The Motivations of Those Demanding Higher Taxes
Left Versus Right
| May 7, 2009
| Tim
We're used hearing progressives and liberals claim they are motivated by generosity and caring, while their opponents are cold-hearted and motivated only by greed.
There are several problems with this claim. For one, a mountain of social science data shows that religious individuals in the US are far more compassionate than secularists, and that these same religious people tend to lean right, politically, whereas secularists largely lean left.
Second, experiments like Mike Huckabee's "Tax Me More Fund" (and a similar experiment on the East coast whose name escapes me) -- which allowed those who felt our taxes were too low to donate more -- tend to demonstrate that such claims are insincere. (The "Tax Me More" only collected about two thousand dollars.) Such outcomes suggest that people calling for more taxes are not "generous" at all, but are trying to appear compassionate by taking away someone else's cash.
Recently, the Minneapolis Star Tribune explored the issue more directly:
Minnesota Poll: Don't tax me, tax my neighbor
Minnesotans have little taste for higher taxes that would hit most people's pocketbooks, but two-thirds would offer up the wallets of richer folks to help solve the state's budget woes, a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll has found. When it comes to a broader increase -- income tax hikes for most Minnesotans -- nearly 60 percent said that would be unacceptable.
I'm reasonably sure these same people would expect to see a personal benefit of some sort from that increased taxation. Must be nice, really: to believe you're a great and caring person because you demand that someone else (the government) take money from yet another party (people richer than you) and use it to fund the services you'd prefer to receive.
Once, the desire to take from others for your own personal gain would have been recognized for what it was: theft, driven by greed. Today, astoundingly, many people are proud to hold such a stance, and proclaim themselves morally superior to others because of it.
Welcome back, Tim! Er, I see that you have several posts before this, so maybe it was I who disappeared. But This is the first post of yours that has shown up in either of my feedreaders, and whenever I tried to go to your blog directly it generated an error. Some vast, left-wing conspiracy? Whatever, I'm glad to see Random Observations again.
The Robin Hood impulse is strong, and not altogether wrong. The people who drive me crazy are those -- Ted Kennedy comes to mind, and certain Hollywood stars, but there are many, many more -- who want to take from those who are poorer than they are, and call it generosity, human kindness, and moral virtue on their part.
Hello, again, "SursumCorda"! I've thought about you during RO's absence* -- missed your input.
(* My hosting company rather suddenly decided they weren't going to be in the hosting business anymore, and it took quite a while to find a suitable alternative and set things up. Moreso because I have a day job, and this is mostly just a hobby.)
When writing the above, I thought about the "Robin Hood" angle, and am glad you brought it up. (A friend of mine says sometimes the best material here shows up in the comments.)
I didn't address it because I suspect the desire for higher taxes is not so much robbing from the rich to give to the poor, as it is robbing from the rich for one's own benefit. Even if one advocates, say, higher taxes to benefit only the poorest of the poor, one may still be doing it to (a) alleviate one's own obligations or conscience, (b) create a utopia where one doesn't even have to think about such things, and/or (c) be thought well of. And, of course, most the things people demand today ("free" medical care, "free" day care, a better school system, help with their mortgage payments) are things they'd expect to benefit directly from, too.
Funny thing, though, is that even Robin Hood apparently wasn't a "Robin Hood". Perhaps that's unsurprising in retrospect: I have a hard time conjuring a mindset which (a) covets and breaks the law by stealing from others, and also (b) is more than happy to joyously give away a significant chunk of the loot one just worked so hard to steal.
If Robin Hood was just a common thug, then how did he get built into the myth we have today? That would indicate that people want to believe in the idea of a Robin Hood.
... not altogether wrong.
Just curious: when would you see it as justifiable or helpful?
Welcome back, Tim! It's good to hear you're well and still blogging. I'd googled for your name a few times, but you keep a low profile.
I read the link re: Robin Hood. Robin Hood's activities were probably quite embellished, with a nice sheen put on. But I don't see how the link you provided gives evidence to that end. Robin Hood was supposed to be an enemy of the clergy and nobility when he was alive, so a negative account of him from a cleric is unsurprising.
