Dear Readers,
Prudence is greatly
pleased at the confidence so many of you have shown in her by asking her
advice. Sadly she must, however, return to her needlework now.
In leaving, Prudence would
like to offer this last piece of advice:
Except
in a very few instances, Prudence is neither better informed nor wiser than the
persons who write to her. She is able to offer helpful advice only because the
problems described are not hers; she is not emotionally involved in them and
can consider them objectively. So her advice has two parts: First, when you are
greatly troubled with a problem you should write it down in the form of a
letter--which you may, if you wish, address to Prudence. The act of translating
the problem into written words, rather than brooding over it endlessly and
incoherently, will itself be helpful. It will enable you to see the problem in
its true dimensions. Second, you should not mail the letter but should read it
over to yourself and imagine what Prudence would say. You will find--not
always, but often--that you know the answer. As Prudence read the letters she
received, she often felt that the writer knew the answer but only wanted some
confirmation. Try it seriously for yourself.
--Prudence, fondly
bidding you farewell
Dear
Prudence,
How should I respond to a
(relatively) good friend who ridicules my Libertarian attitudes? Or to other
people who are misinformed about the Libertarian Party?
I don't bring it up, my
friend does. I try to change the subject, as I am tired of defending my
political views to him and to other people. Many people don't understand
Libertarian philosophies, nor do they seem to want to. And, when people do want
to talk about it, they erroneously link Lyndon LaRouche with the Libertarian
Party (he's a registered Democrat, for God's sake!) or just reject out of hand
the Libertarian Party's principles.
Any
suggestions?
--Dan the Man
Dear Dan
the Man,
This is a common problem.
You have no obligation to participate in a discussion that you find fruitless
and irritating. Your friend cannot be a very good friend if he persists on this
subject despite your obviously unhappy reaction. Also, you have no obligation
to the Libertarian Party to fight on every street corner in its defense.
You
should tell your friend candidly that you do not want to discuss this subject.
If he persists, or takes offense, you should find a more congenial friend.
There are people who are not members of the Libertarian Party but who are
open-minded about it and willing to listen, even though you may not be able to
convert them. If you are receptive to the ideas of other people about politics
and policy, you will find some people receptive to yours.
--Prudence,
open-mindedly
Dear
Prudence,
Is a gratuity appropriate
when dining at a restaurant buffet? On the one hand, since the server is not
taking and filling meal orders, a tip seems unnecessary. Yet on the other hand,
the server is not less likely to be underpaid merely because the restaurant
offers a buffet, and so a tip may still be expected. And if the restaurant
offers menus in addition to its buffet, then the diners are occupying a table
that might otherwise be filled by customers who order from the menu, who would
presumably tip normally.
If the
server brings drinks, should one tip based on the cost of the drinks? What if
the server brings only water?
--Gratuitously
Challenged
Dear
Gratuitously Challenged,
The pay a
waiter gets is adjusted by the market to the probability of getting tips. If a
waiter works in conditions where tips are unlikely, he will get a higher wage
than if he works where tips are customary, other things being equal. If you go
through a buffet line and there is no personal service offered to you except
handing dishes over a counter, you are not expected to tip. If you go through a
buffet line and the waiter seats you; gives you a drink, even if water; and one
waiter is assigned to you, you should give a tip. But the tip need not be as
large as it would be if you got full table service.
--Prudence, tipsily
Dear
Prudence,
Are
you my alter ego?
--Prudence (my real
name)
Dear
Prudence,
Since I
don't know your ego, I don't know whether I am your alter ego. Anyway, the
world has more Prudences than it has prudence.
--Prudence, gladly
Dear
Prudence,
You
probably will think this is from a Democratic nut, but it is a serious
question. Why does a responsible political party have a goal of reducing taxes
on the rich? It seems only logical that those with high incomes should pay more
than those with lower incomes! A concern that most rational people should have
is how to equitably distribute the great wealth of this country. Taxation of
the wealthy and assistance to the less fortunate is one simple way. Also money
is needed for many, many good purposes! What is the Republican Party's rebuttal
to this?
--Jon Parkinson
Dear
Jon,
Prudence cannot speak for the
Republican Party (who can?), but she can give you some thoughts on the
matter.
There are probably some
exceptions, but in general rich people do pay more taxes than poor people.
Generally Republicans agree that rich people should pay more taxes than poor
people. The issue that divides people and parties is how much more the
rich should pay.
If A has twice as much income
as B, should A pay twice as much tax, or three times as much, or four times as
much? That is partly a question of fairness, to which simply saying that the
rich should pay more provides no answer. It is also a question of economic
efficiency. Beyond some point, taxation of the rich probably reduces incentives
to save, invest, innovate, and work, to a degree that is harmful to people who
are not rich. But just where that point is no one seems to know.
Why do Republicans generally
answer these questions in the direction of lower taxes on the rich more than
Democrats generally do? That is one of the main reasons they are
Republicans.
Your
question also raises the issue of attitudes toward taxation in general. Since
Reagan's victory in 1980, many Republicans have come to believe that offering a
tax cut for everyone is the sure road to electoral success. That idea now seems
to be shared by many Democrats, although it did not seem to work in 1996.
--Prudence,
taxonomically
Dear
Prudence,
A few
years ago I dated a guy, but he moved and it was hard to keep together, so we
broke up. About four months later, he died in a fire. Problem is, his younger
brother also liked me. A few days ago I saw him for the first time since his
brother died, and he still likes me. I kind of like him now, too; he's grown up
a lot since the last time I saw him. I just don't know if it would be rude to
his brother's memory to date him. I'd appreciate any input.
--Needs Help in
Missouri
Dear Needs
Help,
You have
no problem. Four months would be long enough to mourn this man even if you had
been married to him, which you weren't. Preserving and honoring the memory of a
deceased loved one does not require you to give up ordinary activities. There
is room in the human heart for remembering the dead and living with the living.
If you were deeply attached to the older brother, or now think you were, you
will not forget him. Your present attraction to the younger brother may be a
sign of your appreciation of the characteristics of the older brother, many of
which the younger one may share.
--Prudence,
consolingly
