Can you believe in capitalism without making greed a virtue?
How?
Because in a capitalistic system, your business is yours to run - complete with whatever principles you wish to maintain. It's not like if you're a capitalist you have to devote yourself to screwing everyone over. You can make an argument that the system promotes that sort of behavior - but insofar as that sort of greed is concerned, capitalism has one hell of a rival in socialism.
I'd actually like to know how you can believe in socialism without making greed a virtue. I'm sickened by what I see happening to some of the people I know who receive considerable money from the government. There's no appreciation for it, no sense of society debt. Only entitlement.
Regardless, short answer to your very valid question: "Self-discipline". Same way you can eat at a buffet multiple times per week and not necessarily become a big fatass.
My own solution for the capitalist is somewhat different. I maintain that capitalism, if it works the way it is supposed to, puts limits on what even the greedy can do to screw people over. If your competitor treats people better and doesn't screw people over, then all the business will go to the competitor and your business will die a merciful death. Merciful not for you, but for the public. If you're greedy, you can only be so greedy because of competition. But if you aren't as greedy, it only means that it will be more natural for you to do what it was always in your best interest to do in the first place.
At least that is how it is supposed to work. But I don't think it will work automatically or unconditionally.
Under communism, you not only have people getting free lunches, you also get the people who pass out the free lunches taking double servings, because the "need" more.
There is also the question of how you deal with the well-intentioned victims of economic ill fortune. If we don't help them, they suffer undeservedly, but if we do help them, then some people will end up with that sense of entitlement.
There is also the question of how you deal with the well-intentioned victims of economic ill fortune. If we don't help them, they suffer undeservedly, but if we do help them, then some people will end up with that sense of entitlement.
And my response there: First, try to make the 'help' as private as possible. And I don't mean 'private charities', I mean down to individuals seeking to help their immediate and extended families, their neighbors, etc before even the private charities get in. Second, if government assistance really is a necessity, try to make it as local as possible. Down to the neighborhood level, the city level, so there's a more direct connection made between 'the people giving' and 'the people taking'.
I think what's key is making any assistance as voluntary and personal as possible.
That said, what I'm suggesting is a considerable cultural undertaking and imperfect. But it at least points in the direction I think we should be working and thinking, from my (Catholic) view.
As you say, it doesn't always work out automatically or unconditionally. But I don't believe in perfect systems anyway this side of life.
Looking around at every economic system currently on this planet, the sad truth is that NONE OF THEM work particularly well in the 21st Century. And it's no good harkening back to some previously effective system that may have been appropriate in the 19th or 20th Centuries, and saying we should emulate (or resurrect) them. Their day is done.
I don't believe we can clearly see today what system will emerge in the next few decades to cope with increasing population pressures, global climate change, shifting demographics, and new technologies. No matter what country you point to, be it China or Brazil or Germany or the USA, they all have their strong points as well as glaring weaknesses. My suspicion is that whatever emerges will have some characteristics of each of those four countries I listed.
I would hope it manages to combine Germany's social contract, Brazil's optimism, China's discipline, and the USA's entrepreneurship.
But whatever it will be, it ain't gonna look like what we have today!
(And no, greed is NOT good. It's one of the seven deadly sins.)
I'm unsure as to whether or not any economic system, historical or present, would be considered purely capitalist, as I do not think any such system, even if realized, would be stable. If at some point the machinery of state does not interfere in the markets, then either labor or business will soon ensure that it does. If that machinery does not exist, it will be created. Restraint in matters of greed is rewarded by the market in matters of industry. Were large businesses allowed to self-destruct through internal corrosion due to individual businesses, there would be a cyclic value to these rewards. But in an economy dependent on such means to organization, allowing that market discipline would be a major catastrophe for almost everyone.
I do not think that capitalism and greed can be separated as values. If we conceive of capitalism as a market of ownership and we grant the principle of scarcity, I see no other conclusion. One may ameliorate the commitment to greed by advocating a mixed system, as most people do. But these have their obvious imperfections as well, and it is difficult to avoid unsafe concentrations of power.
I'd actually like to know how you can believe in socialism without making greed a virtue.
I believe in giving people control over their own lives. Socialism, in case you're confused, does not require a commitment to centralized control or even to `entitlements' - the valuing of which I do not think translates into greed, though they have their shortcomings.
