Okay, here's my response to the notion that Mormons are Christians (which is utterly false, by the way).
William, I agree that Christianist is too broad a term and too much a bludgeon when the situation really demands more specificity. That's really what I was driving at here, but perhaps I didn't go far enough or clarify. I think there are certain groups of people that might very well be labeled as such, and generally they fall into the very politically active bracket, but really it is less effective than more specific terms...thanks.
Bob, Mike, sidereal-- I'm not too strict on the definition of Christian, but Mormons simply aren't. There's no two ways about it, but read my follow-up for further elucidation on the matter.
You may think it's "ignorant" Bob, but I can assure you nothing is further from the truth.
Man, I wish someone had come up with a different term than "liberaltarianism." I keep missing that little "l" when I read it...the two words look so much alike! Maybe that's the problem with the idea!
No but seriously:
By treating any and all social safety nets as irreversible steps on the Road to Serfdom, we allow liberals and progressives to shape those policies in ways that are inefficient, ineffective, and overbroad - even though Adam Smith, Hayek himself, and Friedman each advocated for a form of social safety net, demonstrating that social safety nets can be consistent with libertarianism.
Yes! This is a huge problem with not only libertarianism, but with the resistance from within the conservative movement to any and all governance since it obviously would entail the dreaded State!
Right, Freddie, which is why at this point in time I oppose vouchers. I think they would only do more harm. However, I think we do need to come up with alternative methods to improve education, including trade schools, charter and magnet schools, etc. Eventually, should we increase the living standards of more people, then maybe we can look into systems such as Sweden's, but that time is not now, and typically the proponents of vouchers are being driven by pure ideology (cut all things public from the world, and privatize the bloody universe!) and not by a strong knowledge of how education works.
That said, the current state of affairs in my local school system is making me seriously consider sending my daughter to Catholic school....
I’m sympathetic to a lot of what you have to say, E.D., but comparing Sweden’s educational system to the United States’ is a bit too apples to oranges for my taste.
Indeed, Will. That's exactly the problem. Still, it's important to find examples of functioning systems around the world and then cull what we can from them to use to self-improve. This goes for healthcare as well.
Joseph and Calvin, I completely agree. This is my concern with how we fund schools--both in terms of the faulty property tax model, and with the local dependence on State and Federal help. It's all well and good when a pro-education governor or President is in office, but then when that changes BAM! everything drops off. So we either need to start pushing for Constitutional changes that protect education funding, or we need to find a way to become less dependent on the state and federal government for funding. I don't know how viable that option is, but right now in AZ we're feeling such enormous budget pinches it's unreal. it's truly devastating.
I think Gore uses dishonest tactics as well, actually, which also happen to help him sell DVD's. Like purchasing carbon credits from a firm he is part owner of...or like the very notion of carbon credits, the new green version of indulgences and equally absurd...
Hey, I'll agree post-haste that Kaus is a real jackass which is precisely why I don't read him that often. That said, I'll just say again that I spend the vast majority of my time bashing conservatives even though I consider myself to be one. I don't know if that means the conservative movement should ridicule me, but I guess I'm not sure it matters. I'm a whole lot nicer than Kaus, so maybe it's just a matter of style as I said before...
Okay, so it's more a matter of style than substance here? That makes sense, I suppose. But even if that's the case, how does saying "then Mickey Kaus isn't a liberal" do anything? Wouldn't it be more effective to critique his style if that's the essential problem?
Really interesting post, Chris. I, too, believe in placing limits on the free market--I may even be a little more extreme in my call for this than you are--and namely because I view mass-marketization as easily as destructive to humanity as Big Government. Conservatives are all too often calling for the privatization of this or that public function--be it our schools, our roads, etc.--and what I think they fail to realize, is people don't function properly in a world where everything is for sale. There is a dehumanizing effect. They don't function well in a totalitarian state either, or in a socialist state where the natural flow of goods, the natural potential of the individual is quashed. But I believe in striking a balance, and perhaps you've struck on something I've been missing in my thoughts on this balance: the Commons.
