{Sigh}

[libertango]

Regarding this column in the Sun-Times:

*^*^*

To the Editor, and Ms Savage:

Regarding "There is no 'free' lemonade," July 5, 2010:

It seems Ms Savage is all in favor of the free market -- as long as the market agrees with her. She's all in favor of freedom -- as long as others do what she wants. And she writes as if she believes the Randian paradox of all actions of gratification are permitted -- except for those that may benefit others, no matter how self-gratifiying they may be.

One can't help feeling Ms Savage utterly lacks sincerity, and this was bait dangled out for the outcry that will surely follow. I suppose, in that respect, this very response is enabling her irresponsible behavior.

But consider: She says she's afraid of these children giving away something that wasn't rightfully theirs. Yet this over-the-top column will subject her future self to nothing but mockery, calumny, and disdain. She has completely given away the reputation that belonged to her future self, and to the future of the Sun-Times. Was it truly hers to give?

Sincerely,
etc.

Comments

[mcjulie.livejournal.com]

The writer is certainly making a lot of assumptions about the kids' parents.

When I read that scenario, I pictured the parents being the ones to insist that the lemonade be given away.

[m-cobweb.livejournal.com]

You saw the cartoon last week about types of Libertarians, didn't you? Yeah.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Head meet Desk.

Indeed - they are also free to give away something which must assume had been freely given to them. Anything else would be wrong.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Yes, it gives credit to the kids for an autonomy that seems almost... Scandinavian socialist, somehow. I doubt that's how she sees it, though.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did see the cartoon. All too painfully familiar.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Hence, Popper's Paradox. Unless all alternatives available to society, including totalitarianism, are on the table, the measures required to limit the alternatives in the name of "democracy" will be at least as restrictive as anything democracy is being protected against.

Same basic thing here: In the name of promoting the free market, she's calling for compulsion from some authority -- even if one as benign as the parents.

But then, you can't eliminate the Fed, or restore the gold standard, etc., etc., without massive statist intervention in the markets. Oh, well.

[radven.livejournal.com]

She should research Gift Economies and the culture of Burning Man.

But - her head would probably explode...