I think people should have more control over their private lives, including their economic lives. Who controls you more? Your employer or your government? Why love either when they do so?
The difficult job is to provide a coherent, principled means to reform. I'm still working on the details, many of which are probably best left open for circumstantial judgment to be made. But there are institutional structures which are easy to recognize as things-to-be-worked-against, I think. For example, institutions which incentivize dishonesty and actions which no participant thinks good for the health of society, or even their own long term well-being.
Such structures occur and are expected to occur in government and in large, unaccountable powers like major corporations. Furthermore, they occur not as footnotes but as central operating procedures. I recall the only part of Grapes of Wrath I liked reading in High School: "The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it."
That could have very easily been written today. Similar things could easily be written about oil companies, tobacco companies, and you name what else.
I think fundamental structural changes will be necessary in the future, and I wonder which way it will go. In the meantime, I can second this value: "I think what's key is making any assistance as voluntary and personal as possible." The difficulty being, of course, that attempting to humanize and make voluntary decent acts in such a corrupt system is very difficult. But it should be pursued as much as may be.
I believe in giving people control over their own lives. Socialism, in case you're confused, does not require a commitment to centralized control or even to `entitlements' - the valuing of which I do not think translates into greed, though they have their shortcomings.
In case I'm confused? Right. ;)
I don't think entitlements can be entirely disconnected from greed. Oh, a person can receive charity or consideration without greed being a factor. Just as a person can run a business without greed being a factor (unless any desire to earn a profit or build a business is 'greed' now). But systems have a way of encouraging certain behaviors, even attitudes. I'm more than willing to grant that a capitalist system can encourage some greed in that vein. What I don't buy is that a socialist system is somehow different.
Really, one problem with a very capitalist system is that, if a business gets big enough or its people connected enough, it can start pursuing socialist policies for yet more profit. Most people may not think of government bailouts of the wealthy as socialism, but it is what it is.
The difficulty being, of course, that attempting to humanize and make voluntary decent acts in such a corrupt system is very difficult. But it should be pursued as much as may be.
If you took me to mean 'the government should be encouraging people to be charitable and giving', no, that's not what I'm saying. Call it more fundamental than that, something that should happen on as close to the personal level as possible. I don't need government authority - local, state, or federal - to convince me to help out my neighbor, or to try and convince my neighbor to help out his neighbor. The habit - not necessarily displayed by anyone in this thread - of thinking of problems like these in terms of "What should the government do?" is a problem itself.
That Grapes of Wrath quote can have the word "government" swapped in for "bank" and it'd still be damn accurate.
To be clear, I would think that the confusion would be understandable. Left libertarian socialism is hardly a headline grabber in the way that Bolshevism is.
Really, one problem with a very capitalist system is that, if a business gets big enough or its people connected enough, it can start pursuing socialist policies for yet more profit. Most people may not think of government bailouts of the wealthy as socialism, but it is what it is.
"Socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor", as a common slogan goes. To me, there's little distinction between `state socialism' and `state capitalism'. The line between `public power' and `private power' rather evaporates. Hence why the many recent bailouts - extending back several decades - are inconsistent with my own somewhat idiosyncratic brand of socialism.
If you took me to mean 'the government should be encouraging people to be charitable and giving', no, that's not what I'm saying.
That's not how I took it. As far as I can tell, I agree entirely with your succeeding sentiments. Allow human decency, and it will occur.
That Grapes of Wrath quote can have the word "government" swapped in for "bank" and it'd still be damn accurate.
You're quite correct.
I don't think entitlements can be entirely disconnected from greed.
Not entirely, surely. But I think there is a distinction between the quality and quantity of greed necessary for the practice of capitalism/state capitalism, and that required for the maintenance of minimal welfare programs. I see socialized medicine as means to securing basic human rights more than an entitlement, but that aside: is it really more greedy to secure basic welfare than it is to keep the system privatized? If so, for whom is it greedy? I see it as a genuinely altruistic project, as well as good economic sense when properly implemented.
is it really more greedy to secure basic welfare than it is to keep the system privatized? If so, for whom is it greedy? I see it as a genuinely altruistic project, as well as good economic sense when properly implemented.
"Pay taxes to support this or we'll put you in jail or shoot you." rather puts a damper on the whole "altruistic project" thing. If I say "you have too much money, give a tenth of it to these nice people or I'm throwing you in prison", I question describing the whole incident as altruistic.