However, I would like you to expand not merely on this concept, but on how you see it implemented.
The coalition that President Obama built was an impressive one, but I believe a fragile one as well. Surely some disaffected groups will peel off over the next four years, but if the GOP is not there to accept them, who will?
The British.
But in all seriousness, you raise a very valid point, and I have no answer for you. I really don't.
Okay, interesting data. Looks like the countries with higher levels of education, literacy, etc. answered the most positively (or the least anti-Semitically). The further East you go, the further the misconceptions about Jews rises.
I think Obama has proved in many ways that he's a savvy politician and smart enough to do the job, however he may differ ideologically from many on both the Left and Right. It's simply too early to tell how well he'll govern. And watching GW's first press conference was much more painful. Obama may be in a bit over his head, true, but he's a quick learner. So far, those who have underestimated him have been wrong...
I'll take that bet. Hopefully inflation isn't such that said doughnut ruins me five years from now. But I'll add, the death of the music industry as we know it may be a very real thing, however I doubt that means the same thing as the death of professionally recorded music. There will still be a demand and a supply for that...
Okay, I'll have to write a longer post on this, but here's a couple quick thoughts:
1) Mark, I agree that any trade agreements need to be made mutually through trade-treaties as it were to protect both players from cheating. This often is not the case, and is often hampered by the players cheating nonetheless--which is why I said in an earlier post that I don't believe in free trade because it doesn't truly exist. Everybody plays some protection card or another.
2) Economists may "all" agree on free trade, but they agree in economics theory terms, not real-world terms. In other words, it's all well and good to say that free trade and globalism lead to the allocation of labor to the cheapest (most efficient) regions, leading to the distribution of cheaper goods, and so forth, right? Cheap labor, better profits, cheaper goods, and thus more goods, higher prosperity, etc.
Now, the moral qualms I have with this are manifold. First of all, I think there is a problem with a society being driven by consumerism, and with a capitalist economy driven by constant growth rather than relative stability. Quarterly profit reports, the constant demand for fast-paced growth--these things are simply not sustainable. In theory they may be. In theory constantly finding cheaper labor and resources to provide cheaper goods sounds great. But in the real world we have limited resources. We have certain populations (our own, for instance) whose labor we should place higher value on than those of other nations.
I understand your concern with developing nations, Mark, but if those nations protected their farms from our cheap, subsidized crops then they wouldn't have to worry about us undermining their economy. Hell, even if our crops weren't subsidized we might be able to dump them on an African nation and still undermine their agriculture if they didn't erect barriers against it. In other words, take away "free" trade and those countries have a chance of self-sufficiency. Introduce it, and you see these massive urban shanty towns erected as the farmers go to the cities to find work, and don't find it...
I think healthy trade combined with a strong internal economy is much more sustainable. It might mean we can't buy things quite as cheap, but it does mean we could sustain a larger middle class. And as Deneen wrote recently, perhaps we'd start thinking of ourselves as workers or citizens instead of consumers.
So much to think about on this. I'm not against trade. I think if one country makes great cars, they should be able to sell those to other countries. And I think there are deals to be made, like we have with the Japanese who now build many of their cars on American soil. But this theoretical utopian system of free trade is in practice a much more chaotic creature.
More later. I just think it's important to distinguish between economic theory and real world practice. And when we just talk economics, we sometimes leave out morality altogether....
Call me cold or callous or what you will, but why should America sacrifice good jobs simply out of some noble notion that by doing so we help other nations? Perhaps the very basic concepts we have about how other nations ought to run their economies are flawed. I question the entire economic establishment. Perhaps westernizing and industrializing the whole world is a mistake. And maybe African nations would be better off protecting not only their goods, but their ways of life. A Carribbean island can grow most if not all of its own food, creating livelihoods for its populace, and a self-sustainable culture. Free trade brings in food that is too cheap to compete against, destroys the very most natural jobs and way of life for those people, and forces them into a completely different way of life. Often tourism becomes the sustenance of such people, and they become totally dependent on the whims of rich tourists and the economies of those countries.
