tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6345119804059346326..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The limits of reasonable discourseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29173431711327258922014-01-28T13:31:22.679-05:002014-01-28T13:31:22.679-05:00While I agree with your premise that rational disc...While I agree with your premise that rational discussions about emotional topics such as politics and ethics should are possible. In fact, I would argue that it should be encouraged because it affects so many downstream processes.<br /><br />I think the problem is that without some explicit, structured way of going about coming to agreement, the discussion can just become passion-filled meanders. There's too many things that can be said and given man's fallibility, it's too hard to constrain conversation to relevant matters. <br /><br />We simply need a more efficient manner by which to carry on such conversations. Science is supposed to provide this platform but not everyone is agreed on what we should call the scientific method. Jerry R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02598027846378747120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19922700419384775202010-11-14T13:05:26.212-05:002010-11-14T13:05:26.212-05:00PS: I was reminded of this thread as I read this L...PS: I was reminded of this thread as I read <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/23/opinion/la-oe-hacker-tax-cuts-20100923/3" rel="nofollow">this LA Times article</a> by two political scientists, who recently authored a book called "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class". Suffice it to say that I share their thesis that the consequences of legislation (particularly in this case) are generally more predictable than some would have us believe. As they put it: <br /><br />"There is a widely held view that rising inequality is somehow beyond politics, a natural occurrence driven by global economic forces. The skew of tax cutting toward the rich gives the lie to this fatalistic perspective. From rules shaping chief executive pay to financial deregulation to, yes, tax policy, a political system tilted toward those at the top has greatly widened the gap between the rich and everyone else."<br /><br />In other words, it does not take an expert (let alone a super-human genius) to predict the outcomes of such legislation and policies. It's only a question of whether or not one cares about them and/or desires to see them change.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86361007478572329842010-10-29T04:40:08.788-04:002010-10-29T04:40:08.788-04:00It isn't a question of ideology to accept phys...It isn't a question of ideology to accept physical reality. Accepting creationism or intelligent design theory at either the level of physical reality or of social reality is ideological. Accepting that both are examples of self-organizing, evolutionary processes is simply accepting reality as it is. Thinking you can know what affect you will have by implementing this or that policy, or thinking that you can override reality with legislation, is ideology. I think neither. It is irrational to believe that human reason is so powerful that it can overcome the knowledge problems inherent in trying to control complex social systems. So, no, I don't choose ideology over reason. I reject ideology for reality.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3234613159939559832010-10-28T09:29:15.875-04:002010-10-28T09:29:15.875-04:00You certainly have.You certainly have.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48695794989694384792010-10-27T23:29:53.936-04:002010-10-27T23:29:53.936-04:00Sorry to hear that. Often people do choose ideolog...Sorry to hear that. Often people do choose ideology over reason.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24006707185711332082010-10-26T19:05:12.319-04:002010-10-26T19:05:12.319-04:00Troy, you've succeeded at tiring me out, so I&...Troy, you've succeeded at tiring me out, so I'll just end with this: I found Ha Joon Chang very persuasive. (You, not so much.)<br /><br />All the best.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54342337020623781012010-10-26T02:50:38.495-04:002010-10-26T02:50:38.495-04:00There has indeed been a connection between economi...There has indeed been a connection between economics and ethics. One can look at the language: interest, profit, value, bond, security, trust, good, save, equity, mean, redeem, redemption, forgive, dear, obligation, honor, company, balance, credit, issue, worth, due, duty, thrift, use, will, partner, deed, fair, owe, ought, treasure, sacrafice, risk, fortune, venture, grace. All of these are at work in a free market economy, and all are seen as good by classical liberals. At the same time, Smith pointed out that it's not out of the generosity of the butcher and the baker that we get cheap, easily available food -- but from their wanting to make money, make a profit. By looking out for their own self-interest, they end up looking out for ours as well. So one of the benefits of the free market is that it can in fact turn self-interest to social good. So in that sense, ethics is indeed tied up in economics. A free market creates more goodness and social benefit in society than any