tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post7104684148863243887..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: What's Wrong With Mushy?David Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-44714701020290796702014-01-19T21:48:01.784-08:002014-01-19T21:48:01.784-08:00The place in Boston (I think actually the Cambridg...The place in Boston (I think actually the Cambridge side of the river) is called the Garment District. I think the price is now higher than fifty cents, but still absurdly low.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-42617839028722960062014-01-19T13:58:10.223-08:002014-01-19T13:58:10.223-08:00What is the name of the place in Boston that sells...What is the name of the place in Boston that sells second hand clothes for 50 cents a pound?noballgamehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02182493516841253749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-65155224148131882312013-05-30T02:27:08.256-07:002013-05-30T02:27:08.256-07:00You'll find that it is about status. Specifica...You'll find that it is about status. Specifically, about attempting to hoard status by claiming to care about the low-status.<br /><br />Minimally-decent will turn out to be about flattening the lower end of the status curve by manipulating material status markers. <br /><br />Does it matter whether their claim is sincere? I leave it as an exercise for the reader. <br /><br /><br />@Handle, among others,<br /><i>"What's voluntariness got to do about it anyway"</i><br /><br />Deliberately adopting privation is a status-raising move, and has been since at least Siddhartha. Being forced into privation is a status-lowering outcome. Alrenoushttp://alrenous.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-42726449462302926832013-05-24T03:35:29.621-07:002013-05-24T03:35:29.621-07:00On the definition of: "minimally decent lives...On the definition of: "minimally decent lives".<br /><br />The description you offer is basically the way lower-enlisted Soldiers live today for extended periods of time during either realistic training or the early part of some military expedition, before better, long-term facilities can be built. Things were much closer to "barely comfortable survival" in wars past, and more so the further back you go in time.<br /><br />And yet, that level of sustenance of life, I'm sure, would be considered "inadequate" today in terms of being seen to give enough to satisfy the "special concern for the poor".<br /><br />Not only that, it <i>is</i> considered, (not by everyone, but by many, and I'm guessing most of the same sentimental group of which I am speaking) an inadequate way to even treat prisoners these days - who are also said to be "entitled" to a somewhat better standard of living. There is of course the combined case of POW's, an even more meager circumstance. But plenty of POW's who were given enough to survive, and sometimes seriously maltreated for years, seem to have normal life-spans. John McCain comes to mind.<br /><br />When I mention these cases to similar bleeding-hearts types, I get some hand-waving about the "voluntariness" of servicemembers vs the poor or prisoners, but 1. Soldiers have only recently been purely volunteers (and still can't legally back out of their labor obligations without severe criminal penalties), 2. It evades how "voluntary" are the circumstances of a prisoner or poor individual, and 3. What's voluntariness got to do about it anyway, I thought we were talking about "minimum provision of necessities without undue suffering."<br /><br />The response I get then is basically sentimental or a kind of sympathetic simulation of what they would want or think "fair" in similar circumstances. The moral instinct of many bleeding hearts is to imagine that they'd fallen on hard times are somehow couldn't escape the circumstances that led them to become poor, or a prisoner (they never imagine themselves as Soldiers, revealingly), and to imagine how nice they'd have to be treated to not feel awfully deprived given the affluent lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.<br /><br />The extra (unaddressed) paradox for Rawlsian thinking is that the disagreeableness of prison, or poverty, provides the incentive for work and deterrence of crime. The nicer you make it, the more the incentive is undermined. Pure "involuntariness" is required to avoid this problem, and that is highly unrealistic. With any degree of voluntary control over one's circumstances, Maximin delivers a society of corroded incentives. In the short-term transition depleting a large stock-pile of social capital built up over previous eras, one is not likely to notice much change. But over time you'd see the emergence of a vast underclass with endemic and multi-generationally transmitted crime and dependency. That's just crazy speculation though.<br /><br />At any rate, what is the point of all this? The point is that I (we?) suspect that what Bleeding Hearts really want is something like a social tithe - society pays a reasonable fraction - 10-20% of GDP perhaps (but certainly no less than 10%!), to accomplish various redistributions from the relatively more productive to the relatively less productive. That's what "minimally nice" means - bread and roses and certain fuzzy psychological "ego" and "dignity" effects too.<br /><br />Dr. Friedman's inquiries are met with evasions precisely for this reason. Because it's embarrassing for someone purporting to be purely rational to admit that, at bottom, they're policy preferences are based in subjective sentiment or opinion or taste or something quasi-religious in character. Worse than that, sentiments with no clear limiting principles or constraints, and which lead, and which actually led historically, to hard left conclusions.Handlehttp://handleshaus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-84374096241175267852013-05-23T10:03:44.714-07:002013-05-23T10:03:44.714-07:00I was reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_f...I was reminded of http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/ by your writing around "that terms do not have to have clear meanings in order to be useful and he claims that lots of terms we routinely use, such as 'justice' or 'liberalism,' don’t. That is surely true to some extent; the meaning of words is usually at least a little fuzzy at the edges. It is true even for such obvious classifications as male and female..." I don't know whether his term "fallacy of gray" will catch on, but I agree with Yudkowsky that some term for it would be useful; it seems perennial in modern arguments.William Newmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14336821309402794016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-14384168613362143352013-05-23T09:59:20.257-07:002013-05-23T09:59:20.257-07:00"As I understand it, the main quarrel is over..."As I understand it, the main quarrel is over describing words"<br /><br />I can't have a quarrel over the content of their philosophy if they won't tell me what it is.