boudreaux: "responsibility to your fellow man” is simply a slogan used to justify harnessing the populace to serve those in power."

It's clear to me that both Bono's editorial and Don's response were about collectivist actions and the use of government to impose on Americans a "responsibility to your fellow man".

In other words, Don is saying that positions like "responsibility for your fellow man" necessitate giving power to politicians and collectivists. But the subject is still "responsibility for your fellow man".

If you make my mention of "responsibility for your fellow man" implicitly entail political power then you're forcing me to accept Don's conclusions and there's no point of having a discussion. The whole point of the discussion is that I don't accept those conclusions.

danielkuehn: "Don is saying that positions like "responsibility for your fellow man" necessitate giving power to politicians and collectivists."

I don't think that's what Don said at all. Don said that without freedom, the slogan "responsibility for your fellow man" implies goving power to politicians and collectivists. Your restatement of Don's position removes that very important qualification.

This is getting ridiculous, johndewey. Clearly my position is that responsibility to your fellow man is not just a "slogan" or propaganda for those in power. That's my entire position.

That's fine, daniel. My comments were addressed at your statement that:

"I didn't realize this was another conversation about the government."

That's exactly what Bono, Don Bourdreaux, and Arrowsmith were writing about.

danielkuehne: 'the guy that likes to talk about spontaneous order (and I agree with you on spontaneous order) is quoting a single dead president to challenge Bono on what the "American idea" is.

When you wrote this, I naturally assumed - and I suspect that arrowsmith also assumed - that you were writing about the collectivist action Bono advocated and about Don's response to Bono's call for collectivist action.

Daniel,

"I don't see how my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness contradicts my responsibility to my fellow man..."

In response, I'll simply restate Don's excellent point that, “responsibility to your fellow man” is simply a slogan used to justify harnessing the populace to serve those in power. And I'll take it a step further and say that either America stands for Freedom or it stands for nothing worth fighting for. Either America stands for Freedom or it is just one more rent collecting political organization.

P.S. I still favor the original formulation of "Life, Liberty, and Property", and I believe the founders set the stage for failure with the exclusion of Property. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the replacement was simply a rhetorical flourish, but nonetheless, it was a huge mistake.

Just wanted to point out, quoting the Declaration of Independence is not "quoting a single dead president." Especially since Jefferson was president after the Declaration.

What quoting the Declaration does is remind us of the foundational philosophy of the U.S.A., which distinguished it from all other countries at the time, and from most countries now.

OK - this is all much ado about nothing. I'm fine with quoting Jefferson and the Declaration.

I just can't think of many instances where Don would quote either a single dead president or a government committee as a representative of something as emergent and spontaneous as "the idea of America".

>>I agree with Jefferson, but I don't see how my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness contradicts my responsibility to my fellow man. I'm pretty sure Jefferson wouldn't see a contradiction where you've identified one either.<<

What happens when our responsibilities, as we define them, differ? Let's say that you've broadened your 'responsibley' role more so than I have. Do you use your own resources to meet your percieved responsibilities to your fellow man? Do you then go one step further and demand that I do the same and perceive the same responsibilities that you do?

Some actually believe that they are their brother's keeper. I am not a believer. But what Bono is basically asking us to do is to believe. No, actually he is admiring a sitting president who does believe and who will undoubtedly seek our collective resources to put his beliefs [and the beliefs of many other do-gooders, to be sure] into action.

Interesting thing about this linked-to op/ed; I cannot find those words that Don quoted anywhere...and I've looked four separate times on both pages. Another letter writter used the same Bono quote in her letter. Did the Times strike it out after the fact?

LowcountryJoe: Hmmm... I just found the words in Bono's op-ed. They appear in the ninth paragraph.

Thanks. I see them now.

Re: "Do you then go one step further and demand that I do the same and perceive the same responsibilities that you do?"

Maybe under special circumstances, but as a general rule no.

There are various idea's on our "public responsibility" towards our fellow man/ citizen that span great degrees. But the idea that we have NO responsibility is no more credible or worthy then the idea of communism.

Jefferson for one did not believe we had NO responsibility. He understood the nature of kings. He understood the wealthy owed back a debt to society such that kings would not be born, society could flourish and liberty would prosper.

This promotion of the idea of owing nothing back has destroyed our country and it's markets.

>>Maybe under special circumstances, but as a general rule no.<<

But Obama has (or will Orwell) and Bono is applauding it.

Maybe you could explain a little further why you found Don's quote of Jefferson, interesting; about why quoting a dead advocate of liberty somehow doesn't jive with spontaneous order. I think that's what you've implied.

Maybe, you can explain what you believe to be your responsibilities to your fellow man and then discuss what you personally do to meet your responsibilities.

Oh I just found it interesting because relying on any single person to encapture the "American idea" doesn't seem like the natural spontaneous order explanation. It's a lot more complicated than that, although Jefferson did capture it better than most. More an ironic interest than a substantive problem with quoting Jefferson.

I haven't thought about my responsibilities to my fellow man in nearly enough detail lately to banter with you about them today :) But I did give some cash to a homeless person on Friday and I'm going to help my mother in law clean up her attic today. I suppose that's a sampling. If that's deeply intriguing to you I could probably put some thought to other responsibilities I feel I have and get back to you later... doesn't seem that engaging to me.

Yep! The only responsibilities to your fellow man that I can think of are: not treading on his liberties [as long as he's doing the same for you and others] and honoring your expressed and implied committments as you contract with others.

Any other responsibility that you have to your fellow man just seems like going above and beyond what is called for. That's great if Bono and others wish to take their responsibilities there but dragging others into that kind of forced altruism is not really altruistic. In fact, it's shirking your responsibility toward respecting the liberties of others.