Ryan! Thank you, and I'm glad to see you. In fact, I'm really impressed how many readers have re-appeared, in just a few days, after such a long absence. Quite honored by all of your presences here.
I'd googled for your name a few times, but you keep a low profile.
Other than this blog, I have almost zero internet presence.
...I don't see how the link you provided gives evidence to that end. Robin Hood was supposed to be an enemy of the clergy and nobility when he was alive, so a negative account of him from a cleric is unsurprising.
To turn the question around a bit, what criteria are you using for evidence?
What I mean is this: You're citing one source or corpus/tradition (we'll call it "A") with a particular view, to cast doubt on another source (call it "B"). Well, how do you know A is reputable, and B isn't? Most of what we "know" of Robin Hood is from sources far newer than the note referenced above. Why does A have more credibility, as your argument necessarily implies?
(And what, precisely, constitutes your sources? My former source was, quite frankly, an animated Disney film for kids. And yes, I still think of RH as a fox. Literally. So I was disabused rather early on concerning the likelihood of my mental picture being even remotely accurate. :-))
Put another way: I could just as well argue:
"Well, of course, those concerned with morality (the clergy) and public order (officials) are generally opposed to those who make a regular living of theft. Always was, and always has been. And the artistic crowd has almost always sided with roguish criminals. [Bonnie & Clyde, Gary Gilmore, Butch Cassidy, etc.] So I don't see that your source [A] really gives any evidence at all supporting your view, because, hey, they're biased."
How do you know to reject this argument, while still giving credibility to the one you've offered? They're of the exact same form, as far as I can see.
Me, I tend to think most clergy were probably honest people. I think most people are usually honest, actually, except for professional entertainers -- who are not so much dishonest, as imaginative, and more interested in producing an emotionally moving product. Pick a popular historical subject and then compare reputable historians with the depiction in movies to see what I mean.
So I'd tend to trust a monk's note, scrawled privately in the margin of a obscure book, far ahead of a bard's romantic song or story, from the same or (especially) a much later date.
Seem reasonable? Either way, that's my thinking here.
My comment wasn't about the veracity of the Monk's note at all. I'm happy to believe it could be 100% true (though it was written some 200 years after the first reference to Robin Hood, as many popular Robin Hood ballads also seem to be). For refence, the note, translated, reads;
'Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies,'
Even in some of the most favorable tellings of Robin Hood, it could still be fairly said that Robin Hood was a thief. I'm not sure why people are arguing that the note refutes much of anything in that regard.
To be clear, I don't think the most favorable tellings of "Robin Hood" were near true.
No extant ballad actually shows Robin Hood 'giving to the poor', although in a "A Gest of Robyn Hode" Robin does make a large loan to an unfortunate knight which he does not in the end require to be repaid.[63]; and later in the same ballad Robin Hood states his intention of giving money to the next traveller to come down the road if he happens to be poor.
"Of my good he shall haue some,
Yf he be a por man."[64]
As it happens the next traveller is not poor, but it seems in context that Robin Hood is stating a general policy. wiki source
My point was simply that the only new thing the note Julian Luxford found is that;
1. There is additional support for the belief that Robin Hood was a real person.
2. A member of the clergy didn't like him
Someone could make a great argument that Robin Hood did not rob from the rich and give to the poor, of course. The historical and even bardic evidence tends that way. (Though I could certainly see some other bandit understanding the benefit of doling out bread and circuses, so to speak. Bernie Madoff seems to have given generously to charities, and profited unlawfully from the goodwill it earned him.) But such an argument would need to rely on some other source than Luxford's note.
Since your meaning wasn't entirely clear to me, I presumed (perhaps wrongly) you were responding to this portion of my comment:
even Robin Hood apparently wasn't a "Robin Hood".... If Robin Hood was just a common thug...
when you wrote:
Robin Hood's activities were probably quite embellished, with a nice sheen put on. But I don't see how the link you provided gives evidence to that end.
The link wasn't intended to demonstrate embellishment. Nor did I say that. (I would have linked to the sources of embellishment, if that were my main point.)