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-32556379769936237002013-05-23T09:38:01.936-07:002013-05-23T09:38:01.936-07:00David, if I remember correctly, you once suggested...David, if I remember correctly, you once suggested that you accepted the idea that we have moral intuitions about what is right and wrong, but that you could find no convincing philosophical defense of the validity of those intuitions. I suspect that the BHLs are in that boat as well, but they're not as consciously analytical about their predicament. They "feel" (or believe?) that any properly functioning society should make special provisions for the poor, and so they assert it as a moral fact. This makes them tolerant of weak philosophical arguments that attempt to "prove" the validity of that claim, for those who attempt to prove it are in fact sharing the same moral intuition. You, on the other hand, refuse to accept the intuition without sufficient argument to support it.<br /><br />P.S. I'm with you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-72980026674960836912013-05-23T09:23:18.067-07:002013-05-23T09:23:18.067-07:00Brennan tried to be snarky and left wing, like BHL...Brennan tried to be snarky and left wing, like BHLers always do, and he got called on it by Friedman. BHLers are accustomed to living in their bubble, ignoring (or denigrating) opposing views (i.e., libertarian views) while expecting libertarian sites to freely print their mushy garbage in the spirit of free speech and the exchange of ideas.<br /><br />Stripped of their pretentious and quasi-religious nonsense, BHLers are about as libertarian as Trotsky.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11451660326673235862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-14507368951549712482013-05-23T07:32:37.136-07:002013-05-23T07:32:37.136-07:00Ryan:
Seeing as how Libertarians often justify th...Ryan:<br /><br />Seeing as how Libertarians often justify their views by saying that nobody should know whats best for others, I would question anyone who said that and whether they could be considered Libertarian at all. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-21108995485878896272013-05-23T06:29:31.915-07:002013-05-23T06:29:31.915-07:00Unfortunately, I feel that the BHLs have successfu...Unfortunately, I feel that the BHLs have successfully obfuscated what the original disagreement was all about. <br /><br />Brennan's original point was that anyone who believes "social justice" has no definite meaning is a "cartoon libertarian." The fact that he could provide no definite meaning for the term makes the "cartoon libertarians" seem more credible than he is. To hand-wave all this away by essentially saying, "We BHLs know what we mean, and that's enough" is highly objectionable, in my opinion.<br /><br />They were the ones who made the initial claim, and they have been unable to defend it. The reason is that "mushy" language can't be defended. I thought after a few iterations of debate, Brennan would be self-aware enough to acknowledge that his "cartoon libertarian" post was a bit of an overreach. The fact that he is unwilling to do so despite the case Friedman has made - regardless of whether Brennan fully agrees with Friedman - is extremely disappointing.RP Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15028013805248797978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-142679300351075282013-05-23T05:18:02.255-07:002013-05-23T05:18:02.255-07:00As I understand it, the main quarrel is over descr...As I understand it, the main quarrel is over describing words and using proper usage of terms in order to clarify views and make arguments consistent. <br /><br />I have had around the same arguments over having to explain my principle of Libertarianism, which I regard as "People should be able to pursue their own Interests, so long as they don't interfere with the Interests of others." And I get told to replace Interests with "Rights", which I find can become beyond contradicting when the question comes along "Where do these rights come from?" And I think this differentiates the line between consequentialists and normal Libertarians. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-81493971815468523112013-05-22T23:29:27.096-07:002013-05-22T23:29:27.096-07:00George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English La...George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” is one of the best essays I've ever read. <br /><br />Before I read it, I was an Anarchist. After I read it, I concluded that the government should have 1 role, and that is to force everyone to read this essay.Eckersleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-70010176286067966042013-05-22T16:00:39.782-07:002013-05-22T16:00:39.782-07:00I don't know—the philosophy in question still ...I don't know—the philosophy in question still looks to me like liberalism. Modern liberalism, not classical liberalism. The reason we have a separate label for our school of thought is to emphasize that we didn't go along with the decay of liberal thought—that we still emphasize <i>liberty</i>. I don't see why these guys even bother calling themselves "libertarians" in any sense.William H. Stoddardhttp://whswhs.livejournal.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-74631841291600970222013-05-22T15:50:53.638-07:002013-05-22T15:50:53.638-07:00Wait a second...when I took philosophy they specif...Wait a second...when I took philosophy they specifically said there'd be no math...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-54938384417843995192013-05-22T15:06:41.192-07:002013-05-22T15:06:41.192-07:00The heart of progressivism (and BHL is at its core...The heart of progressivism (and BHL is at its core much more progressive than libertarian) is universalism. This traces back to Christian millennialism and the belief that every person has an "inner light" that just needs to be awaken. This for example explains the progressive's rejection of genetic pre-determination of intelligence as not just wrong, but abhorrent. Or their obsession with the criminal justice system being a rehabilitation system.<br /><br />The progressive's main concern with wealth inequality isn't primarily about poverty. As you explain virtually no person in the developed world lives in anything approaching poverty by the historical or global standards. The problem with wealth inequality is that it cuts certain human beings off from being full and recognized members of the broader community. This of course offends universalist sensibilities.<br /><br />There are certain material things, without which one cannot be considered a normal integrated member of broader society, even if one still can live a decent life. For example a fixed residence jumps out most obviously. In all but the urban cores a motor vehicle is also a clear example. The socially acceptable minimal education level is also something that's needed. In the past it was 8th grade, today it's high school, but its quickly moving towards at least some university degree.<br />DRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395057401348319239noreply@blogger.com