<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Straw Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2010/01/the-straw-ghosts-of-christmas-past-present-and-future/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/01/the-straw-ghosts-of-christmas-past-present-and-future/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 10:09:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/01/the-straw-ghosts-of-christmas-past-present-and-future/comment-page-1/#comment-3024305</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2019 15:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://isegoria.net/isegoria/?p=4663#comment-3024305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Attacking Burke for his ancestor-worshipping side is an attack on conservative tropes by any measure, but it&#039;s worth remembering that Burke was a transitional figure within Whiggism.

Most of the other stuff Dickens attacks was the best, most progressive, rationalist thinking of his times, even Malthus. The stuff that survived into cinematic retellings seems like an unalloyed shot at the whig/liberal, Economist-sanctioned ideology of Britain of that time. All the cruelty and Social Darwinism avant la lettre that was English classical liberalism. Even some of the stuff Scrooge says reminds me of the Economist taking part in &quot; a severe contest...&quot; etc.

Not that these categories necessarily translate to more recent times, but one wouldn&#039;t have to work too hard to see in Dickens both a welfare state social reformer and an anti-globalization populist. He did, in Bleak House, satirize the world-saver Mrs Jellyby, who always focused on missions in Africa and not on her own backyard.

Back in the 80s a good deal of left discourse in Canada seemed to disparage private charity in favour of the all-important welfare state. The former being considered just a fig leaf and the latter a true recognition of our social responsibility. I always heard Scrooge in that. Why should he privately offer charity when his taxes pay for the workhouses? A question he explicitly asks. He has fulfilled his duty to the state. Dickens&#039; emphasis on personal good will and charity struck me in that context, and still, as by modern standards a very reactionary sentiment.

Somewhere in his early 2000s catalogue, John Derbyshire [IIRC] repeated a literary anecdote [original teller I have forgotten] about one of the early 19c romantic poets loathing the Duke of Cumberland for a reactionary monster, and loathing him all the more for being personally charitable and amiable to the poor.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Attacking Burke for his ancestor-worshipping side is an attack on conservative tropes by any measure, but it&#8217;s worth remembering that Burke was a transitional figure within Whiggism.</p>
<p>Most of the other stuff Dickens attacks was the best, most progressive, rationalist thinking of his times, even Malthus. The stuff that survived into cinematic retellings seems like an unalloyed shot at the whig/liberal, Economist-sanctioned ideology of Britain of that time. All the cruelty and Social Darwinism avant la lettre that was English classical liberalism. Even some of the stuff Scrooge says reminds me of the Economist taking part in &#8221; a severe contest&#8230;&#8221; etc.</p>
<p>Not that these categories necessarily translate to more recent times, but one wouldn&#8217;t have to work too hard to see in Dickens both a welfare state social reformer and an anti-globalization populist. He did, in Bleak House, satirize the world-saver Mrs Jellyby, who always focused on missions in Africa and not on her own backyard.</p>
<p>Back in the 80s a good deal of left discourse in Canada seemed to disparage private charity in favour of the all-important welfare state. The former being considered just a fig leaf and the latter a true recognition of our social responsibility. I always heard Scrooge in that. Why should he privately offer charity when his taxes pay for the workhouses? A question he explicitly asks. He has fulfilled his duty to the state. Dickens&#8217; emphasis on personal good will and charity struck me in that context, and still, as by modern standards a very reactionary sentiment.</p>
<p>Somewhere in his early 2000s catalogue, John Derbyshire [IIRC] repeated a literary anecdote [original teller I have forgotten] about one of the early 19c romantic poets loathing the Duke of Cumberland for a reactionary monster, and loathing him all the more for being personally charitable and amiable to the poor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harry Jones</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/01/the-straw-ghosts-of-christmas-past-present-and-future/comment-page-1/#comment-3023323</link>
		<dc:creator>Harry Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2019 20:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://isegoria.net/isegoria/?p=4663#comment-3023323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yikes.

I know a thing or two about poverty. The first thing to understand is there&#039;s more than one kind.

Many people really are their own worst enemies and trying to help them is a mistake. But some people are the victims of circumstance.

We can subdivide the victims of circumstance into: those who would benefit from a loan, those who need some know-how and those who need some connections. Give each what he needs most.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yikes.</p>
<p>I know a thing or two about poverty. The first thing to understand is there&#8217;s more than one kind.</p>
<p>Many people really are their own worst enemies and trying to help them is a mistake. But some people are the victims of circumstance.</p>
<p>We can subdivide the victims of circumstance into: those who would benefit from a loan, those who need some know-how and those who need some connections. Give each what he needs most.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