You miss many of my points, largely because you confuse support of Israel with support of Israeli policies. Of course I support Israel's right to exist. I support their right to live peacefully, and I don't support the right of return, as I believe it is impractical and foolish. However, that does not mean that Israel should postpone dismantling its settlements. The two need not happen together. The settlements can be dismantled and at the same time, Israel can deny the right of return.
Why not just go all out and say “some of my best friends are Jews” while at the same time supporting policies that would end up by destoying the state of Israel
I have to say, your implications that I am somehow anti-Semitic are A) totally unfounded, and B) predictable and beneath you. You have better arguments than that, and whenever you stoop to the "attack the messenger" ploy, or question the motives when all you have to work with is assumption, well, you lose the heft of your argument.
Let's see, why do I take the "Arab's side" in my discussion of the history? Do I? You're right, I did leave out the fact that Israel was attacked first, that they played defense in 67 and 72 (etc.) I did not do so on purpose. I honestly didn't want to summarize too much what I feel is quite common knowledge. Of course they were attacked--is that even disputed? And of course they had every right to defend themselves, and still do.
My problem is with the foolish policies that the Israeli Government is implementing that I truly believe will spell disaster for the Israelis themselves. This stubbornness, this caving to the settlers, will leave, in the end, Israel alone without the patronage of the USA. I don't want to see that happen. At all. I don't want American public opinion to get to the point that Europe is at.
But I do want to see Israel reign in its own aggressive policies that are only doing more damage than good now. You can call that anti-Semitic. You can call me whatever you want. But I stand by my admiration for Israel, no matter how clumsy its inception, or how foolish its policies are now. I want for it to succeed, but it won't if it runs the course its on.
You mean a blanket ideology or economic theory can't be applied blindly to all people all at once? What a revolutionary notion!
But in all seriousness, this is a very good post. I think you're certainly on to something in regards to the way nations have developed. Japan used protectionist policies to gain the industry leadership it now enjoys, and even though its economy has slowed--perhaps, the very notion of a "growth" economy are at the root of many of these problems. Or perhaps it is not that there is anything wrong with growth, per se, but with the speed and consistency which seem necessary to sustain a free-market system. I think the world, at some point, will have to adjust to a slower growth model, and I think beyond any of this lies certain moral implications that I will get into more in my follow-up. (thanks for starting the series, by the way).
Here's a good little post on the moral questions involved in the debate, and a preview of what I intend to discuss.
Mark, that's a very good point. Often there is more to fear in the one that may "smile and smile" and yet be a villain, than in the one that is so obviously a nutjob. But that's not really my point. My point is the overall direction Israel is headed. The very momentum seems so counter-intuitive and reactionary...
Democracy is probably the most unstable form of Government. It can really only flourish when ensconced in a tradition of both cultural and legal order. Afghanistan has neither, which is why monarchical systems work so much better. Add to this, of course, the religious extremism, Pakistan and the warlords and....well, I see no room for optimism.
Now then, why do many people, after a couple hard laps on the track, slow to a walk, clutching their stomachs and gasping loudly, while others continue to zoom along, picking up steam as they go? The former lack discipline, will, and skill (which is achieved through discipline and will), while the latter possess all three in great quantities because they have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of success.
That may be true. It also may be true that certain people are genetically predisposed to long-distance running. And again, it may be true that some people were given opportunities to pursue track and field at a young age, by supportive families, while others were not. And further, it may also be true that some people have the leisure to pursue running while others have to work long hours, or at multiple jobs to provide for themselves or their families. There are far, far more factors involved in success than mere determination and will, though that certainly does help.
On “Not quite there yet…”
Good post, Dave. I especially liked "a pimple on a whale's ass" ... :-)
But seriously, you raise some very valid concerns. This will require a second reading, methinks...
