Of Austerity and Echezeaux

originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
What wine he drinks has nothing to do with his healthcare policy recommendation. What if his policy was universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. Ryan is Mr. Austerity; he can drink whatever the hell he likes, but if he's seen in public drinking a couple $350 bottles, he's going to take shit for it, and deservedly so.
 
My experience is that it would unusual for a sitting member of Congress to have anything more than a single wine by the glass in a public restaurant, with a group of less than 5 at the table. I actually can't think of a time where I've seen it happen, having taken care of many Congressmen and women.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
My experience is that it would unusual for a sitting member of Congress to have anything more than a single wine by the glass in a public restaurant, with a group of less than 5 at the table. I actually can't think of a time where I've seen it happen, having taken care of many Congressmen and women.
Click to expand...
You've obviously never taken care of Ted Kennedy!
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Whether or not Obama should be drinking the queen's wine, he's not trying to remove financial support for constituents in need
Click to expand...
Perhaps Rep. Ryan believes that people "in need" would be better off with his policy prescriptions than the various alternatives. You're entitled to disagree but it hardly sounds like something that puts him so far outside the bounds of mainstream opinion that you're entitled to stalk him in his private life.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
My experience is that it would unusual for a sitting member of Congress to have anything more than a single wine by the glass in a public restaurant, with a group of less than 5 at the table. I actually can't think of a time where I've seen it happen, having taken care of many Congressmen and women.
Click to expand...
You've obviously never taken care of Ted Kennedy!
Click to expand...

Well, you know, he died. So the opportunities are limited. But plenty of other bold faced names would come to mind.
 
Keith remains, alas, correct, and would be even if Ryan's political motives were as invidious as his policy is ill-considered. If his motives were invidious, they would remain invidious if he lived on dried bread and water and so they don't become moreso because he consumes expensive wine. Moreover, according to Lockean conservative thinking (which Ryan does not really represent, but we won't go there), there is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with advocating property rights above economic justice and with exercising one's own property as one sees fit. I fail to see an argument that could logically make supporting universal healthcare a requirement for buying expensive bottles of wine. Universal healthcare is a requirement for a just state, but that is another argument.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Keith remains, alas, correct, and would be even if Ryan's political motives were as invidious as his policy is ill-considered. If his motives were invidious, they would remain invidious if he lived on dried bread and water and so they don't become moreso because he consumes expensive wine. Moreover, according to Lockean conservative thinking (which Ryan does not really represent, but we won't go there), there is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with advocating property rights above economic justice and with exercising one's own property as one sees fit. I fail to see an argument that could logically make supporting universal healthcare a requirement for buying expensive bottles of wine. Universal healthcare is a requirement for a just state, but that is another argument.
Click to expand...
True.

OTOH, having too much quail and pineapple in your public diet while you grind the faces of the poor may slightly increase your risk of being stood against a wall sometime.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Whether or not Obama should be drinking the queen's wine, he's not trying to remove financial support for constituents in need
Click to expand...
Perhaps Rep. Ryan believes that people "in need" would be better off with his policy prescriptions than the various alternatives. You're entitled to disagree but it hardly sounds like something that puts him so far outside the bounds of mainstream opinion that you're entitled to stalk him in his private life.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything about stalking in the article. The behavior recorded may not be world's best, but there's much worse on record, even in the relatively tame universe of American domestic politics. It's often a delicate calculation when to voice your views and when not to.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Keith remains, alas, correct, and would be even if Ryan's political motives were as invidious as his policy is ill-considered. If his motives were invidious, they would remain invidious if he lived on dried bread and water and so they don't become moreso because he consumes expensive wine. Moreover, according to Lockean conservative thinking (which Ryan does not really represent, but we won't go there), there is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with advocating property rights above economic justice and with exercising one's own property as one sees fit. I fail to see an argument that could logically make supporting universal healthcare a requirement for buying expensive bottles of wine. Universal healthcare is a requirement for a just state, but that is another argument.
Click to expand...

Funny to read Locke's thinking called conservative. Ryan is entitled to his views, no doubt; equally, the woman is entitled to hers. In the U.S., both are entitled to express their views. It's a value judgment whether her doing so in the setting described constitutes acceptable behavior.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Keith remains, alas, correct, and would be even if Ryan's political motives were as invidious as his policy is ill-considered. If his motives were invidious, they would remain invidious if he lived on dried bread and water and so they don't become moreso because he consumes expensive wine. Moreover, according to Lockean conservative thinking (which Ryan does not really represent, but we won't go there), there is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with advocating property rights above economic justice and with exercising one's own property as one sees fit. I fail to see an argument that could logically make supporting universal healthcare a requirement for buying expensive bottles of wine. Universal healthcare is a requirement for a just state, but that is another argument.
Click to expand...

Funny to read Locke's thinking called conservative. Ryan is entitled to his views, no doubt; equally, the woman is entitled to hers. In the U.S., both are entitled to express their views. It's a value judgment whether her doing so in the setting described constitutes acceptable behavior.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a few things here.

One - is it acceptable etiquette to go up to a stranger in a restaurant and start attacking them for their political views. I'd say no.

Two - is her philosophical position valid? I.e., is someone who (for shorthand's sake) does not believe in redistribution of wealth inconsistent in enjoying his own wealth or that of his friends. I'd say not.

Then there's three - is her political position valid? That's the only one I agree with. But while I disagree strongly with Ryan's political positions, he's not displaying the hypocrisy of the family values types who are having affairs while railing against how the evil democrats are destroying the family.
 
To get from Locke's contract theory to just state theories, you usually need to travel through some Kantian formulation of contract theory. On the other hand, libertarians regularly appeal to Locke for their insistence on an untrammeled property right. I don't think they are consistent in their reading, nor do they really attend to the kinds of constraints Locke does put on the rights to property, but it doesn't follow that there isn't a conservative reading of Locke.

SF Joe should be right about the pragmatic wisdom of Ryan's choices. Russian poetry that I learned about on this board to the contrary notwithstanding, in this country, he is, alas, probably safe to go on munching quail and pineapple without worrying about the next line of the verse.
 
If Republican wealth can be (in small part) redistributed by means of selling them 04 red Burgundies for 2X retail then I'm all for it. I'll happily sell them all they're willing to buy of mine at those prices.

Anybody know the political leanings of the restaurant ownership? Seems like there's a possible Mark Twain style moral victory in the end to this story.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
[L]ibertarians regularly appeal to Locke for their insistence on an untrammeled property right. I don't think they are consistent in their reading, nor do they really attend to the kinds of constraints Locke does put on the rights to property, but it doesn't follow that there isn't a conservative reading of Locke.
Click to expand...

This means that present-day Anglo-American conservatives can find things in Locke that they like but have to ignore all those puritanical parts that tell them they can't exactly do whatever they want with their money -- or they can, but then they're going to hell. Yes?
 
originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
Anglo-American? so what if hold the same views and you're Gaelic-American, etc.?
Click to expand...

I suspect you'd read Locke the same way. French conservatives, on the other hand, would I'm sure have a different point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top