tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post7258324353736531060..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On ethics, part VII: the full pictureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35003636872773244202011-09-23T05:32:44.211-04:002011-09-23T05:32:44.211-04:00Ok, I bite. DJD, your last comment does make me cu...Ok, I bite. DJD, your last comment does make me curious. What did you learn from the exchange?<br /><br />And yes, I mean Walter Eucken - I did say ordoliberal ... ;-)chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80854578023451600362011-09-22T15:57:33.073-04:002011-09-22T15:57:33.073-04:00Read it again. I think it's right on.Read it again. I think it's right on.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17637350121826486332011-09-22T14:21:59.293-04:002011-09-22T14:21:59.293-04:00Mufi
You should really take time to review that...Mufi<br /> You should really take time to review that Krugman article again and see if you still believe that it was an accurate representation.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-739620565666950652011-09-22T13:31:28.890-04:002011-09-22T13:31:28.890-04:00PS: Of course, it also helps that Krugman is a Nob...PS: Of course, it also helps that Krugman is a Nobel prize-winning economist, who (to put it mildly) understands the economic implications of various policy proposals better than the average lay person, and therefore is better able to detect when a politician is working from sound economic data vs. ideology (or corruption). <br /><br />(Cue up the usual conservative anti-Krugman smears.)mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59384251660713626022011-09-22T12:47:54.431-04:002011-09-22T12:47:54.431-04:00Yes, I basically agree with Krugman (in large part...Yes, I basically agree with Krugman (in large part because it jibes with Lakoff, whose analysis of US politics - based on his expertise in cognitive science and linguistics - makes the most sense to me). <br /><br />'Nuff said (which is your cue to post another succession of "last words").mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39877447927871318472011-09-22T12:11:31.667-04:002011-09-22T12:11:31.667-04:00chbieck
Sorry to see you suddenly cut off the ex...chbieck<br /> Sorry to see you suddenly cut off the exchange.....it was educational.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90284770181378158662011-09-22T12:08:02.003-04:002011-09-22T12:08:02.003-04:00mufi
>"Wherever communal action can mit...mufi<br /> >"Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."<br /> Did you notice the "can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences" phrase in the sentence? How do you square this with the Krugman hypothetical?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-354737836356919592011-09-22T12:03:38.423-04:002011-09-22T12:03:38.423-04:00mufi
I'm curious....Do you find any faults ...mufi<br /> I'm curious....Do you find any faults with that Krugman article that you cited? Do you find it to be an objective article that is an accurate and fair description of our medical care in the U.S. is really like...and the types of choice that this hypothetical man would really have? How about Krugman's attempt to tar republicans and conservatives by choosing a kook like Ron Paul as someone that typifies republicans? Or his statement about "just different moral visions"? You must agree with his "presentation" since you cited him in your defense.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18485273291193227772011-09-22T09:45:15.563-04:002011-09-22T09:45:15.563-04:00chbieck: I suspect that DJD was confused by your E...chbieck: I suspect that DJD was confused by your Eucken reference. Whereas you meant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Eucken" rel="nofollow">Walter Eucken</a> (the economist and founder of ordoliberalism), his response to you only makes sense if he was referring to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Christoph_Eucken" rel="nofollow">Rudolf Christoph Eucken</a> (the philosopher, theologian, and ethical activist).<br /><br />Welcome to my world. :-)mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84093132126036936002011-09-22T09:39:42.232-04:002011-09-22T09:39:42.232-04:00So why are you pointing out something that everyon...<i>So why are you pointing out something that everyone already agrees with?</i><br /><br />Because they don't, as that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/krugman-free-to-die.html?hp" rel="nofollow">Krugman editorial</a> that I referred to above argues.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4403341285950294082011-09-22T02:38:24.995-04:002011-09-22T02:38:24.995-04:00One last example for my point (and then I will rea...One last example for my point (and then I will really go back to just reading):<br />In Germany (I use that as a comparison since Germany and the US are the only countries in which I closely ;-) follow politics) it doesn't matter which government brings in a new Supreme Court judge - there are no conservative or social democrat blocs on the court. There is nothing preventing them from being as ideologically set as the US Supreme Court judges - their term is 12 years without reelection and as highly respected jurists they will always get a good job afterwards. The left/right divide is simply not part of the picture. <br /><br />And you can hardly call Germany an unbridled democracy - the main goal of our constitution was to prevent something like Nazi Germany ever happening again...chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68469801245573094272011-09-22T02:10:50.287-04:002011-09-22T02:10:50.287-04:00>Your quoting Eucken suggests that you endorse ...