other system. But even if it didn't, even if it were neutral, there is a benefit to liberty in and of itself, and more than that, I am convinced that you know better what is best for you and yours than can someone in government, no matter how well-intentioned. I am not concerned with good intentions; I am concerned with results. <br /><br />Robin Hanson has a rather silly analogy at his blog, comparing starving people to the sex-starved: <br /><br /><br /><br />However, he is on to something, even if he doesn't quite get there. Rather than comparing the sex-starved to starving people, let us rather compare those who have little sex with those who have little money and those who have a lot of sex to those who have a lot of money. (And they are comparible, as they can both be explained by netowrk theory.) Now, in the case of money, we hear all kinds of people advocating for redistributing money from the rich to the poor, but we never hear about redistributing from those who have a lot of sex to those who have little. Why not? Well, the answer should be clear enough: to do so would be rape. Yet we're perfectly fine taking people's property and redistributing that, even though that is just as clearly theft. This seems to be the most obvious objection to redistribution. There are many unethical things we are willing to allow governments to do that we would never dream of doing ourselves. That makes no sense to me. This is essentially Stalin's argument that 1 person murdered is a tragedy, while a million is merely a statistic. Unethical actions by individuals are unethical even if done by a large group of people. So, in that sense too, economics is very much tied up with ethics. <br /><br />I have mostly tried to avoid these sorts of arguments for the same reason that Hayek did: he thought that showing one could not accomplish what the left wanted doing what they wanted to do should suffice. I mostly agree with that. But for me, too, it really is ethical as much as anything.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53583771560734995932010-10-26T02:50:30.670-04:002010-10-26T02:50:30.670-04:00I am familiar with happiness economics. My point i...I am familiar with happiness economics. My point is that I don't believe in it. I don't think the thing they claim to be measuring can be measured. I am sure that people would in many ways be happier in a tribalist setting -- but they are better off in a contemporary capitalist one. Behavioral economics is fine, until people don't apply the insights to the people in government as well. Of course we don't make optimal decisions. No one does. This is why Austrian economics has been a better tradition of economic theory than any other so far. They take the full human being into consideration. Their conclusion: government is even less capable of making good decisions for us. I recommend the chapter "Why the worst get to the top" from Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." <br /><br />The effects of lower taxes take place pretty quickly. The effects of social programs (that were put in place later in the decade) take longer. We see the effects of the Great Society programs not in the 60's but in the 70's and 80's. <br /><br />Looking at the entry on Chang, I can predict exactly what he says, because it's predictable coming from a leftist economist taught by a Marxist. Material wealth is created by entrepreneurship and the discovery process of competition. The places that have gained great material wealth have done it that way. Countries that haven't, didn't. I am sure that Chang complains endlessly about the evils done by Western governments to try to force development. I'm not in favor of that. You won't find any classical liberal who is. Using government to force people to accept a system they are not yet ready for because their society has not evolved to that point, with the appropriate institutions, etc., is not going to work (as history has shown it to never work). The classical liberal position is that countries should trade with whomever wants to trade, have no barriers, and force nobody to trade with us if they don't want to. Their institutions are their institutions, and if they want to improve on them to have a better economy and better life, they can emulate those countries which show themselves to be better. Such changes should never be imposed from the outside or from above. Natural, bottom-up evolution and emergence is what should take place.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31858350055471464802010-10-25T12:39:13.100-04:002010-10-25T12:39:13.100-04:00PS: Far be it from me to imply that morality (or v...PS: Far be it from me to imply that morality (or values or "ought" statements) play no part in economic policy. Recall, e.g., Robert H. Frank's claim that there has always been a strong link between the disciplines of economics and moral philosophy (although perhaps his case is stronger with respect to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy" rel="nofollow">political economy</a>). <br /><br />But not everyone sees it exactly that way, including Paul Krugman, who says that <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/sam-janet-and-fiscal-policy/" rel="nofollow">"economics is not a morality play"</a>. Well, at least not when describing historical trends, such that, for us lay folk, it's not always obvious whether an economist (e.g. when cited in the popular media) speaks descriptively, prescriptively, or both simultaneously.<br /><br />That said, in this thread, I'm trying to be as descriptive/empirical as I know how - even when doing so is unfavorable to my own pet theories (which tend towards left-of-center). But that is the only way that I know how to bridge the political-ideological gap between us and thereby avoid banter.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35123060250878618222010-10-25T10:05:14.153-04:002010-10-25T10:05:14.153-04:00Troy, a nice example of the problem with GDP.