As 'for whom is it greedy', how about the people for whom it makes 'good economic sense' if it's implemented? Or does an act become non-greedy so long as the person doing it feels that they're securing some kind of human right or feels strongly about it?
None of the systems offered are perfect. Attempting to expand government influence more and more in the name of altruism is a mistake, and continues to feed a culture that promotes a general sense of entitlement, a lack of appreciation or self-reliance, and an over-reliance on the 'government' quasi-deity.
"Pay taxes to support this or we'll put you in jail or shoot you." rather puts a damper on the whole "altruistic project" thing. If I say "you have too much money, give a tenth of it to these nice people or I'm throwing you in prison", I question describing the whole incident as altruistic.
Hence my earlier comment about the difficulty of enacting a measure without coercion in an inherently coercive system. Of course, the alternative is "Dear poors, be lucky enough to have lots of money or die young." And in a system in which making money is rent-slavery, that is also coercion.
As 'for whom is it greedy', how about the people for whom it makes 'good economic sense' if it's implemented? Or does an act become non-greedy so long as the person doing it feels that they're securing some kind of human right or feels strongly about it?
Altruism need not be profitless. Most businesses would benefit from lower healthcare costs (hence the recent opening in the debate after decades of popular concern.) We don't need to draw a sharp line between greed and altruism to see the distinction between this act and the alternative, I don't think.
None of the systems offered are perfect. Attempting to expand government influence more and more in the name of altruism is a mistake, and continues to feed a culture that promotes a general sense of entitlement, a lack of appreciation or self-reliance, and an over-reliance on the 'government' quasi-deity.
I'm not interested in expanding government interest, as I am not interested in universal healthcare while leaving the rest of government power intact. There are easy ways to diminish violent state coercion without watching elderly people die needlessly. For some examples popular on the left and right, we could do wholly without the drug war and most of our military funding.
As for the sense of entitlement, people here work far more than is necessary, as labor is distributed so inefficiently. One can increase welfare benefits to the point that the unemployed refuse to work, but it is very rare (there was such an instance a couple of decades ago in Germany, if I recall correctly), and we are far from that threshold.
People like working. People usually like being useful to others. The solution is not welfare; that's a band-aid. Rather, the solution is to give people the opportunity to do meaningful work and have control over their economic lives.
Hence my earlier comment about the difficulty of enacting a measure without coercion in an inherently coercive system. Of course, the alternative is "Dear poors, be lucky enough to have lots of money or die young." And in a system in which making money is rent-slavery, that is also coercion.
Because what, that's even close to the situation in the US? "Have lots of money or die young"? What's our average lifespan here again? Must be wall to wall wealthy folks if it's over 60.
Altruism need not be profitless.
What sort of definition of 'altruistic' are you working with when you're reaping monetary profit from it? Kind of stretching that 'altruism' word a bit far.
I may as well say capitalism is just wall to wall altruism. Why, there's people benefiting in that system after all!
There are easy ways to diminish violent state coercion without watching elderly people die needlessly. For some examples popular on the left and right, we could do wholly without the drug war and most of our military funding.
Elderly people die needlessly? Have we uncovered some cure for old age?
I'm all in favor of pulling out of military commitments, and I'd like to see the fed out of quite a lot of the drug stuff. But no, 'universal health care' I have no interest in. That's not really 'diminishing violent state coercion' anyway, it's just trading one type for another.
As for the sense of entitlement, people here work far more than is necessary, as labor is distributed so inefficiently.
"Than is necessary"? According to who? Labor is distributed inefficiently? How can we tell, and even if we could tell, so what?
Rather, the solution is to give people the opportunity to do meaningful work and have control over their economic lives.
Maybe the solution is to let them make and attain those opportunities for themselves. Maybe the best we can aim for is a system where there will still be some inefficiencies, even some tragedies, but opportunities and freedom to go with it.
What sort of definition of 'altruistic' are you working with when you're reaping monetary profit from it? Kind of stretching that 'altruism' word a bit far.
I doubt I'll be reaping a net profit from a universal system, as my prospects of a good career are decent enough. But suppose otherwise. There remains a difference between self-interest, altruism, and self-sacrifice. Altruism is a happy mixture of the others. Socialized medicine is obviously not purely a self-sacrificial process. I don't think we would want such a process.