>Your quoting Eucken suggests that you endorse much of what he thought and wrote. So, you are likely a person with strong moral commitments, commitments to egalitarian ideology, perhaps you are somewhat spiritual and and believe human's have a soul, etc.<br /><br />Nope, I just subscribe to the factual economic system as is was implemented by German conservatives (!). I don't care about the ideology - that was my point... (which again brings us back full circle).chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40252794455259343582011-09-21T23:04:16.895-04:002011-09-21T23:04:16.895-04:00mufi
> "Even it turns out that disagree w...mufi<br />> "Even it turns out that disagree with every other statement that Hayek ever made, I could not agree more with that one." <br /> That's fine....but this is not at issue. I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. So does everyone I know. So why are you pointing out something that everyone already agrees with?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84277909614828551062011-09-21T22:16:48.308-04:002011-09-21T22:16:48.308-04:00It's a pedantic point, but that's not how ...It's a pedantic point, but that's not how the quote appears on p.148 of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=qg61T_I1mwsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=road+to+serfdom&hl=en&ei=IpV6TtLpDIG80AGp6f2yAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=two%20kinds%20of%20security&f=false" rel="nofollow">this edition</a>. See the paragraph that begins with "Nor is there any reason..." and ends with "Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."<br /><br />Even it turns out that disagree with every other statement that Hayek ever made, I could not agree more with that one.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24644230576170712542011-09-21T17:12:00.205-04:002011-09-21T17:12:00.205-04:00mufi
You should have read Hayek's entire quote...mufi<br />You should have read Hayek's entire quote. He rejects egalitarianism in the same paragraph you cite.<br /> "But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64677176238108361882011-09-21T15:23:26.729-04:002011-09-21T15:23:26.729-04:00chbieck
> "but not to the U.S. Since th...chbieck<br />> "but not to the U.S. Since the reference was to "moralistic, envious and resentful" I assume you mean the Tea Party in the US?"<br /><br />You apparently are not following our politics. Our president has launched a strategy that plays upon and preys upon our populist bent towards envy and resentment. He is, and has been for some time, playing the class warfare card...which only works because of the envy and resentment that it whips up in the U.S. among the lesser educated and lesser paid.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6046065887833321662011-09-21T15:18:03.269-04:002011-09-21T15:18:03.269-04:00chbieck
> "At least everybody agreed wit...chbieck<br />> "At least everybody agreed with Massimo's statement that the Senate is undemocratic (with DJD's "but" that the whole constitution is designed to be undemocratic - which sounds weird but would explain a lot)."<br /> For many, Massimo's statement that the senate is undemocratic is somehow significant. I guess because they draw the implication that "the senate is therefore a bad institution that should be changed" Well...who in the world does not already know that the senate is is an undemocratic body. Why does that even need to be said....if everyone already knows it? Because there is an unspoken pre-supposition in his meaning that others accept. Namely , that there is something wrong with the senate being an undemocratic body. Why else would he point out what is already obvious to those that he is addressing? The "butt" in "yes, butt" is...but don't automatically draw that conclusion. It is NOT a bad thing that the senate is an undemocratic body....it is a good thing....in fact it was designed to be an undemocratic body....and it is good that it is. Unbridled democracies can become tyrannical.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23513534744412612772011-09-21T15:07:14.185-04:002011-09-21T15:07:14.185-04:00chbieck
> "You do know that saying "...chbieck<br />> "You do know that saying "yes, but" is equivalent to saying no?"<br /> I don't know where you learned that. It is not true at all. How do you get from " 'yes', X is true, 'butt' perhaps we should also consider the other facts in the case before we make a final decision"... to " 'yes, butt' being equivalent to 'no' "?DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33620596650544761992011-09-21T15:01:37.963-04:002011-09-21T15:01:37.963-04:00chbieck
