Warren is (as William F. Buckley described Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith) a pyromaniac in a field of straw men: She refutes propositions no one asserts. Everyone knows that all striving occurs in a social context, so all attainments are conditioned by their context. This does not, however, entail a collectivist political agenda.
Such an agenda’s premise is that individualism is a chimera, that any individual’s achievements should be considered entirely derivative from society, so the achievements need not be treated as belonging to the individual. Society is entitled to socialize — i.e., conscript — whatever portion it considers its share. It may, as an optional act of political grace, allow the individual the remainder of what is misleadingly called the individual’s possession.
We allow the government to spend money to maximize the ability of individuals to have the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--not to provide an excuse for self-selected elites who know better than us to control what we do for our own good.
This collectivist instinct is related to the failure to see that spending on roads, fire and police protection, and education (NOTE: I'd add robust national defense, although I doubt Warren counts that among the "should dos") does not mean that every aspect of our lives and economy should be the target of government spending. It seems that many liberals like to mock conservatives who want to scale back our federal government to more affordable levels by charging that Somalia is the logical end point of this anti-spending view. I've heard this. It just amazes me that they can't see that there is something between our massive deficit spending for projects far afield from Warren's justifiable government roles and the anarchy of Somalia. I'm willing to debate where that level of spending is (and the taxes needed to pay for them). They seem uninterested in defending anything less than spending more than what we spent last year--even after the massive increases the last three years. And I'm on the side that is unreasonable?
"Reality-based" community, indeed.
UPDATE: don't think letting people tell other people how to run their businesses (or lives) doesn't have real world consequences. Tip to Instapundit.
