by Jay Johansen | Jul 2, 2010
A TV commentator found the Tea Party hypocritical: At the same time that they are protesting against the government, she said, they are benefiting from police and fire protection provided by that same government.
This is only "hypocritical" if you assume that once someone agrees that there is any legitimate function for the government to perform, that he must agree with everything the government does or that anyone suggest that it should do. If you concede that it is appropriate for the government to run the police department, then you must naturally and logically agree that it is appropriate for the government to run the health care system. If you say you want the government to run a military to protect the people from foreign invasion, then you must inevitably say that you also want the government to run a bureaucracy to protect the people from under-priced milk.
Surely it is possible for someone to rationally say that the government should do some things but not others.
I can't help but wonder: Do the liberals who find this line of argument convincing also apply it to free enterprise? Liberals routinely attack the free enterprise system at the same time that they benefit from all the wealth produced by free enterprise. Indeed, they often use products invented by entrepreneurs, from the printing press to the telephone to the computer, to spread their message attacking entrepreneurs.
© 2010 by Jay Johansen
Kriszti Jul 23, 2014
Iskam da popitam i oshte nehsto. Imam pet dekara v selo Vizica obshtina Malko Tarnovo. Tazi obshtina popada li v oblasta za podpomagane i kakav vid subsidirane ima opredelen za tazi oblast? Blagodaria vi otnovo!!!
gary Oct 12, 2015
How can you say that something is good for one purpose or one application and not another? You say that you don't feed your baby motor oil? What a hypocrite! You agree that motor oil is good for your car. How can you say that it is good for your car but not good for your baby?