There are a lot of interesting things to be said about this topic, but Marco Rubio isn't saying any of them. Most of what he has said is so general that no one disagrees with it. Hell, if you attributed the quoted language (other than the boob-baiting sneer at philosophers) to Barack Obama rather Marco Rubio, almost no one would have been able to say you had gotten it wrong. What does Rubio actually propose, how much does he plan to spend on it, and how does he plan to pay for it? Until then, by all means let's talk about this, but let's leave Marco Rubio out of it until he actually contributes something.
I recall someone who would have been considered pretty far left 40-odd years ago (though I have forgotten exactly who) saying that markets are terrific at producing things consumers can evaluate for themselves and pay for with their own money. You reminded me of one of his examples. Since you mentioned shoes, he said that, for example, the market for clothing works pretty damn well. It produces a wide variety of clothes at various combinations of quality and price, and puts decent clothing within the reach of all but the most destitute. For them, the problem is not the clothing market system, but sheer destitution, which should be dealt with directly, by providing either money or clothing. To the extent that the industry uses some dangerous chemical or dye that the consumer can't realistically be expected to detect, there is a basis for some safety regulation, but that's about it. And this was from someone who thought the fashion industry and the resources and energy that go into it at the expense of more useful pursuits was obscene. Even he advocated leaving the clothing market largely alone.
But where the consumer can't really judge what he is getting, or is paying for it out of someone else's pocket, like housing or healthcare, markets, he held, have many deficiencies.
So, no, almost nobody is opposed to markets in general.
I'm not so sure this is true. If I recall the Dunning-Kreuger studies correctly, the incompetent thought they were more competent than they were while the competent thought they were less competent than they were. The mechanism for the former is easy enough to figure out. As for the latter, maybe the competent had inflated ideas of what "normal" levels of competence were and, therefore, felt themselves to be relatively less competent than, in fact, they were..
This is true, but there are genuine organizational advantages to having an off-the-shelf set of ceremonies for major passages in life, and the major religions have been at it for a while. They have also had the help of folks like Bach and Handel, not to mention the lesser lights who wrote many traditional hymns that even non-believers like. The home-made ceremonies with tunes by poor imitators of Paul Simon can be touching, but the other guys have the aesthetic edge.
I have long thought the Greeks had it right with their Olympian pantheon. The world is run by a committee, and its members are working at cross-purposes.
I'd be astounded if anyone tried to teach Ulysses to freshmen. It seems to me that that would be a pedagogical mistake because too few freshmen are ready for it.
Moby Grape? That brings back memories.
So does Sgt. Pepper. I remember that I was parking my car near the White Plains federal courthouse when the DJ announced that Sgt. Pepper had been released 25 years ago that day. I did some quick mental math and realized that 25 years before Sgt. Pepper was, say, Benny Goodman or Glenn Miller, both of which I had happened to have listened to more recently than the Beatles. That was the day I realized that I would never be cool again -- if I ever was.
I've worked for many assholes and been mistreated by many. With one exception, for various reasons, I have never thought my race, sex, or what not was behind the treatment I received, since I am a white male and most of my asshole bosses were as well.
But if you are not a white male, I would think that you would often have cause to wonder. Or would you just know? The uncertainty must be maddening.
There is a legitimate, non-racist, non-xenophobic discussion to be had about immigration, and it should be had. But it would be wonky, loaded with numbers, and -- however important -- boring. It would be a niche issue, like agriculture or shipping.
The immigration discussion we are having today, and have almost always had, isn't that discussion. There are reasons for this.
” REGISTRATION PLATE: Remove the registration plate for transfer to another vehicle or return the plate to PennDOT.”
The plate is sitting in my house. If PennDot wants it, they can ask for it and I’ll give it to them. They never sent me legal notice asking for it. Oh… I guess they don’t always dot their i’s and cross their t’s like the rest of us.
This is pathetic.
So far the only thing you’ve been trying to pin me with is failure to inform PA DMV that I lawfully sold my car to another party and failed to send my license plates in.
(Arguably it’s their responsibility to notify me of this and send postage paid materials for me to use to send the plates back to them.)
Most people I know have principles, and some even act on them or reason from them. Too many of those who talk about Principles are really saying, when all the barnacles are scraped off: "I believe X because X."
Like it or not, Cosby was a cultural icon. The Dukes of Hazard was a crappy sitcom that lasted as long as it did because of women with great asses in very short pants. Why shouldn't it take more to get Cosby off the air than the Dukes of Hazard?
