« Ten on Tuesday | Main | Sea Glass »

August 17, 2005

Comments

Ben

It's a paraphrase of FDR's 1932 Commonwealth Club speech: "the exercise of the property rights might so interfere with the rights of the individual that the government, without whose assistance the property rights could not exist, must intervene, not to destroy individualism but to protect it."

It means that the government can pass laws regulating what you can and can't do with your factory, for example. Minimum wage laws, safety standards, environmental regulation, etc.

Doing these things increases the freedom available to individuals who can now breath clean air, and enjoy more working rights, etc.

scott

As I had written elsewhere recently, the differences in how we answer these questions depends on where we think we are now rather than in divergent views on where we want to go. Those who think government infringement on economic and property freedoms is the most salient issue of the day will likely answer "no"; those who think the more pressing issue is that the freedom of people who own a lot is running roughshod over the folks who own very little are likely to say "yes." In this case both individuals may well recognize that it is a balance we are after, but whether we pull to the left or right to achieve it depends on which direction you think the current situation is leaning to begin with.

Margaret

I'm with you! I didn't score as high as you did, but was pretty much in the same order. (green and new democrat were switched around I think) I am a sucker for these quizzes, and this one seemed quite accurate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Welcome!

Search this blog!

Follow me!
Karen Potischman Wise's Facebook Profile