If so, wouldn’t a better policy be to nationalize (and, in fact, internationalize) all production and enslave everyone to work 18 hours a day in factories?
There's the whole "regulatory capture" dynamic that Libertarians put a great deal of emphasis on.
The choice, for many of them, is not one between private power being balanced by government and private power not being balanced by government, but one of private power colluding with government and one where it doesn't.
If you want to call him a hack whose words you wouldn't believe if he said that the sun would rise tomorrow, that's an option explored by many as well.
This criticism is usually given wholesale to Libertarianism as well.
If there is a continuum between points on the X and Y axis, saying that we need to move on this vector is often rejoined by arguments pointing out that getting to a particular asymptote is impossible to achieve.
This is usually a good way to change the subject to asymptotes rather than whether, on the continuum between these points (which is where we are, and where others are, and it's possible to rank them for the most part) whether we ought to move in this or in that direction.
(And, of course, there are more dimensions than just the two but, generally, two dimensions can give a fairly good, if shallow, representation of reality)
In my experience, the most violent arguments of this sort aren't over the egregious examples but over the experiences of one of the people in the conversation.
"You've been brainwashed!" and that sort of thing.
Always said in anger and befuddlement that the brainwashed person doesn't appreciate the help from the liberator/psychologist.
If an overwhelming number of trained experts on Christian theology agree that accepting Jesus as your personal savior gets you into the kingdom of heaven, shouldn’t we just take their word for it?
The people who didn't get into the kingdom of heaven just didn't apply the "accepting Jesus as personal savior" theories correctly. Some might say that it's never been properly applied at all.
I don’t think that’s close to true, but regardless, it would take more than the word of Greg Mankiw, who is about as far from a neutral observer as you can imagine.
The sentence prior to the sentence referencing Mankiw references Krugman. Whether Krugman is a neutral observer is probably a post in itself but I think it's safe to say that the criticism that Will's take is limited to the word of Greg Mankiw is one that overlooks that his take isn't limited to the word of Greg Mankiw.
The problem with "exploitative" is that it strikes me as fundamentally subjective... to the point where I have been relieved (and sometimes pleased!) to have a particular job at a particular rate while someone else entirely tells me that, no, I'm being exploited and don't even know it.
We then get into discussions of psychology (and, sometimes, false consciousness!) and how my experience of a thing is not an accurate experience and how I'm too close to the process to see how taken advantage of I actually am.
Are we using a definition of exploitation that is broad enough to cover me and my relationship to my job? If the answer is "no", I'll be relieved.
Understand that, in the past, the answer to that question has usually been either "yes" or some amount of name-calling.
Sure... is the general response to heavily managed trade that actually exists to say "we need to make it freer!" or to say "it's heavily managed in the wrong way by the wrong people and we need the right people to manage it differently -- the *RIGHT* way"?
If it's the latter, I think this critique still stands.
The corporation that I work for has a handful of folks on the board and an employee stock purchase program. You can sign up and have 1% of your paycheck buy stock in the company at 85% of the lowest price from the last quarter or something like that. The most recent update letter I got pointed out to me that my stock holdings were in the double digits! I am well on my way to owning 100 shares of my company's stock!
A recent meeting mentioned a guy from a few years back who was on the board. He's generally referred to as "the hedge fund guy". He bought a million shares and was on the board. (Being a hedge fund guy, instead of being pleased with having a golden egg every day, he wanted to eat the goose.)
From what I understand, everybody on the board is like that. Shares and shares and shares and shares. They have much more of their finger on the pulse of the company than I do, and I am there every day.
There is an argument to say that the guy(s) with 1,000,000 shares shouldn't push around the guys who are working on having 100 when it comes to spending money on lobbyists. Sure. There are arguments for allowing the 1,000,000 share guys more of a vote than the 100 guys votes as well and not every single one of these arguments is either ignorant or misguided.
Some people believe that group B should also be able to use that capital to pursue their own political interests, and even call this “freedom”.
What if some of those some people are also members of group A?
Might it not be seen as analogous to unions donating to or using their own resources to advocate for political causes? Or is that so different that only someone who is dishonest or deluded would think that they'd be related?
That's not exactly the dynamic that exists in this particular case, Duck.
One of the things that makes this website a nice place is the relative absence of debris in the air for the most part.
It is a pity that the atmosphere is somewhat more turdy in recent months, however... but that's neither here nor there. I don't think that the dynamic you describe accurately reflects this particular matter.
Some of us see libertarians and conservatives do exactly nothing to correct or improve the problems with have with health care.
Sure. And some of us have written essays explaining what the best way to take care of the most people would be and explained why they think that a bill written by insurance companies would not, in fact, necessarily be the best thing for everybody involved.
