Liberal blogger believes that children are the future

I'm sorry---this is just like shooting fish in a barrel.: A BCer in Toronto: I believe the children are our future.

This sort of thing is right up there with this old classic.

Are there leaders in the youth wing ready to step-up and make this happen, and leaders in the senior party to support them?

It sounds positively Soviet!

Anyway, why do political party flacks always sound like biz school wannabes?  I mean, even in high school!

Comments

[lrC]

In a welfare state in which each generation isn't paying the entire shot for its own welfare as it moves through the age cohorts, children _are_ the future.

[Mandos]

I think you missed the point.

[Mandos]

Oh, and your pronouncement re welfare states is fundamentally absurd and misses the entire point of the "welfare state", as you call it.

[Dave]

I think IrC nailed the point. What is the point of the welfare state if not to pass off the buck onto someone else, future or otherwise?

[Craig]

It's a strange world where, if you present a position contrary to Dave's that, regardless of that positions substantive content, you are practically a member of the local soviet! For instance, I apparently advocate using the strong-arm of the law to take away Dave's meager possessions! And, apparently, I believe that the law and state will correct all wrongs, but only if I cross my fingers.

[Mandos]

No, he wasn't making a statement about the point of the welfare state. Instead, he presupposed that "each generation [should be] paying the entire shot for its own welfare." If he presupposes this, he's obviously out of touch with the motivations behind the establishment of nominally-democratically-controlled systems of resource allocation.

Worse, he connects this to children and future thing. In this system, it isn't *children* who are *anything*, but instead current healthy wage-earning adults. Which is indeed the point.

In any case, *my* post was about the facetious and empty talk of Liberal (and I guess other) political party operatives, which doesn't have to do any *serious* policy matter.

[Mandos]

In fact, irC's point is entirely trivial in ANY context. Of *course* the perpetuation of any system or order or dis-order or whatever depends on its children, regardless of what it actually is.

THAT is the point.

[Steve Smith]

Mandos,

You're absolutely correct, which is why we can never allow proportional representation to come to pass.

[Mandos]

You've missed half the point of the advantages of PR---systems (like FPTP) where parties can't easily form only encourage more of these career hack.

[lrC]

Mandos, it's self-evident that a welfare state requires the transfer of wealth from some people to others. If the wealth isn't here now and the state borrows, it is simply applying the concept of transferring from some arbitrary future people to other people presently. If that is to be remotely possible - assuming the current mandarins do intend the obligations to be met by someone down the road and are not indifferent to whether or not the society collapses after the mandarins have shuffled off the mortal coil - then "children are the future". This type of thinking is much less evident, thankfully, than it was twenty or more years ago. I make no doubt that BCer had nothing like that in mind; it's just an amusing twist on a vacuous aphorism but the twist happens also to be a proper reflection of reality. It's simply an additional delicious irony that many of the people who don't see a problem with that sort of approach to public financing don't manage to sustain a replacement birth rate.

[Mandos]

"Mandos, it's self-evident that a welfare state requires the transfer of wealth from some people to others."

It is not merely that it *requires* it---it is, in the ideal case, part of the *purpose* of the welfare state. ie, an end, not just a means.

"If the wealth isn't here now and the state borrows, it is simply applying the concept of transferring from some arbitrary future people to other people presently."

You are suffering from the belief that the state is in debt because of its social welfare arm---that is contained in your presupposition. I don't know if I can help you.

"If that is to be remotely possible - assuming the current mandarins do intend the obligations to be met by someone down the road and are not indifferent to whether or not the society collapses after the mandarins have shuffled off the mortal coil - then "children are the future"."

This is an empirical question, and I'm pretty sure it's not substantiated to be more than a Fraser-institutely scare tactic.

"This type of thinking is much less evident, thankfully, than it was twenty or more years ago."

Yes, the propaganda has been successful.

"I make no doubt that BCer had nothing like that in mind; it's just an amusing twist on a vacuous aphorism but the twist happens also to be a proper reflection of reality."

Even if BCer had never said it, it would still be a redundant and meaningless statement applied independently to this case. It is in physical reality the current generation of adults who are supporting systems of social welfare, as it necessarily must be.

"It's simply an additional delicious irony that many of the people who don't see a problem with that sort of approach to public financing don't manage to sustain a replacement birth rate."

This is a veiled kick at various forms of human emancipation, but it is actually quite transparent. Why not tell us to what we both know you really refer?

It has nothing to do with public financing, for one thing. The American discussions about the solvency of their Social Security system is a sufficient example that should put this to rest and has been explored amply on other blogs, especially MaxSpeak, You Listen, when it was still current.

[BCer in Toronto]

A business school wannabe and a communist? Wow, that's quite a feat. Although, Moscow State University was known worldwide for its Stalin School of Business. But seriously, can I confess to being utterly confused here?

First, the title of the post was a song reference, I believe Whitney Houston was the artist.

And secondly, the post itself had nothing to do with the welfare state. It was about the need for renewal in the Liberal Party, and how a good place to start with that renewal would be the youth wing.

How in the hizeck did that become a duscussion of the welfare state, social welfare and social security?

[Mandos]

"A business school wannabe and a communist? Wow, that's quite a feat. Although, Moscow State University was known worldwide for its Stalin School of Business. But seriously, can I confess to being utterly confused here?"

Actually, I find a lot of similarity between business school jargon and Soviet jargon. It has the same feel.

"First, the title of the post was a song reference, I believe Whitney Houston was the artist."

It's still funny.

"And secondly, the post itself had nothing to do with the welfare state. It was about the need for renewal in the Liberal Party, and how a good place to start with that renewal would be the youth wing.

How in the hizeck did that become a duscussion of the welfare state, social welfare and social security?"

That, alas, was not my doing. That was that lrC guy trolling me using typical right-wing tropes.

[belledame222]

per bizspeak vs Sovietspeak:

yah, "Dilbert" pretty much picks up where "Politics and the English Language" leaves off.

and: haw! i don't watch nearly enough Simpsons, you know...