It looks obvious

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” — Albert Einstein

My kind of a plumber

Comments

Joe the plumber is really OK. If you expecting inarticulate and ignorant person you are going to be disappointed. I really enjoyed listen to him - he is eloquent, understand the issues and represent his point of view very well:

And by the way - when I’ll read the story of Robin Hood to my girls he will not be a hero for the wealth redistribution but for protecting human rights. Furthermore I don’t think that any politician can boast as Robin Hood while using the coercion monopoly of the state to force wealth distribution - if they want to be Robin Hood they are welcome to hide in Sherwood forest and take the risks he took!

Written by Rogel

October 16th, 2008 at 8:43 am

Posted in 2008 campaign

Tagged with , , , ,

« A must see recommendation
Informed voters making inform decision »

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Every single economic transaction redistributes wealth. And so does every single government. And, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. In the American context, calling one “socialism” is nothing less them hypocrisy… whether a (pretty lame, no pun intended) presidential nominee says so, or a plumber.
    • ^
    • v
    There is great difference between voluntary action, most of them where both side gaining, to coerced actions. Obviously the desire to decide how to distribute my own "wealth", along with the general notion of individual liberty is still hard to grasp and radical - but I hope someday even sophisticated minds will be able to grasp it.
    Sometimes it takes a simple plumber to say that the king is, despite all the sophisticated theories, is simply naked.
    • ^
    • v
    Might have been a valid point, had it not been framed in such partisan circumstances. But, the political spin on wealth distribution is plain biased. Both sides of the political spectrum redistibute wealth to a similar (large) extent. There's nothing more voluntary in the republican economic plans than in the democrats ones. And vice versa.
    • ^
    • v
    You are absolutely right to argue that the Republicans are not any different from the Democrats in this respect and that they aren't representing an alternative of Free Market - extreme or moderate. This is one of the reasons I said from the beginning of this campaign, and as early as the last mid-term elections, that the republicans going to face major electoral defeat.
    • ^
    • v
    They definitely might face electoral defeat. But, I choose to contribute that to candidate choice and not really to representation (or lack of) of economic alternatives. Let’s face it, in direct candidate election, the appeal (or lack of) of the candidate at hand (usually) plays a larger role than his (so called) policies. If the Republicans lose, it will be because their sales representative just isn’t bringing in any buyers…
    • ^
    • v
    That might effect the degree of victory or loss but not the essence. Take for example Bush, the father, lost despite the fact that he was a popular president with war victory in Iraq. Looking at American elections only as a beauty contest between two candidate is only scratching the surface. Additionally, and despite regular voting trend to elect to the senate majority of the opposite party of the President the general prediction is that Democrats going to pick many seats, in addition to their gain in the mid-term election, which cannot be attributed to the person running to the white house.
    Looking at the trends - that were already evident in 2004 - shows a move of voters blocks in places like the mountain west and among those called Regean democrats from the Republican party to the Democrats.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus