Comments below in BF --I thought I'd get a rise out of you BR ======================================== 3/21/2012 7:50:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
I'll take him. Now on to the other comments. An "elaborate rationalization for inequality, for Social Darwinism, and for irreligion or anti-religion?" REALLY??? That depends upon your measurements. If you are doing the PC "outcome based" evaluation method that's probably accurate. Trouble is that you and most given libertarians aren't speaking the same language when you do so. Different people have different talents and those talents are valued at different amounts of money in the labor market. Call that a "rationalization" if you will, but I certainly cannot agree. Social Darwinism? I'm not sure what you mean. People rise or fall based upon their talents. Here's the problem. You --and many other people-- seem to think that talent always prevails in this best of all possible worlds. Indeed, ideally, talent should. Everyone who is rational thinks so. However, this principle "ain't necessarily so," and this is hardly to consider just a small minority. Probably a majority of the talented do rise to the top, however you may define "top," but there is no way in hell that this is remotely possible for everyone in the market, because : The market is mixed, partly it is a rigged game. Sure, here and there you will find fairness and equity, here and there you will find a just system in operation where the most talented, or most dedicated, or most hard working, do succeed. This is undeniable. It is a great strength of the market. However, to generalize from these facts to a conclusion that the market is always just and equitable and always rewards talent, would be ludicrous. And this is the Huge Failing --to which they are totally oblivious-- of close to all Libertarians , "libertarians," all supply siders, all Reaganomicists, and so forth. And precisely because of this predisposition is why doctrines like laissez faire and Social Darwinism appeal to them. Who, besides the talented does the market reward ? The Ichans of this world, people without a trace of morality who will do anything for the sake of profits. Or like Gekko ( spelling "? ) in the film, "Wall Street," the utterly ruthless and unethical. It also rewards the lucky. Nothing against pure luck, being in the right place at the right time, being fortunate in your choice of friends, having valuable information fall into your lap, and so forth, but luck is hardly based on nothing but talent. I do buy the theory that at least half of the time the lucky are actually the smartest people on the block and that they "make" their own luck, but half is all that I am willing to concede. We all know people who have benefited from undeserved luck, don't we ? And the market rewards luck. The market is also fairly short-range in outlook and, in any case, it has little use for socially valuable outcomes. If such outcomes happen, all well and good, but mostly the market could care less. The bottom line is the name of the game, end of story. For libertarians and free market people the market can do no wrong, indeed, it is the gold standard for what is right. Except that this view of the market, as just outlined, is fallacious. Again, not because it is always wrong, it seems to me it is more right than wrong, but because it is wrong --produces bad outcomes-- as often as it does, say, 20% or 25% of the time. This kind of record is a major problem that must be addressed. By "major" I mean damned serious. Stratification of classes goes back as far as human history. And libertarianism is a rationalization for that? Sorry don't think so; it is a fairly recently popularized word. Never said that egalitarianism should be taken to mean a classless society, The point is that extreme inequality is a serious problem and is unacceptable in any actual democracy. Irreligion or anti-religion? I actually think that most of that comes from the left rather than libertarians unless one wants to give libertarians credit (blame?) for having far more influence than their numbers would suggest. No dispute that most irreligion these days comes from the Left. However, within Libertarian circles --I use caps for both Libtar party members and for non-members-- there is a great deal of irreligion, and it is not difficult to see why : Libertarian philosophy has no use for faith except insofar as it may be a private matter with no bearing on public policy. For orthodox Libertarians religion is essentially irrelevant to anything but private views and values, and if those values are taken into the public realm then Libertarians get upset. I'm sure you have noticed exactly this. We readily acknowledge the difference in performance of various athletes, and I don't hear very much whining going out about inequalities of pay between players at the same position. A general complaint that they are ALL paid too much, that I have heard. But I certainly cannot go to the Dallas Mavericks and demand Dirk's salary, or to the Miami Heat and demand LeBron's salary. Both teams would laugh me out of the joint. Same thing with executives, With athletes you see what you pay for. Someone hits 50 homers a season on a regular basis, or someone else runs for 100 yards a game almost every game, and, of course, you pay them a helluva lot more than other players. It is manifestly NOT the same for execs. First, it is an old boys club and getting into it may have little to do with talent and a heckovalot to do with which Ivy League or other prestige school you graduated from ( and such degrees may produce numbskulls, like GWB as well as really smart people like his father ). Second, once in the club there is protection from the world. And huge rewards based on social standing in this charmed circle. Sure , blatant failure and out you go, but for those at the top all it takes to look good is to hire expensive talent and pretend that one's underlings are "you," that their recommendations actually belong to you, and you deserve all the credit, and BTW, I'd like my $5 million bonus gift wrapped this year, thank you. although Obama is trying to do something about that with the "class warfare" shtick. Well, guess what? I'm tired of supporting the moocher class. And while I can think of plenty of overpaid executives, I'm sure that CEOs of smaller companies aren't getting away with massive salaries-that's mostly for the larger organizations. They need to come down to reality, but then again, we need to have some folks who can really afford to send their kids to college instead of sending them on the backs of the taxpayers. I think it is too broad brush to say that none of the new educational platforms do not work. With the now exorbitant costs of a university education (my daughter owes more on her student loans than my first house was worth) and the job market that sux, most institutions have priced themselves to the point that only government aid is keeping a lot of them afloat. Why are non-marketable degrees pushed? I'm not sure that they are pushed, but there is major irresponsibility in academia for not making it very clear to students in X number of disciplines that upon graduation the chances of finding work in their chosen field is near zero. To create a perpetual "lower class" with perpetual grievances? Sometimes it seems that way. Or maybe it is to support the faculty who have achieved "tenure" and cannot be fired in non-marketable (or not marketable enough) areas of study. Or maybe it is to support the ever expanding bureaucrats who have to fill out and file all of the government paperwork that comes with the government aid, so that the government bureaucrats can justify their jobs, too. Too much conspiratorialism here but I think you are on to something important. Much of what happens isn't by design but by inertia, ignorance, and --to reuse the word-- irresponsibility. But $hi% does happen and it often works out the way you suggest. David I know I'm behind-we have company and my computer is in the bedroom where they are sleeping. _ "I am so Libertarian that I don't think lawyers and doctors should be licensed by the government. I am so Libertarian that I make some Libertarians cringe."--Neal Boortz On 3/19/2012 6:16 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) wrote: Ernie : Excellent brain food. Just a couple of comments-- ( 1 ) Somewhere along the way we need to demythologize libertarianism. What it actually is, in addition to being a much needed antidote to narrow-mindedness and authoritarian thinking, is an elaborate rationalization for inequality, for Social Darwinism, and for irreligion or anti-religion. Its economic predicate is undiluted Adam Smith as if his view of how the economy works remains true --if it ever was-- despite the vastly different world of the 21st century. This proposition is preposterous. ( 2 ) If Thiel actually looked into new universities and found none that worked he is also saying that none at all work, an outlook that is ridiculous. The real question is, considering university education in all its dimensions, "what works and what does not ?" Some things work very well, others are so-so, and the rest work poorly or not at all. Most of all new ideas are needed and the chances are that any stuffed shirt academics will not be the people who can possibly come up with innovative suggestions, nor can 99% of careerists in any field. Careers are positive "Goods," for sure, but not at the expense of higher values, which is exactly what many careerists are more than willing to sacrifice for the sake of their careers. Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in any number of fields in academia. Much more could be said about the interview but let me rest my case with these observations, which should open enough by way of a can of worms to make people happy. Billy ======================================================= 3/19/2012 2:25:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: I don't know if DRB would accept him as a libertarian but I appreciate the radical centrist critique. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: _http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1187_ (http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1187) _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list _http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork_ (http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork) -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