Hav...Troy, a nice example of the problem with GDP.<br /><br />Have you heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics" rel="nofollow">happiness economics</a>? I would agree (at this point in time) that it seems a rather unorthodox subdiscipline, but (like my reference to behavioral economics) I assure you that I made no mistake in alluding to it.<br /><br />BTW, I don't think either of us can have it both ways with the 1960's, when Kennedy lowered the top tax rate and Johnson enacted the Great Society programs. For ideological reasons, you may approve of the former and I may approve of the latter, but I think we both have to admit that neither seemed to do much harm to the economy (at least not in that decade).<br /><br />On a more general note about free markets, I recommend "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism" by economist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang" rel="nofollow">Ha Joon Chang</a>. It paints a very different picture of how wealth is created in the real world (or was so historically) than the one you seem to envision. Of course, after reading it, you might still argue that that's not how it should be done. But that's hardly an empirical argument, is it?mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61920463620711283332010-10-25T02:05:19.558-04:002010-10-25T02:05:19.558-04:00Well, I have recently been thinking about the diff...Well, I have recently been thinking about the differences between wealth and riches -- so the distinction is probably unique with me (for now, I hope). I am with you on GDP, but probably not for the reasons you don't find it compelling. For me the issue involves the fact that GDP masks whether or not there is in fact wealth production. If you have two countries, A and B, and each produces one unit of product X, but A keeps each unit, while B destroys each one at the end of the year, at the end of 5 years, you will see that both A and B have the same GDP, but A will be 5 times wealthier than B. <br /><br />Much of the happiness research seems iffy at best to me. And I question the political motivations behind the "ecological sustainability" measures as currently formulated. This is not to say that these things don't matter -- but the first is at best difficult to measure accurately (I'm not entirely sure what it would even mean to say it was or could be), while the second at present has anti-market motivations rather than pro-ecology ones.<br /><br />I recently read about the post-WWII boom and the claims about it being a Keynesian model. However, the Keynesians at the time were warning that the U.S. was going to head into another recession because they were in fact pursuing anti-Keynesian policies, such as reducing deficit spending. Certainly there was infrastructure spending, such as the interstate highway system, but it was far from a Keynesian wonderland. The high marginal tax rates were in reality much lower than they were officially(with all the tax deductions you could claim, the real rate was much, much lower). Still, Kennedy has pushed for a much lower top tax rate -- which he got after he was assassinated. The result was an even stronger economy in the 60's. It was in the 70's, where Nixon proclaimed "We are all Keynesians now" that we got stagflation. With Keynesian policies being pursued in the U.S. now, we are likely facing the same prospect. <br /><br />Certainly one canot point to any country where free markets exist in any pure sense. And in a world where some people want to have political power over others, it is unlikely we ever will. Yet, when we look at countries whose economies are closest to free market, we see the greatest material wealth. Those farthest away have the least material wealth. This should at least be suggestive. <br /><br />Some of the things you bring up have nothing to do with economic or what kind of economy one has. This is a common mistake people make. Greater material wealth can not and has never promised greater happiness, more art, better health, etc. It has only ever promised greater material wealth. The fact that more often than not it also provides these other things in ever-greater abundance is just a bonus.