Because what, that's even close to the situation in the US? "Have lots of money or die young"? What's our average lifespan here again? Must be wall to wall wealthy folks if it's over 60.
Depending on the illness, that is the situation. On average, there is perhaps 5 years difference or so between the most affluent and the least. Usually, it's more about quality of health, which for a wage-laborer translates into general welfare. And that's because we do pay for rescue operations. (More of which are needed when health insurance is unaffordable, delaying treatment.)
That's not really 'diminishing violent state coercion' anyway, it's just trading one type for another.
Yeah, there's a payment/payoff process. But the difference is between demanding a slightly larger fraction of income on those who can afford it, and demanding the entire wages of those who cannot - where the demand is at all possible. So I think it more than a mere trading of types. And again, the socialized alternative is far more efficient, and there would be economic benefits.
"Than is necessary"? According to who? Labor is distributed inefficiently? How can we tell, and even if we could tell, so what?
To use a dated but illustrative example: compare wartime production and the percentage of output directed to wartime use as opposed to domestic use in the US or Britain during either world war. The results are very interesting. As another obvious example: ask what happens to unemployed labor, contrasting what you find with the fact that working time is increasing. There are more: look at `artificial industries' which do not actually produce or distribute goods, but serve only as internal bets (like much of the trading that lead to the recent crisis), or at research-oriented businesses in which genuinely novel research is greatly disincentivized (pharmaceuticals, many others). Look at the administrative costs of private health insurance, which far outstrip socialized systems. Look at what happens to closed down factories, which are completely capable of being converted by needing labor to satisfying outstanding needs (such as producing high-speed rail). Look at the highway-based transportation system. Look virtually anywhere you like, and you will find major examples.
Maybe the solution is to let them make and attain those opportunities for themselves. Maybe the best we can aim for is a system where there will still be some inefficiencies, even some tragedies, but opportunities and freedom to go with it.
That's precisely the sort of system I advocate. It's called left libertarian socialism.
Victor said: "capitalism, if it works the way it is supposed to"
Just how is it supposed to work. Do you expect it be fair? just? equitable? Economnic systems do not have these attributes. The "supposed to " part of the ecomonic system needs to come from another source. The system itself has no moral compass. It has not intentionality. An economic system "works" if goods are produced and distributed. We should not expect clean choices between captitalisma and socialism to produce a "supposed to be" society.
I believe in protecting people from the Leviathan monsters who are most likely to harm us. In Dickens' day, the Leviathan monsters were capitalists, and that era, unsurprisingly, produced Karl Marx. In Soviet Russia the Leviathan monster was, of course the Party, which controlled the government. That means that we have to constantly be making judgment calls about whether to privatize this, or socialize that. No one thinks of privatizing the US Military, except the CEO of Blackwater. Ditto for the fire and police departments. K-12 education is probably best left as a government service. The auto industry should be private.
If Rodney Stark got his history correct in The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, and the origins of capitalism were rooted in the inventions of monks, then I think that pretty much answer the question....no greed inevitably.
But suppose otherwise. There remains a difference between self-interest, altruism, and self-sacrifice. Altruism is a happy mixture of the others.
Altruism is a mix of self-sacrifice and self-interest? Again: This is a pretty interesting take on 'altruism'. I guess capitalism is filled to the brim with altruism after all.
My skepticism goes double for describing the guy holding the gun in the 'Hey you, give your money to that other guy' act as altruistic.
Depending on the illness, that is the situation. On average, there is perhaps 5 years difference or so between the most affluent and the least.
Let's say I grant that - I won't ask for a cite. It's a 5 year difference in record high totals, with the whole 'have lots of money or die young' thing being narrowed down to 'depending on the illness'. Yes, I know there are nations which outperform us to the tune of a few years. I think it still goes to show that for whatever complaints are made of the US system, we're not nearly in some kind of horrid crisis situation on this front.
But the difference is between demanding a slightly larger fraction of income on those who can afford it, and demanding the entire wages of those who cannot - where the demand is at all possible. So I think it more than a mere trading of types. And again, the socialized alternative is far more efficient, and there would be economic benefits.
Touted efficiency and 'economic benefits' in exchange for ramping up a social and political plague, to fix a system that - for all people scream about it - actually isn't all that worse than the supposed ideal systems, granting the popular metrics. Not persuasive to me.