> " in the U.S., ideology seems t...chbieck<br />> " in the U.S., ideology seems to be so entrenched that you don't even agree on that. (You do know that saying "yes, but" is equivalent to saying no?)"<br /> Actually, it is our individuals that are committed to ideologies that are the last to say "yes, but".They are committed. They push forward without letting any "butts" get in their way. Our liberals are famous for not wanting to consider the possible undesirable consequences that might occur if their policies are implemented. This is probably true of most people that are committed to a moral cause and only think about how to make it a reality. A non-ideologically committed individual will generally want to talk about the "butts". They may agree that "yes" that is a good goal or that is a fact. However, they will add, "butt"...there are additional facts, there are as yet unconsidered consequences. The fact that "X" is true often causes individuals to jump to implications that are not necessarily true...or are not complete. This difference may reflect the difference between a rationalist and an empiricist. Rationalists tend to take one big fact and then try to build a system from that fact. It can lead to linear thinking and a need to keep other facts and issues out of the way of their ongoing logical progression. Empircists tend to look at many, many facts and are skeptical of system building.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13862627785489049212011-09-21T14:47:14.545-04:002011-09-21T14:47:14.545-04:00chbieck
> "I am an ......economist who gr...chbieck<br />> "I am an ......economist who grew up in the Ordo-Liberal Austrian tradition of von Hayek and Eucken."<br />Well, that explains a lot. Your quoting Eucken suggests that you endorse much of what he thought and wrote. So, you are likely a person with strong moral commitments, commitments to egalitarian ideology, perhaps you are somewhat spiritual and and believe human's have a soul, etc. Ideology has in common with religion the idea and feeling of committment to a belief. A "believing in" rather than just "believing that"...being devoted to, etc.Perhaps not....but Euken was. I share little of those traits when it comes to intellectual pursuits or policy exploration and examination.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68814932415084953992011-09-21T14:33:50.653-04:002011-09-21T14:33:50.653-04:00chbieck
> ".....and you will say the num...chbieck<br />> ".....and you will say the number is wrong (and probaby quote the Heritage guys ;-) ). Never mind."<br /> How did you conclude what I would say. That is amazing....all the way across the Atlantic, and you know me well enough to predict what I would say...probably based upon your excellent knowledge of what I believe.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21670378558027928932011-09-21T14:31:43.803-04:002011-09-21T14:31:43.803-04:00chbieck
> "Of course I agree that equalit...chbieck<br />> "Of course I agree that equality is not a natural state. Neither is a democratic society. What does that prove, except that you have to work to get it?" <br /> It might cause one to consider the difficulties that one might face...even the possible futility of fulfilling the ideal. It might also cause one to consider the potential, unanticipated consequences of their proposals...<br />and help explain previous failures to fulfill the egalitarian ideology.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88863065585393343312011-09-21T12:41:55.401-04:002011-09-21T12:41:55.401-04:00DJD: All I know is that I share the sentiment behi...DJD: All I know is that I share the sentiment behind that Hayek statement (even if it was out-of-character for him), whereas the conservative voices that I'm familiar with apparently do not.<br /><br />chbieck: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/our-hidden-government-benefits.html?src=recg" rel="nofollow">Here's another op-ed piece</a> that speaks to your perplexity re: the extremity of conservatism in the US today. <br /><br />It might seem naive for the author to suggest that "If those who assume government has never helped them could see how it has, it might help defuse our polarized political climate and reinvigorate informed citizenship." But the evidence from polls that she cites seems to offer some hope in that regard.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46002282016860789802011-09-21T11:31:41.315-04:002011-09-21T11:31:41.315-04:00mufi
If you had ever read Hayek.....You would no...mufi<br /> If you had ever read Hayek.....You would not quote him....except very selectively. The two of you are polar opposites.DJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634608128841501265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12012219397119419152011-09-21T09:57:45.785-04:002011-09-21T09:57:45.785-04:00chbieck: I am a (depending on the subject) moderat...chbieck: <i>I am a (depending on the subject) moderately conservative European liberal (in the European sense of the word, not the American) economist who grew up in the Ordo-Liberal Austrian tradition of von Hayek and Eucken.</i><br /><br />You may have recognized (if you didn't dig into that Krugman link) that "common hazards of life" quote as a reference to von Hayek, as in:<br /><br /><i>There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.</i> <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/hayek_on_social_insurance.html" rel="nofollow">source</a><br /><br />If such thinking were shared by movement conservatives in the USA, there would, no doubt, still be plenty for us to argue about with respect to economic policy. But at least we'd stand a realistic chance of improving our objective outcomes.<br /><br />As the late comic John Belushi used to say: But nooooooooo!mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.com