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63479285012439903642010-10-24T14:25:00.071-04:002010-10-24T14:25:00.071-04:00Troy, I don't think that I mistake riches for ...Troy, I don't think that I mistake riches for wealth, but then I'm aware that ideologies tend to have their own jargon. Your definition of "wealth" might not be the same as mine, or I might not value yours so much as you do. <br /><br />For that matter, I think GDP is a deeply flawed measure of wealth or standard of living. The HDI (which includes per capita GDP) is more well-rounded, but is not perfect, either. More recently, some economists have tried to account for happiness (following recent trends in psychology and sociology) and ecological sustainability, but there is (as of yet) no broad consensus on these indices, and so GDP still seems to be the standard (at least at the national level).<br /><br />That said, I mentioned the post-WWII period because it is considered a "golden age" for the US, an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion" rel="nofollow">economic boom</a> with higher real GDP growth, high employment, and few financial crises (relative to other periods). It was also the period when Kenysian economic policy was dominant (both in government and in academia) and the <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213" rel="nofollow">top tax rate</a> was more than double what it is today. Teasing out the causal factors behind this prosperity is both difficult and controversial, but at the very least it places certain ideas about how the "free market" works and creates wealth (some of which you seem to harbor) in grave doubt.<br /><br />But you have a point about redistribution. Most of this expansionary period was pre-Great Society. When the top tax rate was 91-92% during the Eisenhower Administration, the federal revenue was not invested so much in domestic social-welfare programs as in stimulative spending programs like the Cold War and the Interstate Highways (the largest public works program in US history). This picture doesn't exactly fit the liberal/progressive/social-democratic narrative (to which Western Europe is a better fit), but then it definitely doesn't fit the market fundamentalist narrative, either. But then there are many reasons to doubt that narrative (e.g. see behavioral economics), and I've already invested more time in this thread than I had bargained for.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46863663950721230182010-10-24T05:21:50.126-04:002010-10-24T05:21:50.126-04:00You are mistaking riches for wealth. There is a di...You are mistaking riches for wealth. There is a difference between the two. One could be, say, a multimillionaire from stealing, which would make you rich, but which would not be wealth-creating. Quite the contrary, it would be wealth-destroying. <br /><br />An economy can only coordinate actions -- some better than others. The better-coordinated those actions, the more material wealth created. That is all an economy qua economy can do, and all it should be expected to do. No economy can make you more or less healthy -- but it can create conditions that may contribute to better or worse health. <br /><br />I don't quite make the claim you say regarding increasing inequality. There are all sorts of reasons for income inequality. One can imagine that there is severe income inequality in North Korea, to pick an extreme example, between the ruling class and everyone else. That is certainly a case where it's not good. More than that, I would argue that in a truly free market, we are much more likely to find less income inequality. The ways in which the U.S. is not a free market contribute to many of the things you point out, including income inequalities. For example, various legal barriers to entry protect already-established companies from startups. This allows large companies to get larger due to lack of competition. In the U.S., too, we have weight and health problems because of sugar and corn subsidies driving down the price on the market for sugar and high fructose corn syrup, making it cheaper for food producers to put these into their foods, making them more attractive to an evolved predeliction for sugar. The result is more obesity and diabetes. Again, the U.S. is dominated by government-run schools (with increasing federal control and influence), so issues of illiteracy can be directly connected to government policies (I could go on and on about the policies, chasing of fads, etc. that contribute to education being so bad in the U.S.). It's certainly anything but a market failure. And it has nothing to do with income distribution. <br /><br />When I look at the U.S. in the 50's-70's I don't see a lot of income redistribution. That came about in the aftermath of the Great Society programs. And it is in this aftermath that we see the increases in income disparity. I don't think that's a coincidence. <br /><br />We do have to be careful in attributing cause where there may just be correlation. What regulations and barriers to entry and forms of discouraging people to move out of their income bracket do we see arising over the years that may have in fact contributed to these disparities? <br /><br />If we take a look at the U.S.