To use a dated but illustrative example: compare wartime production and the percentage of output directed to wartime use as opposed to domestic use in the US or Britain during either world war.
Should we compare the freedom and heavy-handed intrusiveness of government during those eras as well?
Look virtually anywhere you like, and you will find major examples.
I see examples of inefficiency. Examples which cry out for a socialist revamping of the system? Not really.
That's precisely the sort of system I advocate. It's called left libertarian socialism.
Ignoring that that's a contradiction in terms...
Wake me up when the "left libertarian socialists" advocate as part of their plan the elimination of the university system in favor of internet-based autodidact-favoring education methods, as well as the elimination of mandatory schooling.
Victor: "K-12 education is probably best left as a government service."
Really? There are obvious arguments for keeping armies or utilities public — they can't be split up and spread around the way you can have a bunch of competing capitalist bakeries. But schools easily work more like bakeries, and the private ones seem to do a lot better than the public ones.
Anonymous said... But schools easily work more like bakeries, and the private ones seem to do a lot better than the public ones.
A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools.
All societies, even the most remote Bushmen and even the Soviets from Lenin on, are capitalistic. Some are more efficient at it (us); some are less (the Soviets and especially the Bushmen). Some base their production of wealth upon the consumption of one thing (us: oil), others on other things (the Bushmen: their own muscle power); (the Soviets: human lives).
The fact is -- and this really burns "liberals" and may explain why they, following the tuggings of their leftist puppet-masters, want to burn down the whole world so as to extirpate capitalism -- western-style capitalism, and to be more precise, free-market capitalism *encourages* the public virtues. It is trade, and the more open and more free the better, which turns potential enemies (i.e. sources of booty) into potential customers (i.e. sources of more and easier-got wealth than booty ever could deliver, and potentially inexhaustable, to boot) and even into friends.
Crude: "I may as well say capitalism is just wall to wall altruism. Why, there's people benefiting in that system after all!"
You might as well -- and you'd be far nearer the truth of the matter than Mr Socialism-Apologetic can ever get.
In a free-market -- you know, that little thing that the socialists and the protectionists and the rent-seekers hate -- it is not the "greedy" (whatever in the Hell that word means in the mouths of "liberals" and socialists) man who gains vast wealth, but the man who best serves and pleases his fellow man.
Bill Gates (or, for that matter, any of the old "Robber Barons") in his "greed" has done more good for humanity than all the goo-gooers since time began. Goo-gooers aren't about the business of doing good -- if they were, they'd not always have their nose in someone else's business -- they are about the business of being seen as doing good.
Crude: "Ignoring that ['left libertarian socialism' is] a contradiction in terms..."
Perhaps not so much. There must be *some* reason why most of the libertarians so frequently side with the "liberals" and other socialists when it matters.
Consider, for starters, Vox Day and his constant drum-beating for protectionism -- corporate/socialistic welfare for certain organized interests at the expense of the unorganized mass of the rest of us -- along with his intentional and false conflating of "classical economics" (i.e. Smith, Ricardo, el at) with the Keynesian falacy.
VR: "I believe in protecting people from the Leviathan monsters who are most likely to harm us. In Dickens' day, the Leviathan monsters were capitalists, and that era, unsurprisingly, produced Karl Marx. ..."
I know you're not stupid. Your claim is not only false, it's bullshit-false. And yet, you make it -- and the likelihood of you correcting it is next to nill.
It was not capitalists who were the "Leviathan monsters" in Dickens' day, it was anti-capitalists (good "Christian" folk, all), it was monopolists (you know, the *real* sort, the ones with government guns backing up their "business plan"), it was, as it always has been and always will be, governments causing the misery of the many so as to enrich the few-and-connected.
It was, in fact, capitalists who, for a few generations, chained those "Leviathan monsters".
"I'm sickened by what I see happening to some of the people I know who receive considerable money from the government. There's no appreciation for it, no sense of society debt. Only entitlement."
Yes. It's called conservative, right-wing politics. And the 'considerable' money provided by the government is called 'tax relief' or 'tax concessions' to the rich, through the unequal burden paid by the middle and the worker classes in the community to counter the enormous hog troughs of reduced or nil company and corporations tax levels. Yes. Greed is indeed the quintessential characteristic of unbridled, rampant and uncontrolled capitalism. Such a circumstance is synonymous with the arch right-wing conservative evangelical and fundamentalist ideology of christendom. Indeed the notion of the 'prosperity gospel' promulgated by many fundamentalist christians is anathema to basic teachings as I understand it, and I'm an atheist, remember] of the original message of christian theology and over time has been grossly warped and compromised.