"But that's just writing an essay!!!", I can hear the counter-argument now.
Yes, sure. Forgive me if I see that on par with "I voted for someone who voted for a bill that was written by insurance companies that was later signed by someone else I voted for!" in the whole "improving the problems we have with health care" spectrum.
Depends on the patent law. A patent law that says "if you discovered Widget, you can charge what you want (or license Widget out) for whatever price you want for X years. This is your reward for finding Widget. After X years, Widget enters the public domain. People can make copycat Widgets without paying a licencing fee to you." is a patent law that most people would shrug off so long as X was seven years or so. It's a compromise... given that the argument that the Patent was the only reason that Widget was investigated in the first place holds some sway.
The problem is when X becomes 15 years or, in the case of copyright, in perpetuity. Those laws are BS and I don't know of any Libertarians who support them.
(This is without getting into the sub-argument about whether it's possible to steal intellectual property in the first place that a sizable chunk of Libertarians enjoy.)
When push comes to shove libertarians always manage to come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is less evil than the Democratic one.
Some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is less evil than either of them.
And some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr and then they go off and vote for Charles Jay.
Democrats, however, still defend stuff like Obama's targetted assassinations or signing statements or increased troop presences with arguments like "I didn't hear you complain when Bush was president!" despite, of course, all of the complaining when Bush was president.
But most libertarians hate ObamaCare.
Some of them see Congress's Affordable Care Act as regulatory capture given that the bill was written by insurance companies.
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
If so, wouldn’t a better policy be to nationalize (and, in fact, internationalize) all production and enslave everyone to work 18 hours a day in factories?
It's been attempted.
It's less sustainable than you'd think.
On “On the language of assumption”
There's the whole "regulatory capture" dynamic that Libertarians put a great deal of emphasis on.
The choice, for many of them, is not one between private power being balanced by government and private power not being balanced by government, but one of private power colluding with government and one where it doesn't.
On “Why don’t we treat free trade like global warming?”
That CAN'T be sustainable, though. I shudder to think at the eventual correction...
"
Here's Krugman.
http://www.amazon.com/Pop-Internationalism-Paul-Krugman/dp/0262611333
If you want to call him a hack whose words you wouldn't believe if he said that the sun would rise tomorrow, that's an option explored by many as well.
"
This criticism is usually given wholesale to Libertarianism as well.
If there is a continuum between points on the X and Y axis, saying that we need to move on this vector is often rejoined by arguments pointing out that getting to a particular asymptote is impossible to achieve.
This is usually a good way to change the subject to asymptotes rather than whether, on the continuum between these points (which is where we are, and where others are, and it's possible to rank them for the most part) whether we ought to move in this or in that direction.
(And, of course, there are more dimensions than just the two but, generally, two dimensions can give a fairly good, if shallow, representation of reality)
"
Awesome.
"
In my experience, the most violent arguments of this sort aren't over the egregious examples but over the experiences of one of the people in the conversation.
"You've been brainwashed!" and that sort of thing.
Always said in anger and befuddlement that the brainwashed person doesn't appreciate the help from the liberator/psychologist.
"
If an overwhelming number of trained experts on Christian theology agree that accepting Jesus as your personal savior gets you into the kingdom of heaven, shouldn’t we just take their word for it?
The people who didn't get into the kingdom of heaven just didn't apply the "accepting Jesus as personal savior" theories correctly. Some might say that it's never been properly applied at all.
"
It's not mine, it's actually Matoko_Chan's.
I thought it fit pretty well within the whole "fascist plot to impose fundamentalist Christian law" motif.
"
I think it means White Evangelical Christian.
"
Instead of "Christian", you could have used the shorter term "WEC".
It would have driven the point home a bit harder.
"
I don’t think that’s close to true, but regardless, it would take more than the word of Greg Mankiw, who is about as far from a neutral observer as you can imagine.
The sentence prior to the sentence referencing Mankiw references Krugman. Whether Krugman is a neutral observer is probably a post in itself but I think it's safe to say that the criticism that Will's take is limited to the word of Greg Mankiw is one that overlooks that his take isn't limited to the word of Greg Mankiw.
"
The problem with "exploitative" is that it strikes me as fundamentally subjective... to the point where I have been relieved (and sometimes pleased!) to have a particular job at a particular rate while someone else entirely tells me that, no, I'm being exploited and don't even know it.
We then get into discussions of psychology (and, sometimes, false consciousness!) and how my experience of a thing is not an accurate experience and how I'm too close to the process to see how taken advantage of I actually am.
Are we using a definition of exploitation that is broad enough to cover me and my relationship to my job? If the answer is "no", I'll be relieved.
