Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Wow! Krugman is lecturing *us* on morality?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=2&hp
This guy understands morality about as well as I understand algebra.
__________________
--
Jackie Fiest
That was interesting. He sets up the two moral arguments, welfare is right vs. welfare is wrong. The two sides merely arguing over which roles for legitimized violence are appropriate, while both urging non-violence on the part of individuals. The fight is not about the morality of theft, but simply the degree of theft and the way the loot is spent. He does not question whether the very existence of an apparatus for taking peoples property at all is moral. That's just a given.
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."
Frank Zappa
Well the fact that the American sheeple shouldn't have their money taken to do with what he thinks is appropriate isn't approached because it's never crossed his mind. There is nothing more arrogant than a tenured professor, trust me. I doubt he sees any connection between government intervention in business (for example, employer provided insurance) and unemployment. The more it costs to have employees the less you can afford to have on board? Really? Wow! So, it's bad to be taxing and burdening business owners during a depression you say? Gee, who'da thunk it?
" In future columns I will no doubt spend a lot of time pointing out the hypocrisy and logical fallacies of the "I earned it and I have the right to keep it" crowd."
Just... wow.
You say he sets up 2 moral arguements Weedwhacker, but reading through that article, I didnt see a single worthwhile arguement. All I saw were generic statements with Krugman trying to make the point that the divide is based on moral grounds. He treats all his premises as undoubtly true (IE, theres no middle ground, only 2 sides, the right are the only violent ones, moral imperative to help the less fortunate, etc).
Here is an arguement that is sound and true:
1.All sheep are white.
2. All ravens are black.
3. White is not black.
Therefore, sheep are not black.
This example arguement is very simular to the one he is trying to make, just less wordy.
There is a movie thats great for this kindof thing, where premises are accepted because they aren't the immediate thing being questioned. Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind did this very well. They layered the lies, and it was clever towards the end where you don't know if the event actually happened or if she had done something herself. I was at a buddy's house when we watched it (there were 14 college students in his tiny living room), and only a handful of us were able to call BS on the movie.
That was a truly amazing quote. " In future columns I will no doubt spend a lot of time pointing out the hypocrisy and logical fallacies of the "I earned it and I have the right to keep it" crowd."
I wonder if he will also address the fallacies of the "Do not use violence against the peaceful", "do not kick in my door and shoot my dogs if I grow a plant you don't like" and "do not take my money by force, to pay for overseas force, that will cause more people to want to come blow me up" crowds.