There is no such thing as a 'free market'. Free markets by their very nature lead to maximum entropy whereby monopoly and monopolistic behaviour is the natural end product, a totally uninspired and unintended consequence of free market capitalism. Monopoly and organizational collusion are both unfriendly and undemocratic consequences of unchecked capitalism. Markets are a product of social and cultural development, and like every other aspect of human endeavour must be subject to the rule of law. If there is rampant greed through capitalism, then the laws do not reflect the appropriate level of social governance. There should be no occasion for the Gordon Geckos of the world to prosper. They are not princes of industry. They are cancers.
There are too many organizations in the US that are too big to control and too big to fail. This is an intolerable consequence and an indictment of unregulated greed. These are the very signals that should be a klaxon warning to the community, that there is a cancer in the very fabric of society that has to be resolved. The current banking system, the very foundation of capitalism, is one such economic activity of humans that is diseased through and through, and nothing less than a root and branch investigation [and open-ended grand jury] will be able to exorcise the Gordon Geckos, at both the individual and corporate level.
Bob "That was your best post ever! If Victor's website had a "Like" button, I'd press it."
Equity, fairness and justice are the key drivers, as you and I no doubt agree. Moderation of all that we do, to minimize harm and encourage individual and social well being. The only way to go.
1) How exactly do you judge the presence or absence of entitlement in others?
2) What makes you think you have a moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled?
3) What exactly makes this feeling of entitlement so dangerous that it is worth allowing poor people (most of whom, statistically, are young children) to suffer?
4) If you are a Christian, what is your Biblical justification for putting this supposed moral duty to prevent feelings of entitlement in others (which is curiously not mentioned in the Bible) above the clear Biblical injunctions to take care of the poor?
Sorry, question 3 should have read "what makes this feeling of entitlement so dangerous that the poor should be allowed to suffer in order to avoid it?"
I "feel" myself entitled to all the fruit of this Anonymouse's labors, past, present and future. I "feel" myself entitled to vote for the politicians who will promise to use government agents to track down and identify this Anonymouse, and to use government violence and compulsion, unto violent death, to compell this Anonymouse to surrender all his labor to The State ... so that it may be "redistributed" to me.
It seems that many are still incapable of seeing any distinction between `altruism' and `greed'. I'll let those help themselves.
Crude,
I think it still goes to show that for whatever complaints are made of the US system, we're not nearly in some kind of horrid crisis situation on this front.
Right; we're only paying double the price for worse outcomes while running hefty deficit, only one of those worse outcomes being a lower life expectancy. (Would you like to find others?) That's more `cute bunny rabbit' than `crisis', right?
I see examples of inefficiency. Examples which cry out for a socialist revamping of the system? Not really.
I've listed several proposals already, including allowing local control of unused factories by local laborers to produce more efficient means of transport (rail) and universal healthcare. Why, exactly, are these things not worth doing?
Ignoring that that's a contradiction in terms...
Hence my earlier warnings about confusion... Well I tried. Anybody else here care to talk to Crude about the political etymology of `libertarian', or how it is used outside of the US?
Wake me up when the "left libertarian socialists" advocate as part of their plan the elimination of the university system in favor of internet-based autodidact-favoring education methods, as well as the elimination of mandatory schooling.
I'm willing to consider spelling out alternatives to the current system and performing a moral calculation when you're willing to listen.
As long as "Crude" has brought up the subject of universities...
Our current university system is as sick as our economic one, and getting sicker. The big name U's all rely on big-name donors to beef up their athletic (read: football) programs to rake in more television revenue. Learning takes a distinct back seat at formerly reputable institutions such as Boston College or the University of Maryland to fund raising and high-priced linebackers.
But far, far worse is the very disturbing trend toward "For Profit" Universities, such as the University of Phoenix, where education is sacrificed at the altar of False Practicality. I wouldn't mind half so much, if these institutions actually delivered on their promise of making students competitive, but the results don't match their claims - not by a long shot. And what's lost is even the slightest nod toward well-roundedness.