I am almost certainly older than you and I don't remember a time "when people WERE free to say what they felt and thought without fear of the gung ho thought police destroying theirs lives and careers over it." I do remember a time when all sorts of people were harassed, and many fired, for "unAmerican" views on a variety of topics.
So freely-negotiated contracts are "something like" the reserve system because they bind the player to the team for the duration of the contract? Even annual contracts, which forbid the player from moving during the season whenever he thinks he can get a better deal from another team? You really don't see a difference between a club having the sole right to a player in perpetuity and a club having the sole right to a player for a time based on arms-length negotiations?
In my long experience with people who seem to think they reason from First Principles, the First Principles don't actually do any useful work and are generally after-the-fact justifications for results put into pompous language. The arguments resulting from them usually amount to long-winded ways of saying: If A then A. A. Therefore, A.
But maybe you know a different crowd, and could provide some examples.
There can't be a negotiated deal unless there is a basis for a deal. Over the last few months, I've heard a lot of anti-SSMers, now that they've had SSM shoved down their throats, argue that the pro-SSM side should have been gracious and accepted a "deal" for civil unions. I actually thought that myself, 20 years ago, but nobody showed up from the anti-SSM side to put that on the table. Indeed, most of the advocates on that side of the non-existent table were working to scuttle civil unions, too. Karma's a bitch.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Welders and Philosophers”
There are a lot of interesting things to be said about this topic, but Marco Rubio isn't saying any of them. Most of what he has said is so general that no one disagrees with it. Hell, if you attributed the quoted language (other than the boob-baiting sneer at philosophers) to Barack Obama rather Marco Rubio, almost no one would have been able to say you had gotten it wrong. What does Rubio actually propose, how much does he plan to spend on it, and how does he plan to pay for it? Until then, by all means let's talk about this, but let's leave Marco Rubio out of it until he actually contributes something.
On “Market Failure Introduction”
I recall someone who would have been considered pretty far left 40-odd years ago (though I have forgotten exactly who) saying that markets are terrific at producing things consumers can evaluate for themselves and pay for with their own money. You reminded me of one of his examples. Since you mentioned shoes, he said that, for example, the market for clothing works pretty damn well. It produces a wide variety of clothes at various combinations of quality and price, and puts decent clothing within the reach of all but the most destitute. For them, the problem is not the clothing market system, but sheer destitution, which should be dealt with directly, by providing either money or clothing. To the extent that the industry uses some dangerous chemical or dye that the consumer can't realistically be expected to detect, there is a basis for some safety regulation, but that's about it. And this was from someone who thought the fashion industry and the resources and energy that go into it at the expense of more useful pursuits was obscene. Even he advocated leaving the clothing market largely alone.
But where the consumer can't really judge what he is getting, or is paying for it out of someone else's pocket, like housing or healthcare, markets, he held, have many deficiencies.
So, no, almost nobody is opposed to markets in general.
On “Let’s Be Honest: We Just Don’t Want a Dialogue”
I'm not so sure this is true. If I recall the Dunning-Kreuger studies correctly, the incompetent thought they were more competent than they were while the competent thought they were less competent than they were. The mechanism for the former is easy enough to figure out. As for the latter, maybe the competent had inflated ideas of what "normal" levels of competence were and, therefore, felt themselves to be relatively less competent than, in fact, they were..
On “Baptism Without Faith”
This is true, but there are genuine organizational advantages to having an off-the-shelf set of ceremonies for major passages in life, and the major religions have been at it for a while. They have also had the help of folks like Bach and Handel, not to mention the lesser lights who wrote many traditional hymns that even non-believers like. The home-made ceremonies with tunes by poor imitators of Paul Simon can be touching, but the other guys have the aesthetic edge.
On “I’m not an Atheist or a Religious Rationalist”
I have long thought the Greeks had it right with their Olympian pantheon. The world is run by a committee, and its members are working at cross-purposes.
On “Skipping The Summer Reading”
I'd be astounded if anyone tried to teach Ulysses to freshmen. It seems to me that that would be a pedagogical mistake because too few freshmen are ready for it.
On “John Silber Flunks an Interview”
Maybe Silber just wasn't good at "on the one hand....on the other hand."
On “Re-assessed!”
Moby Grape? That brings back memories.