What I wrote only implied RH seemed (note the "if") to have been, according to the cited source, widely viewed more as a problem, disreputable person. The quoted source does indeed give evidence to that effect.
the only new thing the note Julian Luxford found is that... [1...] 2. A member of the clergy didn't like him...
No. If, as you say, you're "happy to believe it [the Monk's note] could be 100% true" then you'd have to note that it's documenting "popular opinion" as holding that RH & allies "infested" Sherwood.
That does indeed give evidence (which one may, of course, dispute, though you say you choose not to) that the widely-held view, closer to the time in question, was that RH & allies were viewed, popularly, as akin to vermin, parasites. The word "continuous" also lends further to the sense of an infestation.
Someone could make a great argument that Robin Hood did not rob from the rich and give to the poor, of course. The historical and even bardic evidence tends that way.
I wouldn't call an absence of evidence a "great argument" from the early "historical and even bardic evidence." (Nor would I suggest an early biography of George Washington, which failed to give any evidence of his extraterrestrial origin, offered "evidence" or a "great argument" he wasn't a space alien.) The phrasing and implied burden of proof is entirely backwards there.
What I wrote only implied RH seemed (note the "if") to have been, according to the cited source, widely viewed more as a problem, disreputable person.
I assumed the question was Robin Hood's nature (a "common thug" or no), and not his popularity. I misread your question.
If the question is whether Robin Hood was popular or not, the subject seems contentious even when the Monk wrote his note. There was never any question that he was disliked among the clergy.
So I'd tend to trust a monk's note, scrawled privately in the margin of a obscure book, far ahead of a bard's romantic song or story, from the same or (especially) a much later date.
You know, everyone I know hates eating spam. But someone somewhere must like the stuff or they wouldn't still be making it. The existence of product inherently seems to imply some level of demand and consumption. Given that, and the source given later in this note, I don't think the Monk's view of "popular opinion" managed to account for the views of all groups.
A bard's daily bread seems to rest rather heavily on the plate of popular sentiment. It doesn't seem fair to dismiss bards so lightly, if the question is about what people enjoyed.
The link wasn't intended to demonstrate embellishment. Nor did I say that.
Agreed. I'm simply noting that later stories contained many embellishments, justifications and new additions. I want to confine Robin Hood texts discussed to those which originated contemporary to the monk's note and previous. (pre 1500s)
No. If, as you say, you're "happy to believe it [the Monk's note] could be 100% true" then you'd have to note that it's documenting "popular opinion" as holding that RH & allies "infested" Sherwood.
Sorry. I was looking at the facts in the note as they pertained to Robin Hood's nature. If the question is of popular opinion about Robin Hood, there are contemporary quotations which directly testify to Robin Hood's popularity among certain groups of people just as he was certainly known to be unpopular among other groups.
So in that sense I think there is good evidence that the Monk's note at best ignored the opinions of certain groups of people.
"Then [c.1266] arose the famous murderer, Robert Hood, as well as Little John, together with their accomplices from among the disinherited, whom the foolish populace are so inordinately fond of celebrating both in tragedies and comedies, and about whom they are delighted to hear the jesters and minstrels sing above all other ballads."
source
(Nor would I suggest an early biography of George Washington, which failed to give any evidence of his extraterrestrial origin, offered "evidence" or a "great argument" he wasn't a space alien.)
I'm not sure I follow where you're going here.
It seems fair to note, for instance, that including a 'saracen' in the Robin Hood stories is a very recent addition with no known historical basis and thus not very likely to be historically accurate. In that case, absence of evidence (in the earlier record) would seem to be good evidence of absence.
1. Early views of Robin Hood
I assumed the question was Robin Hood's nature (a "common thug" or no), and not his popularity. I misread your question.
I think the goalpost is moving here: I wrote that he was merely viewed as a thief or thug, which certainly touches on this nature.
Then you wrote that my link provided no evidence of "embellishments." So I answered that point.
Now you write that I wasn't trying to comment on his nature: I don't think we can know that -- if one says: "People think John Edwards is a cad" one is commenting on both.