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57107308165514036922010-10-23T13:40:18.255-04:002010-10-23T13:40:18.255-04:00Troy, wealth can and is redistributed by most adva...Troy, wealth can and is redistributed by most advanced countries - most notably via progressive taxation and social welfare programs. It used to be done more so in the US, and is done so more today elsewhere (e.g. Western Europe). Whether or not they <b>should</b> do so is a moral/value-laden debate, but I would agree that it should be well-informed by relevant facts about the real world. <br /><br />Frank (the economist I cite above) provides some of those facts (or claims of such) - in particular those which provide evidence of the social costs of increased inequality (relative to an historical baseline), for which he claims to find no benefits. Now, you seem to argue the very opposite - that increasing inequality has only benefits and no costs, and that redistribution of any kind or degree necessarily increases poverty. Is that a fair reading of your position?<br /><br />If so, then, while I don't doubt that some types of economic redistribution harm a society, if it did so in all circumstances, then I would expect to find certain patterns. For example, I would expect to find that the US is better off today economically than it was during its post-WWII period (e.g. 50's-early 70's) or better off today than, say, the Nordic countries or Germany. Suffice it to say: that's not what I find.<br /><br />Also, if we broaden our definition of "wealth" to include "well-being" [e.g. as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI), which includes factors like life expectancy and literacy], then I would expect to find a pattern of highly stratified countries topping the list. Here, again, that's not what I find. (Almost the opposite, in fact.)<br /><br />Like I said, I am no expert in these matters. But the experts that I read on a regular basis (some of whom admit to being "liberals", in the non-classical sense) paint a very different picture of reality than the one that you seem to work with.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21577636128706458532010-10-22T02:32:50.910-04:002010-10-22T02:32:50.910-04:00Regardless of country, the top 20% have about 80% ...Regardless of country, the top 20% have about 80% of the wealth (I prefer to use the term "riches" over wealth, since someone can have riches without having created wealth). There may be variations within that 20% -- such as the top 1% having 8.9% at one point, and 23.5% at another -- but the top 20% having 80% of the riches is consistent across cultures (a discovery made by Coase). There is a power law distribution of income, no matter what the economic system. This means that if you want a system where the poorest are very well-off, you have to live with the presence of a large gap between the poor and the wealthy. If you want to narrow the gap, you have to impoverish everyone. The only explanation needed is that this is a feature of all aristocratic networks -- and an economy is necessarily one of these kinds of networks. Power law distributions are found throughout nature -- particularly in networks. There is no getting rid of them. There is only finding the kind of economy that will create more wealth for the poorest, regardless of what the top 20% are making. I want a system where everyone is better off. There is little evidence that forcing people to have more equal incomes creates such a situation. Personally, I would rather live in an economy where my wealth doubles after 10 years, while the top 20% of the population has their wealth increase 10000% than one where my wealth increases 10% over that time period, but the top 20% don't change in wealth. Since the economy is not a zero sum game, others' accumulation of wealth does not affect mine. Certainly it doesn't necessarily affect it in a negative way, and it is more likely that it will affect me in a positive way. Wealth creation is a positive sum game -- meaning if I create wealth, it helps me and others. But there is only one way to create wealth: through free, mutual trade, where each of us benefits from the transaction. That is the only way wealth has ever been created. Thus, wealth cannot be redistributed; it can only be created or destroyed. All that can be redistributed is riches, and in doing so, wealth destroyed. Over the long run, that harms everyone.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73459306211057909632010-10-21T10:13:17.288-04:002010-10-21T10:13:17.288-04:00Troy, I'm not sure what to make of your claim ...Troy, I'm not sure what to make of your claim that "we see the same distributions of wealth to the top percentages in every economy." At the very least, it seems to clash with the author's claim (i.e. that of economist Robert H. Frank - see link in my previous comment) that "The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent." He's talking only about the US over time. Other advanced countries today (e.g. in Western Europe and Japan) have considerably smaller wealth & income differentials.<br /><br />But that's only one dispute in fact. Frank makes other factual claims regarding the social costs of greater economic inequality, which he claims have no "offsetting benefits." I expect (based on your comments so far) that you will dispute these, as well. If so, then we aren't likely to settle those disputes here.