My answer? Eliminate ALL competitive athletics at state run universities, and renew the emphasis on liberal arts in the private ones. I know - dream on! But, even knowing it will never happen, it remains what should be done.
But, to return to the original theme of this thread, in the end it all comes down to GREED.
On the subject of universities, there are several directions. As to internet versions, I have my doubts. I'm all for encouraging more auto-didactic methods, but I think that at advanced levels, self-instruction is already a major part of education - at least in my areas of interest.
That said, I feel that the system does need reform, and I'm not in minority here. I lack the expertise for overly detailed proposals, and doubtless there are innovators in education ahead of me in these matters, but I have some rough ideas:
1. Standardized course-numbers and equivalency, at least in `non-specialized' classes.
Obviously, a 200/2000-level course at one school might not transfer to another. I very often hear fellow students complain that their courses failed to transfer, leaving them to retake material which does not interest them and wasting time and money. For lower-level courses and most upper level courses, I do not see why a standardization would be a problem. In higher level and specialized classes, on the other hand, variation and significant time devoted to the particular interests of the instruction can be quite valuable.
There could be several levels corresponding to the `same' course as institutions require.
2. More transparency in published research and content.
I think we can do more or less without closed-access journals. More obviously, I cannot conceive of a need to make students pay for textbook content, especially for things like calculus. Faculty and advanced students can update textbooks as necessary (as good ones already do.)
3. Use of internet and technology.
Though I have serious doubts about substituting the concrete institution for the webcam, I would not mind allowing students to stay off campus most or possibly even all of the time. However, I would not mind a policy of `two-way camera' for those who choose to attend lectures via the web, for purposes of checking attendance and enabling at-home taking of quizzes and tests.
4. Greater participation.
As it is, grad students are the dedicated workhorses of faculty, but many advanced undergraduates could also serve as great servants.
5. Starting earlier.
Introductory material in philosophy and abstract algebra is (in my experience) rarely encountered as standard material in our high schools. That could easily happen. But perhaps more importantly, the history of topics like these (and the sciences) should be standard material.
By this, I mean that one should not be obligated to attend `a university' or to transfer `between universities' to conduct studies. Especially at higher levels, collaboration and discussion with faculty at a variety of institutions is vital.
8. Undermine credentialism.
I propose that `degrees' are frequently unnecessary. For employers, the record in relevant courses is the only important feature. The concept of `degree' does have some use, such as in helping to recognize those with a `well-rounded' education. But I think this, like the institution attended, is over-played, at least with course quality as it is.
9. Collaborative teaching.
Again, I would want feedback from faculty here, but I think that in some cases, faculty do not need to be `assigned' to particular courses. Rather, qualified faculty/students could arrange schedules for teaching and essential material. I'm not sure if this is done anywhere, but I have not heard of it.
I have several other ideas, but I'll keep them to myself for the moment.
As I have run it by faculty before to some interests, I think that many individual courses could be eliminated. This might only especially apply to my area of study (mathematics), but I think that separating courses from each other leads to a lot of lost insights. I think that (slightly more advanced than introductory) set theory/mathematical logic, algebra, topology, combinatorics, probability theory, real analysis, and math history would all benefit from combination. (The strays here are advanced courses in differential equations, partial differential equations, and numerical analysis, but doubtless at least the beginning ideas could be introduced with the other material.) A lot of the graduate-level material I have found could easily have been part of my undergraduate courses had it been introduced in an integrative course.
I would be interested in a unified, multi-volume, open access/freely editable text for undergraduate-level mathematics. I think one could easily be built from open access material that already exists. When I am competent enough, I would be interested in collaborating with others on the project.
Whether this works for faster-moving fields, I do not know. But in combination with the idea of a collaborative faculty and participatory student body, it all feels very attractive.
Wow. My head is spinning after reading Number 10. Don't you think that such a structure makes it easy for stuff to "fall off the table", without at least some sort of rigidity to the curriculum? Or am I missing something?
But whatever, I think it's clear that maybe we should be open to radical new forms of higher education. Sure, there is potential for embarrassing disasters, like the New Math fiasco of a couple of decades back, but the status quo sure isn't working!
I'm not sure about your background in mathematics, but my experience and that of the faculty I have consulted have been in uniform agreement that the segmenting of modern mathematics is largely arbitrary and causes more losses than gains.