Again, my main point is that Robin Hood, circa his own time, is nothing like the view of Robin Hood today. Yes, that would imply that the record has been embellished, but I objected to your statement that I was saying Luxford's discovered note was supposed to have provided evidence of such. I said no such thing. It is what it is, and all I said, upon linking to it, was that Robin Hood wasn't really a Robin Hood.
I agree that your most recent source gives evidence that RH was popular in at least some corners even at the time of Luxford's note.
2. Burden of proof
Ryan: Someone could make a great argument that Robin Hood did not rob from the rich and give to the poor.... The historical and even bardic evidence tends that way.
Tim: I wouldn't call an absence of evidence a "great argument"...
My point is that you seem to be placing the burden of proof on me to demonstrate that RH wasn't in fact a (later-understood) Robin Hood -- that he robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.
But since I don't see *any* early evidence for that idea at all, it seems to me no such "great argument" needs to be made, other than the first half of this sentence, which is little more than stating the situation as it stands.
Nor would one say that early historical sources "give evidence" that RH didn't rob from the rich and give to the poor. They give no such evidence. Nothing can. Proving a negative, etc.
3. My View of RH
Certainly there was at least one real, historical, "Robin Hood." But, as RH seemed to be a bit of a common term for a rural thief, and as some clearly used the term for entertainment purposes, there's probably no way of knowing how many RH's contributed to the core legend, and how much was tacked on later -- even in early sources.
I tend to suspect, however, what lies at the core is far less than noble.
4. Clergy vs Entertainers
Given that, and the source given later in this note, I don't think the Monk's view of "popular opinion" managed to account for the views of all groups.
I think that's fair, and perhaps I misread the modifier -- perhaps "popular opinion" only held that RH was in Sherwood, and "infested" was more the monk's view of it.
I think we can stop saying, now, that RH, whatever he was, was unpopular among clergy. I don't recall that being in dispute, unless you're trying to use it to impugn accounts from such. And if so, simply say that to save time.
But someone somewhere must like the stuff [Spam] or they wouldn't still be making it...
Hawaii.
A bard's daily bread seems to rest rather heavily on the plate of popular sentiment. It doesn't seem fair to dismiss bards so lightly, if the question is about what people enjoyed.
This is a complete fallacy here, a nonsequitur even. Several layers, in fact. Working backwards:
a. Just because something is in demand doesn't mean it should be given historical weight. Michael Moore's films are highly popular -- and quite dishonest. Oliver Stone is a very popular director. I can (and should) easily dismiss his views of JFK's assassination -- as should everyone. (Heck, even conspiracy theorists apparently think Stone's view is out to lunch.)
Something being used for entertainment usually (and then, only usually) means it happened. Period. This is not a new phenomenon: I can't give an example, but I recall reading about many old songs written about tragedies, shipwrecks, etc, which often had almost nothing to do with the facts of the disaster in question.
b. Entertainers don't always reflect popular opinion: sometimes, or perhaps even often, they attempt to lead it. Look at the Punk movement in the late 1970s. Or look at the long list of tendentious anti-American films rolled out of Hollywood in past years. (Most of which sunk at the box office.) Again, this is not new (consider the American tour by Oscar Wilde, at the time mocked as an "ass-thete"), but instead is basic to the nature of those drawn to desire fame.
It seems fair to note, for instance, that including a 'saracen' in the Robin Hood stories is a very recent addition...
Right. Have to include a person with a different skin tone than the English. In a story about old England. Because the public is racist. And we have to show them how inclusive history was. Even if it wasn't.
Entertainers attempting to lead public opinion. Great example!
Thanks for the kind words, Tim. Since you've already found a solution, maybe it won't be too shamelessly commercial to suggest that if you ever have hosting problems again you check out Lime Daley. Full disclosure: the founder is my son-in-law, but don't hold that against him. Their service is amazing.
I didn't address it because I suspect the desire for higher taxes is not so much robbing from the rich to give to the poor, as it is robbing from the rich for one's own benefit.... most the things people demand today ("free" medical care, "free" day care, a better school system, help with their mortgage payments) are things they'd expect to benefit directly from, too.