On “Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate”
Okay, here's my response to the notion that Mormons are Christians (which is utterly false, by the way).
William, I agree that Christianist is too broad a term and too much a bludgeon when the situation really demands more specificity. That's really what I was driving at here, but perhaps I didn't go far enough or clarify. I think there are certain groups of people that might very well be labeled as such, and generally they fall into the very politically active bracket, but really it is less effective than more specific terms...thanks.
Bob, Mike, sidereal-- I'm not too strict on the definition of Christian, but Mormons simply aren't. There's no two ways about it, but read my follow-up for further elucidation on the matter.
You may think it's "ignorant" Bob, but I can assure you nothing is further from the truth.
On “The Promise of Liberaltarianism”
Man, I wish someone had come up with a different term than "liberaltarianism." I keep missing that little "l" when I read it...the two words look so much alike! Maybe that's the problem with the idea!
No but seriously:
Yes! This is a huge problem with not only libertarianism, but with the resistance from within the conservative movement to any and all governance since it obviously would entail the dreaded State!
But balance is tricky, isn't it?
On “Phony in-house Conservative Battles”
matoko_chan:
i wasn’t going to comment here anymore
Well you are more than welcome to any time....
On “the invisible heart”
Right, Freddie, which is why at this point in time I oppose vouchers. I think they would only do more harm. However, I think we do need to come up with alternative methods to improve education, including trade schools, charter and magnet schools, etc. Eventually, should we increase the living standards of more people, then maybe we can look into systems such as Sweden's, but that time is not now, and typically the proponents of vouchers are being driven by pure ideology (cut all things public from the world, and privatize the bloody universe!) and not by a strong knowledge of how education works.
That said, the current state of affairs in my local school system is making me seriously consider sending my daughter to Catholic school....
"
Indeed, Will. That's exactly the problem. Still, it's important to find examples of functioning systems around the world and then cull what we can from them to use to self-improve. This goes for healthcare as well.
Joseph and Calvin, I completely agree. This is my concern with how we fund schools--both in terms of the faulty property tax model, and with the local dependence on State and Federal help. It's all well and good when a pro-education governor or President is in office, but then when that changes BAM! everything drops off. So we either need to start pushing for Constitutional changes that protect education funding, or we need to find a way to become less dependent on the state and federal government for funding. I don't know how viable that option is, but right now in AZ we're feeling such enormous budget pinches it's unreal. it's truly devastating.
On “climate partisanship”
I think Gore uses dishonest tactics as well, actually, which also happen to help him sell DVD's. Like purchasing carbon credits from a firm he is part owner of...or like the very notion of carbon credits, the new green version of indulgences and equally absurd...
On “more on Kaus”
Hey, I'll agree post-haste that Kaus is a real jackass which is precisely why I don't read him that often. That said, I'll just say again that I spend the vast majority of my time bashing conservatives even though I consider myself to be one. I don't know if that means the conservative movement should ridicule me, but I guess I'm not sure it matters. I'm a whole lot nicer than Kaus, so maybe it's just a matter of style as I said before...
On “the continuing fraud of Mickey Kaus”
Okay, so it's more a matter of style than substance here? That makes sense, I suppose. But even if that's the case, how does saying "then Mickey Kaus isn't a liberal" do anything? Wouldn't it be more effective to critique his style if that's the essential problem?
On “Commonhood Liberaltarianism”
Really interesting post, Chris. I, too, believe in placing limits on the free market--I may even be a little more extreme in my call for this than you are--and namely because I view mass-marketization as easily as destructive to humanity as Big Government. Conservatives are all too often calling for the privatization of this or that public function--be it our schools, our roads, etc.--and what I think they fail to realize, is people don't function properly in a world where everything is for sale. There is a dehumanizing effect. They don't function well in a totalitarian state either, or in a socialist state where the natural flow of goods, the natural potential of the individual is quashed. But I believe in striking a balance, and perhaps you've struck on something I've been missing in my thoughts on this balance: the Commons.