So does Sgt. Pepper. I remember that I was parking my car near the White Plains federal courthouse when the DJ announced that Sgt. Pepper had been released 25 years ago that day. I did some quick mental math and realized that 25 years before Sgt. Pepper was, say, Benny Goodman or Glenn Miller, both of which I had happened to have listened to more recently than the Beatles. That was the day I realized that I would never be cool again -- if I ever was.
On “My morning read; global economics, leadership, and sex”
IN the long run, we are all dead.
On “Black Jobs Matter”
It might even be worse if they had good, sound reasons that didn't have anything to do with my gender or race -- like maybe I was the asshole.
"
I've worked for many assholes and been mistreated by many. With one exception, for various reasons, I have never thought my race, sex, or what not was behind the treatment I received, since I am a white male and most of my asshole bosses were as well.
But if you are not a white male, I would think that you would often have cause to wonder. Or would you just know? The uncertainty must be maddening.
On “Donald Trump Laughs at Your Puny Human Horserace Coverage”
The one scenario where Rubio can't be the VP candidate.
On “It’s always good to shroud your sexism in racism”
I would certainly hope that Hillary has closer ties to Bill than the Bushes do.
"
There is a legitimate, non-racist, non-xenophobic discussion to be had about immigration, and it should be had. But it would be wonky, loaded with numbers, and -- however important -- boring. It would be a niche issue, like agriculture or shipping.
The immigration discussion we are having today, and have almost always had, isn't that discussion. There are reasons for this.
On “Life Experience Confirms My Disbelief in Today’s System of Bureaucratic Morass”
Precisely.
"
” REGISTRATION PLATE: Remove the registration plate for transfer to another vehicle or return the plate to PennDOT.”
The plate is sitting in my house. If PennDot wants it, they can ask for it and I’ll give it to them. They never sent me legal notice asking for it. Oh… I guess they don’t always dot their i’s and cross their t’s like the rest of us.
This is pathetic.
So far the only thing you’ve been trying to pin me with is failure to inform PA DMV that I lawfully sold my car to another party and failed to send my license plates in.
(Arguably it’s their responsibility to notify me of this and send postage paid materials for me to use to send the plates back to them.)
This is even more pathetic.
"
Now, now, don't go spoiling everyone's fun like that.
On “Talking Past Each Other”
Most people I know have principles, and some even act on them or reason from them. Too many of those who talk about Principles are really saying, when all the barnacles are scraped off: "I believe X because X."
On “Bill Cosby and the End of Innocence”
how many shows from the late 70s/early 80s are still on television at all?
There are whole channels devoted to them.
"
Like it or not, Cosby was a cultural icon. The Dukes of Hazard was a crappy sitcom that lasted as long as it did because of women with great asses in very short pants. Why shouldn't it take more to get Cosby off the air than the Dukes of Hazard?
On “#StandwithChanda and Thought Crimes”
I am almost certainly older than you and I don't remember a time "when people WERE free to say what they felt and thought without fear of the gung ho thought police destroying theirs lives and careers over it." I do remember a time when all sorts of people were harassed, and many fired, for "unAmerican" views on a variety of topics.
On “Dear Straight Republicans…”
Should the Franciscans be required to admit LGBT persons into their Order,
What makes you think they don't? I can tell you stories, and so can almost anyone else raised Catholic.
On “The Reserve Clause and the Failure of the Free Market”
So freely-negotiated contracts are "something like" the reserve system because they bind the player to the team for the duration of the contract? Even annual contracts, which forbid the player from moving during the season whenever he thinks he can get a better deal from another team? You really don't see a difference between a club having the sole right to a player in perpetuity and a club having the sole right to a player for a time based on arms-length negotiations?
On “The Highest Profile Legal Writing Clinic Ever”
In my long experience with people who seem to think they reason from First Principles, the First Principles don't actually do any useful work and are generally after-the-fact justifications for results put into pompous language. The arguments resulting from them usually amount to long-winded ways of saying: If A then A. A. Therefore, A.
But maybe you know a different crowd, and could provide some examples.
On “A Prime Opportunity For Resolution Is At Hand”
There can't be a negotiated deal unless there is a basis for a deal. Over the last few months, I've heard a lot of anti-SSMers, now that they've had SSM shoved down their throats, argue that the pro-SSM side should have been gracious and accepted a "deal" for civil unions. I actually thought that myself, 20 years ago, but nobody showed up from the anti-SSM side to put that on the table. Indeed, most of the advocates on that side of the non-existent table were working to scuttle civil unions, too. Karma's a bitch.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.