This is an interesting argument in that it seems to contradict the more usual conservative resistance to making judgements about how much money other people “need”.
For instance, many conservatives (e.g., the well-known conservative advocate Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax Reform) vehemently oppose the liberal position that it’s okay to tax higher incomes at a higher rate. According to this position, progressive taxes are acceptable because wealthy people can afford to pay more tax without jeopardizing their access to necessities or creature comforts. But many conservatives argue that “need” is subjective, and so we shouldn’t presume to assert that, say, a poor person “needs” $10,000 more than a rich person “needs” $10 million. Who are we to judge what constitutes a “necessity” or crucial “creature comfort” for somebody else?
Here, on the contrary, we have a conservative arguing that Bennett’s gambling wasn’t “destructive” and didn’t subject his family to deprivation, on the grounds that he was still able to afford (apparently arbitrarily determined) “necessities and creature comforts” for them. (Interestingly, Grover Norquist agrees.) But who are we to judge what constitutes a “necessity” or crucial “creature comfort” for Bennett’s family members? Suppose the millions of dollars that Bennett gambled away represented to his family the loss of many things they really wanted? Can we still claim that his gambling wasn’t “destructive”?
If it’s not immoral for a wealthy breadwinner to gamble away huge sums of money as long as his family doesn’t fall below some arbitrarily-fixed level of impoverishment, then I don’t see why it should be immoral for a government to tax a wealthy person a disproportionately high percentage of his income, again as long as he doesn’t fall below some arbitrarily-fixed level of impoverishment.
If, on the other hand, we’re really supposed to regard need as fundamentally subjective, and not impose our own judgements on the question of how much money other people need, then ISTM that the charge of immorality applies to both positions, and Bennett is arguably just as destructive a gambler as a low-income worker who blows the kids’ milk money on Lotto tickets.
It’s for Bennett and his family to determine if his losses constitute destructive levels. I base my statements on Bennett’s representations, unrebutted by any members of his family. You ask, “who are we to judge what constitutes a “necessity” or crucial “creature comfort” for Bennett’s family members?” I agree - we are not in a position to determine this. Bennett’s family is. I am unaware of any claim by Bennett or his family that his gambling was financially destructive. Are you?
Yep. I’d say if he “can afford” to lose millions of dollars, he “can afford” to pay millions of dollars in taxes.
And if I remember correctly, Bennett argued that moderation in and of itself is a virtue. I don’t care who you are, millions of dollars lost gambling isn’t moderate.
Oh, I see. I thought from what you said that you were basing them on some objectively-determined assessment that Bennett was “not leaving his family lacking anything in the way of necessities or creature comforts”.
But what you actually meant, it seems, was that Bennett’s gambling shouldn’t be considered destructive because his family apparently didn’t mind it.
The Bennett Gambling/Bricker Argument has been going on for years (there are mentions of it on cave walls). Ultimately it’s about how you interpret $8 million of a megamega millionaires fortune.
I and others see the amount he lost objectively: $8 million is a shitload of money that could have done a helluva lotta good. Bricker and others see it subjectively: $8 million is a minor percentage of Bennett’s own fortune/income that he could easily afford to lose without bankrupting his family (which is true).
I have to admit I probably wouldn’t get that worked up if Dick Cheney or Mr/s. John Kerry or some other political megamillionaire plopped $8 million onto a Malibu vacation mansion and it probably has to do with my automatic revulsion towards Bennett. I can see his (Bricker’s) point even if I don’t agree with it, and I don’t really think there’s a right or wrong but just a matter of perception (some think Andy Kaufman’s a genius and some that he was a talentless prick and it’s too relative to declare right v wrong), and since tis true that Bennett never specifically bashed gambling he’s really not a hypocrite. (You could get him on some misdemeanor hypocrisy perhaps- the fact that some of the writings in his Book of Virtues emphasize thrift and charity and moderation et al, but he himself has never bashed gambling and so certainly isn’t in the same felony hypocrisy leagues as Taggart and Swaggart and Gingrich et al). Plus, there are plenty of other reasons to detest Bennett when he does practice what he preaches (though I will at least give him props for having the decency/integrity to say he was wrong when he cited Paul Cameron’s “research” on gays).
Ultimately the point is FREE PARIS HILTON!!! (First Anne Frank and now that poor child- when does it end?)