However, I would like you to expand not merely on this concept, but on how you see it implemented.
Thanks!
On “Young Turks and Defeatists”
Mike:
The British.
But in all seriousness, you raise a very valid point, and I have no answer for you. I really don't.
On “Israel, Alone”
Okay, interesting data. Looks like the countries with higher levels of education, literacy, etc. answered the most positively (or the least anti-Semitically). The further East you go, the further the misconceptions about Jews rises.
But this really doesn't speak to my larger point.
On “The Failed Obama Administration”
I think Obama has proved in many ways that he's a savvy politician and smart enough to do the job, however he may differ ideologically from many on both the Left and Right. It's simply too early to tell how well he'll govern. And watching GW's first press conference was much more painful. Obama may be in a bit over his head, true, but he's a quick learner. So far, those who have underestimated him have been wrong...
On “The Death of Art?”
I'll take that bet. Hopefully inflation isn't such that said doughnut ruins me five years from now. But I'll add, the death of the music industry as we know it may be a very real thing, however I doubt that means the same thing as the death of professionally recorded music. There will still be a demand and a supply for that...
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
Okay, I'll have to write a longer post on this, but here's a couple quick thoughts:
1) Mark, I agree that any trade agreements need to be made mutually through trade-treaties as it were to protect both players from cheating. This often is not the case, and is often hampered by the players cheating nonetheless--which is why I said in an earlier post that I don't believe in free trade because it doesn't truly exist. Everybody plays some protection card or another.
2) Economists may "all" agree on free trade, but they agree in economics theory terms, not real-world terms. In other words, it's all well and good to say that free trade and globalism lead to the allocation of labor to the cheapest (most efficient) regions, leading to the distribution of cheaper goods, and so forth, right? Cheap labor, better profits, cheaper goods, and thus more goods, higher prosperity, etc.
Now, the moral qualms I have with this are manifold. First of all, I think there is a problem with a society being driven by consumerism, and with a capitalist economy driven by constant growth rather than relative stability. Quarterly profit reports, the constant demand for fast-paced growth--these things are simply not sustainable. In theory they may be. In theory constantly finding cheaper labor and resources to provide cheaper goods sounds great. But in the real world we have limited resources. We have certain populations (our own, for instance) whose labor we should place higher value on than those of other nations.
I understand your concern with developing nations, Mark, but if those nations protected their farms from our cheap, subsidized crops then they wouldn't have to worry about us undermining their economy. Hell, even if our crops weren't subsidized we might be able to dump them on an African nation and still undermine their agriculture if they didn't erect barriers against it. In other words, take away "free" trade and those countries have a chance of self-sufficiency. Introduce it, and you see these massive urban shanty towns erected as the farmers go to the cities to find work, and don't find it...
I think healthy trade combined with a strong internal economy is much more sustainable. It might mean we can't buy things quite as cheap, but it does mean we could sustain a larger middle class. And as Deneen wrote recently, perhaps we'd start thinking of ourselves as workers or citizens instead of consumers.
So much to think about on this. I'm not against trade. I think if one country makes great cars, they should be able to sell those to other countries. And I think there are deals to be made, like we have with the Japanese who now build many of their cars on American soil. But this theoretical utopian system of free trade is in practice a much more chaotic creature.
More later. I just think it's important to distinguish between economic theory and real world practice. And when we just talk economics, we sometimes leave out morality altogether....
"
No, I think the discussion will flesh out whatever various concepts of protectionism we all may have. But it's up to you. Define as you see fit....
"
Call me cold or callous or what you will, but why should America sacrifice good jobs simply out of some noble notion that by doing so we help other nations? Perhaps the very basic concepts we have about how other nations ought to run their economies are flawed. I question the entire economic establishment. Perhaps westernizing and industrializing the whole world is a mistake. And maybe African nations would be better off protecting not only their goods, but their ways of life. A Carribbean island can grow most if not all of its own food, creating livelihoods for its populace, and a self-sustainable culture. Free trade brings in food that is too cheap to compete against, destroys the very most natural jobs and way of life for those people, and forces them into a completely different way of life. Often tourism becomes the sustenance of such people, and they become totally dependent on the whims of rich tourists and the economies of those countries.