Understand that, in the past, the answer to that question has usually been either "yes" or some amount of name-calling.
"
I am 100% down with this take.
Part of the problem is that this is not how Global Warming Credulists treat the issue of Global Climate Change.
"
Sure... is the general response to heavily managed trade that actually exists to say "we need to make it freer!" or to say "it's heavily managed in the wrong way by the wrong people and we need the right people to manage it differently -- the *RIGHT* way"?
If it's the latter, I think this critique still stands.
On “On the language of assumption”
The corporation that I work for has a handful of folks on the board and an employee stock purchase program. You can sign up and have 1% of your paycheck buy stock in the company at 85% of the lowest price from the last quarter or something like that. The most recent update letter I got pointed out to me that my stock holdings were in the double digits! I am well on my way to owning 100 shares of my company's stock!
A recent meeting mentioned a guy from a few years back who was on the board. He's generally referred to as "the hedge fund guy". He bought a million shares and was on the board. (Being a hedge fund guy, instead of being pleased with having a golden egg every day, he wanted to eat the goose.)
From what I understand, everybody on the board is like that. Shares and shares and shares and shares. They have much more of their finger on the pulse of the company than I do, and I am there every day.
There is an argument to say that the guy(s) with 1,000,000 shares shouldn't push around the guys who are working on having 100 when it comes to spending money on lobbyists. Sure. There are arguments for allowing the 1,000,000 share guys more of a vote than the 100 guys votes as well and not every single one of these arguments is either ignorant or misguided.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Frankly, few New Zealand politicians would dare behave the way American ones do.
I would *LOVE* to read examples. This stuff is fascinating to me.
On “On the language of assumption”
Some people believe that group B should also be able to use that capital to pursue their own political interests, and even call this “freedom”.
What if some of those some people are also members of group A?
Might it not be seen as analogous to unions donating to or using their own resources to advocate for political causes? Or is that so different that only someone who is dishonest or deluded would think that they'd be related?
"
That's not exactly the dynamic that exists in this particular case, Duck.
One of the things that makes this website a nice place is the relative absence of debris in the air for the most part.
It is a pity that the atmosphere is somewhat more turdy in recent months, however... but that's neither here nor there. I don't think that the dynamic you describe accurately reflects this particular matter.
"
The successful missionaries are the ones who try to convert the heathen.
The successful templars are the ones who best hit the heathen over the head.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
After 300 comments, that ain't so bad.
I've been in places where it was a surprise if the first comment didn't include a Hitler comparison.
On “On the language of assumption”
Some of us see libertarians and conservatives do exactly nothing to correct or improve the problems with have with health care.
Sure. And some of us have written essays explaining what the best way to take care of the most people would be and explained why they think that a bill written by insurance companies would not, in fact, necessarily be the best thing for everybody involved.
"But that's just writing an essay!!!", I can hear the counter-argument now.
Yes, sure. Forgive me if I see that on par with "I voted for someone who voted for a bill that was written by insurance companies that was later signed by someone else I voted for!" in the whole "improving the problems we have with health care" spectrum.
"
Remember the "check out these WASPs" thread?
It was a while back.
If you treat people like peers, you can quickly figure out who is and who is not treating you like one.
If you treat people like subordinates, you'll rarely figure out who is and who is not a peer.
This is America. Indeed, this is the internet!
Acting like the superior of others requires a buttload more showing and a crapload less telling, these days. Certainly in this corner of it.
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
“libertarianism” that favors strong patent laws
Depends on the patent law. A patent law that says "if you discovered Widget, you can charge what you want (or license Widget out) for whatever price you want for X years. This is your reward for finding Widget. After X years, Widget enters the public domain. People can make copycat Widgets without paying a licencing fee to you." is a patent law that most people would shrug off so long as X was seven years or so. It's a compromise... given that the argument that the Patent was the only reason that Widget was investigated in the first place holds some sway.
The problem is when X becomes 15 years or, in the case of copyright, in perpetuity. Those laws are BS and I don't know of any Libertarians who support them.
(This is without getting into the sub-argument about whether it's possible to steal intellectual property in the first place that a sizable chunk of Libertarians enjoy.)
On “On the language of assumption”
When push comes to shove libertarians always manage to come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is less evil than the Democratic one.
Some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is less evil than either of them.
And some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr and then they go off and vote for Charles Jay.
Democrats, however, still defend stuff like Obama's targetted assassinations or signing statements or increased troop presences with arguments like "I didn't hear you complain when Bush was president!" despite, of course, all of the complaining when Bush was president.
But most libertarians hate ObamaCare.
Some of them see Congress's Affordable Care Act as regulatory capture given that the bill was written by insurance companies.