• Jack

    I don’t think reducing military spending, in a any dramatic way is nearly as political viable as the legalization of all recreational drugs.

    Maybe Dworkin is just being realistic?

  • Andrew N

    Maybe you’ve written about this elsewhere, but why is it that reducing military spending appeals to what could be termed the radical left AND the radical right (not in the focus on the family sense, but, mainly libertarian), and seemingly no one in between. (Though McCain made some vague comments about military contracts during the debate.)

    Does this imply the possibility of some kind of future re-alignment between those who are either morally opposed to excessive intervention or opposed on economic/budget reasons? And, is there a name for this sort of movement?

    Anyway, I like checking in with your blog on occasion, tired as I am with the mainstream discourse.

  • Alab Gunn

    All of Dworkin’s work reaches the same conclusion: Fundamental principles of morality require whatever the Democrats are currently asking for. This is a very popular line in academic circles, and Dworkin has done well there.

  • GU

    Social Security + Medicare + Welfare/Unemployment + Medicaid = ~53% of U.S. Federal spending in 2008.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

    We could certainly administer our wealth redistribution in a more efficient manner. Something like Friedman’s Negative Income Tax, or Murray/Van Parijs’s guaranteed minimum income would probably increase benefits paid out at a lower cost, while giving the poor better incentives to be productive.

    • Right! So it’s also ridiculous to claim we’re not spending enough. SS and medicare need not eat up an increasing portion of the budget. Forced savings into personal retirement and medical accounts can play most of Dworkin’s social insurance function perfectly well while, over time, taking most of those costs off the budget. Meanwhile, there’s all that money we’re spending on helicopters.