<br /><br />But imagine, for argument's sake, that we both accept Frank's claims about the social costs of greater inequality. You might still argue that these costs are morally & ethically neutral (e.g. based on some theory about networks or emergence, etc.) and/or that Frank's suggestion that we "try to do something about it" (presumably, via the tax system) would be a cure that's worse than the disease. <br /><br />More to the point, the conversation might show up somewhere on the landscape of reasonable discourse, but I predict (again, based on your comments so far) that your preferred solution(s) to the problem (again, assuming you are willing to acknowledge it as such) will likely qualify for me (and those who think & feel like I do) as a very low peak, and likewise re: my preferred solution(s). That is indeed a kind of limit to these conversations, although they may still yield some fruits.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5516828585598228442010-10-19T12:35:41.041-04:002010-10-19T12:35:41.041-04:00I don't understand how mere income inequality ...I don't understand how mere income inequality is unethical. If a wealthy business owner is wealthier than me, it is because he has engaged in many more economy transactions than I have. Those transactions are all voluntary, and both parties are better off. If I engaged in more such transactions, I would be wealthier. This is basic network theory. The rich become richer, while the poor become poorer relative to the rich, but still richer than they were before. The geometry of network theory is a universal of nature -- it is neither ethical nor unethical. We see the same distributions of wealth to the top percentages in every economy on earth. The only differences are how that money is made. If you steal it, that is unethical. If you get government to create barriers to entry to ensure that only you can make money doing what you do, that is unethical. If you get government to create tax structures that make it more difficult for competitors to ever get started, that is unethical. If you abolish private property and, as a result, concentrate money and power in government, that is unethical. You will get wealth disparities in each of these cases; but only in one of them is wealth created ethically. There is nothing unethical or immoral about having wealth -- it is only in how one gets it. To want the exact thing another has is covetousness; to not want someone to have something because they have more than you is envy. Those are immoral. And all they do is result in different people having all the wealth concentrated with them -- and those people are far more likely to be unethical people.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58424290735314439052010-10-18T10:52:53.706-04:002010-10-18T10:52:53.706-04:00Thanks for sharing that, Troy.
I have an addendum...Thanks for sharing that, Troy.<br /><br />I have an addendum: As I read <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/business/17view.html?src=me&ref=general" rel="nofollow">this piece</a> in the NYT about economic inequality in the US, it occurred to me that (in)equality (like liberty, justice, and other abstract principles) is (among other things) a way of describing a set of facts about social relations and conditions, and how we use the term depends upon how we interpret those same facts (e.g. morally or aesthetically) when faced with them, or upon whether we even acknowledge those facts or deny them (whether for strong or weak reasons).<br /><br />In any case, I suspect that this piece affects me quite differently than it affects you.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34368486834397322252010-10-18T02:40:36.199-04:002010-10-18T02:40:36.199-04:00There are a variety of reasons why we wear varying...There are a variety of reasons why we wear varying interpretitve lenses. It is important, though, that we try to make sure that they are actually in accordance with scientific knowledge. That having been said, it's hard to say why one may have one interpretation and another either share yours or have a different one. For example, I have essentially the same world view as Frederick Turner. When at UTD working on my Ph.D., I took several classes with him. Turner is a philosopher-poet and son of the anthropolgist Victor Turner. He grew up in Africa and Britain, went to Oxford, etc. He has had a very rich life. One day in the second class I had with him, he asked everyone to share something about their background. I shared that I grew up in rural Kentucky, that my father was a coal miner with an 8th grade education, that I had degrees in recombinant gene technology, chemistry, and English. Fred leaned up and looked right at me and said, "How on earth did the two of us come to the same conclusions!" Indeed.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57930819880901280952010-10-17T14:41:20.084-04:002010-10-17T14:41:20.084-04:00Troy, I don't think that I rank equality highe...Troy, I don't think that I rank equality higher than liberty. I value both - along with justice, happiness, and perhaps a few other relevant concepts.<br /><br />Also, when judging different policies or political theories, I think that I take into account everything that I know about the world (which is includes some exposure to the topics that you mentioned). I mentioned the study of human nature (e.g. as seen through the lenses of political science, economics, sociology, psychology, biology, medicine, history, and philosophy), because I think it is most relevant to the topic at hand.