Free markets line up nations like dominoes.
On “Israel, Alone”
Roque--
You miss many of my points, largely because you confuse support of Israel with support of Israeli policies. Of course I support Israel's right to exist. I support their right to live peacefully, and I don't support the right of return, as I believe it is impractical and foolish. However, that does not mean that Israel should postpone dismantling its settlements. The two need not happen together. The settlements can be dismantled and at the same time, Israel can deny the right of return.
I have to say, your implications that I am somehow anti-Semitic are A) totally unfounded, and B) predictable and beneath you. You have better arguments than that, and whenever you stoop to the "attack the messenger" ploy, or question the motives when all you have to work with is assumption, well, you lose the heft of your argument.
Let's see, why do I take the "Arab's side" in my discussion of the history? Do I? You're right, I did leave out the fact that Israel was attacked first, that they played defense in 67 and 72 (etc.) I did not do so on purpose. I honestly didn't want to summarize too much what I feel is quite common knowledge. Of course they were attacked--is that even disputed? And of course they had every right to defend themselves, and still do.
My problem is with the foolish policies that the Israeli Government is implementing that I truly believe will spell disaster for the Israelis themselves. This stubbornness, this caving to the settlers, will leave, in the end, Israel alone without the patronage of the USA. I don't want to see that happen. At all. I don't want American public opinion to get to the point that Europe is at.
But I do want to see Israel reign in its own aggressive policies that are only doing more damage than good now. You can call that anti-Semitic. You can call me whatever you want. But I stand by my admiration for Israel, no matter how clumsy its inception, or how foolish its policies are now. I want for it to succeed, but it won't if it runs the course its on.
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
You mean a blanket ideology or economic theory can't be applied blindly to all people all at once? What a revolutionary notion!
But in all seriousness, this is a very good post. I think you're certainly on to something in regards to the way nations have developed. Japan used protectionist policies to gain the industry leadership it now enjoys, and even though its economy has slowed--perhaps, the very notion of a "growth" economy are at the root of many of these problems. Or perhaps it is not that there is anything wrong with growth, per se, but with the speed and consistency which seem necessary to sustain a free-market system. I think the world, at some point, will have to adjust to a slower growth model, and I think beyond any of this lies certain moral implications that I will get into more in my follow-up. (thanks for starting the series, by the way).
Here's a good little post on the moral questions involved in the debate, and a preview of what I intend to discuss.
On “Israel, Alone”
Mark, that's a very good point. Often there is more to fear in the one that may "smile and smile" and yet be a villain, than in the one that is so obviously a nutjob. But that's not really my point. My point is the overall direction Israel is headed. The very momentum seems so counter-intuitive and reactionary...
On “God keep our land…”
As long as none of the Olympic athletes are pictured smoking a bong, you should be okay....
"
Do they have those in the States? :)
On “modesty in Afghanistan”
Democracy is probably the most unstable form of Government. It can really only flourish when ensconced in a tradition of both cultural and legal order. Afghanistan has neither, which is why monarchical systems work so much better. Add to this, of course, the religious extremism, Pakistan and the warlords and....well, I see no room for optimism.
On “Economic Interventionism”
I'm going to start a series on protectionism very soon, so be ready for some econo-brawls in the near future....
On “calling bullshit on bullshit”
Philip--
That may be true. It also may be true that certain people are genetically predisposed to long-distance running. And again, it may be true that some people were given opportunities to pursue track and field at a young age, by supportive families, while others were not. And further, it may also be true that some people have the leisure to pursue running while others have to work long hours, or at multiple jobs to provide for themselves or their families. There are far, far more factors involved in success than mere determination and will, though that certainly does help.