Absolutely! Clearly, in the minds of the average voter, "the rich" represents a vast group of people who are not doing their fair share to support society (although the top 1% of all Federal income tax filers pays 40% of the tax), and "rich" appears to be vaguely defined as "anyone who makes more than I do." It's also quite a conformist mindset -- everyone should have the same type of education, the same approach to health care, and raise their children the same way. Or at least those homeschooling, homebirthing, one-income family nuts should suffer for their non-conformity by paying twice! But that's another issue.
The Robin Hood impulse, however, is quite independent of whatever the truth behind the Robin Hood myth might be. It's been a long time since I read the story, but in the myth that fuels the impulse, Robin Hood does more than rob from the rich and give to the poor. He is fighting a guerrilla war against an unjust system, in which the rich and powerful have effectively enslaved the poor and made it impossible for them even to feed their families (by forbidding hunting in the forests, for example), have perverted justice in the courts, and have denied to much of the population basic human rights -- the kind of situation that eventually led the Evil Prince John to be forced to sign the Magna Carta.
Thus the Robin Hood impulse can be helpful if it focuses on identifying and reforming truly unjust systems, and they do exist, even in the U.S. I've personally seen injustice in the way our court system works, even though it's one of the best in the world. Since the average person apparently believes "the rich" pay a lot less in taxes than they really do, and indeed has this impression that they get away with paying almost nothing, while the "ordinary citizen" bears most of the burden, taxing the rich to give to the poor can seem like striking a blow against injustice.
Not much time, but briefly;
My statement is confusing, on rereading. I did not intend to imply that your cite didn't support embellishments. I intended to acknowledge that there were embellishments (a legend) and then argue your source didn't provide evidence for your point (which seemed to be a commentary on an historical figure.) Your point copied below is the "that end" i was referring to.
Tim: Funny thing, though, is that even Robin Hood apparently wasn't a "Robin Hood". Perhaps that's unsurprising in retrospect: I have a hard time conjuring a mindset which (a) covets and breaks the law by stealing from others, and also (b) is more than happy to joyously give away a significant chunk of the loot one just worked so hard to steal.
The monks' note does not address the issue of redistribution or whether Robin Hood was courteous, or whether he was a 'common thug.' I'm not disagreeing with your depiction of Robin Hood, per se. I am simply stating that the Monk's note gives no new information about who Robin Hood was.
I just wanted to clarify things, so it was clear what I was saying. And you make an insightful comment about entertainers wanting to be makers of opinions at times. That seems to be true of at least one of the SCA bards I've known.
I wrote that he was merely viewed as a thief or thug
Not to split hairs, but you wrote that he was a thug, not that he was viewed as one.
if one says: "People think John Edwards is a cad" one is commenting on both.
True, and if someone says "John Edwards was a cad" they may only be commenting on one.
I think in the case of legends where a lot of material is invented, a distinction is often made between the legendary character and the historical (real) one.
In any case, I think I'll leave that topic be since we seem to be fairly close to agreement.
Sursum Corda - Thus the Robin Hood impulse can be helpful if it focuses on identifying and reforming truly unjust systems, and they do exist, even in the U.S.
Can it? I'm (honestly) curious when it has been, historically. I guess it depends if Robin Hood is fighting a rebellion against unjust rules (part of later RH legends) or is simply robbing wealthy people and "sticking it to the man." (the early legends and probably the historical reality)
I agree that rebellion to challenge unjust laws can do good. It seems that material redistribution, at best, addresses the symptoms and not the root problem and most typically distracts people with a material solution to what is a fundamentally spiritual or ideological problem. Washington, Ghandi, etc. weren't primarily out to steal other people's money. They wanted to change the rules. The Perons, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Chavez and Hitler were after wealth and consolidating power in the hands of the govt.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Corporations Are Right Wing? |
Front Page |
Page Two
| "Feckless" »
|
Welcome back, Tim! Er, I see that you have several posts before this, so maybe it was I who disappeared. But This is the first post of yours that has shown up in either of my feedreaders, and whenever I tried to go to your blog directly it generated an error. Some vast, left-wing conspiracy? Whatever, I'm glad to see Random Observations again.
Posted by: SursumCorda on May 8, 2009 02:47 AM