<br /><br />The way that my values combine with my knowledge of human nature is probably shaped by personal experience (not to mention innate factors), which might be quite different than yours and which might go a long way towards explaining the difference in our politics. <br /><br />On the other hand, Massimo and I seem to agree on most things political, and yet we seem to have rather different backgrounds (e.g. he an Italian-born academic philosopher & biologist and me a US-born web designer & developer). So who knows?mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2928765246347323402010-10-17T02:21:08.437-04:002010-10-17T02:21:08.437-04:00Money was in its origins a "result of human a...Money was in its origins a "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design", to paraphrase Adam Ferguson. Now, money since then has increasingly become "designed," dissociated form gold and silver, made fiat -- and with that, resulting in inflation, artificially low interest rates, etc. (things that contributed to the current economic crisis).<br /><br />The economy, too, is a "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design". This is true of all healthy human social systems. <br /><br />JMC, <br /><br />I don't deny that value-rankings have something to do with one's politics. We probably rank values differently (I bet that while I rank liberty over equality, that you rank equality over liberty). But I would also argue that there are probably differences in epistemology that lead us to different conclusions. I would be willing to bet that you think people can know far more than I think they can know. More, I take more than just human nature into account, and take network theory, self-organization, emergence, and other theories involved in understanding complex systems (on this I cannot speak regarding your knowledge, what you take into consideration, etc.). All of these taken together lead me to conclude that people shouldn't be allowed to rule each other, because they don't know what is best for others, though they may know what is best for them. It leads me to realize that we fool ourselves when we say we know what this or that regulation will do in any given system at any given time. Which leads me to realize that it is best if people work out among themselves in real time what they should and should not be doing, and reap the benefits and consequences of their actions accordingly. Power should be distributed as widely as possible for this very reason -- and democracy should have restrictions on it precisely because mob rule is just as tyrannical as that of a despot (if you have 2 men and a woman on an island, and the two men vote that the woman has to submit to sex any time they want her to -- the result is democratic, but it's still rape).Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39133506226134671742010-10-16T14:38:17.713-04:002010-10-16T14:38:17.713-04:00Troy,
economy is certainly a human creation. The ...Troy,<br /><br />economy is certainly a human creation. The use of currency in economic exchanges was intelligently designed by man. Why would you reject concepts of intelligent design when dealing with the economy?2euclidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06838933537652132199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87612821791137637122010-10-16T11:23:57.443-04:002010-10-16T11:23:57.443-04:00Troy, I too believe that my world view - including...Troy, I too believe that my world view - including my politics - is in harmony with human nature - a concept on which I am also informed by the sciences. Yet I have never described myself as a "classical liberal" and I suspect that I have arrived at rather different political positions (probably best described as "social democratic" or "progressive") than you have. Go figure.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26989432568860236882010-10-16T04:00:16.915-04:002010-10-16T04:00:16.915-04:00Please note that I say "classical liberalism&...Please note that I say "classical liberalism" and not "libertarianism." Not everyone in the libertarian movement is really a classical liberal. Libertarianism is no more ideologically unified than are the Republicans or Democrats. I'm not the one conflating, here. :-) The reason I, at least, am a classical liberal in the Scottish Enlightenment tradition is precisely because I find it to be the world view most consistent with an evolutionary, complex systems/network/process, emergentist understanding of the world. I thus consistently reject creationism and intelligent design at both the level of physics, chemistry, biology, and mind as well as at the social levels, which includes the economy, culture, society, governance, etc. Those who embrace creationism and intelligent design at either of these levels -- religious conservatives for the first, various Leftists for the second (who simply replace God with Man, and then make him the Creator or Intelligent Designer of our social systems) -- are explicitly anti-reality.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14892917549601651782010-10-13T19:23:38.183-04:002010-10-13T19:23:38.183-04:00Troy, if something is the definition of anti-reali...Troy, if something is the definition of anti-reality, that's American-style libertarianism.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com