Further, a series of integrative courses would be less time-consuming. From the beginning, one would not have to waste a class per course doing things like introducing notation and common terminology. The `integrative aspect' of mathematics is already present, but my impression is that it is largely confined to graduate schools and even there it is incomplete. (One algebraist told me that most working mathematicians have little to no understanding of math history, philosophy, or logic, apart from number theorists. Now that I mentioned it, number theory and geometry could easily fit in an integrative course.)
Secondly, things like the lengths of proofs of many results are far shorter in `one subject' than `another'. This is especially true where combinatorics can be employed.
Thirdly, the full conception of universally-used theorems is often unavailable in segmented courses. For an example given to me by my combinatorics instructor, the full statements of the multiplication rule and the pigeonhole principle are given only infrequently. With the full force of these principles, one can very quickly prove Ramsey's theorem.
Things like this constantly happen. The deep links between algebra (basically, study of functions and relations on sets) and combinatorics (e.g. you can represent symmetric relations using simple graphs) fall apart in separated courses. I cannot even begin to talk about the losses to probability theory due to a lack of historical understanding and combinatorial proficiency.
Even more severely, exercises which are accessible and lead to interesting insights - and these are essential to learning math - go almost completely out the window whenever one is confined to exercises solvable using only the previous section(s) of an already amputated text. Integrative exercises, especially those related to historically important results, are very powerful. But this is not a tool available for most undergraduate students, since you cannot assume that your probability students are competent in algebra or analysis or combinatorics or even capable of using the Axiom of Choice/Zorn's Lemma.
(I should add, for the benefit of non-math majors needing math courses, that equivalent courses for other majors are usually already offered. It also would not be difficult to offer `segment' versions separately.)
(As for `new math', I'm not talking about a dramatic shift in low-level mathematics. Integrative mathematics can't really happen without content that is normally introduced at the sophomore/junior level.)
No, I'm not advocating forcing integrative mathematics at the high school level or below. Further, I think it pointless to introduce set theory without some mathematical maturity, and as it gets more advanced I think a historical and philosophical background is in order.
If you define freedom as the absence of government, might I suggest you relocate to friendly Somalia?
By the way, you do know that God, in the Bible, demanded that private property be handed over to pay for the poor and orphans, on penalty of death, right?
So, it couldn't be more obvious: God is a liberal.
1) How exactly do you judge the presence or absence of entitlement in others?
On a case by case basis which I form generalities from. How do you do it? Or doesn't it matter?
2) What makes you think you have a moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled?
My understanding of morality and nature. What makes you think you have a moral duty to do anything at all? Or do those things just not exist for you?
3) What exactly makes this feeling of entitlement so dangerous that it is worth allowing poor people (most of whom, statistically, are young children) to suffer?
Define 'suffering'. And what makes you think I think they should be "allowed to suffer" anyway? The fact that I disagree with universal health care and think charity should be as personal and local as possible?
4) If you are a Christian, what is your Biblical justification for putting this supposed moral duty to prevent feelings of entitlement in others (which is curiously not mentioned in the Bible) above the clear Biblical injunctions to take care of the poor?
You think all Christian beliefs require chapter and verse biblical justification? On the flipside, are you telling me that all "biblical injunctions" I accept must be written into law?
Swing and a miss, kid. But keep telling yourself that "feeling entitled" is entirely okay. Whatever floats your boat. Sorry, I mean whatever floats the boat you deserve to have but don't because evil people won't buy you one.
Right; we're only paying double the price for worse outcomes while running hefty deficit, only one of those worse outcomes being a lower life expectancy. (Would you like to find others?) That's more `cute bunny rabbit' than `crisis', right?
Yeah, it is more 'cute bunny rabbit' than 'crisis'. The deficit is not due to our lack of universal health care, and mere inefficiency does not mean we should switch to another system. Even if it were more efficient for the US - very debatable - efficiency is only one metric to consider, not the sole one, not even the best one.
I've listed several proposals already, including allowing local control of unused factories by local laborers to produce more efficient means of transport (rail) and universal healthcare. Why, exactly, are these things not worth doing?
Wow.
That's all I have to say. Well, that and "Are you still on campus?" and "Do you intend to ever leave it?"
No, that's not a response to your plans. Just a couple of questions borne of amusement.
Hence my earlier warnings about confusion... Well I tried. Anybody else here care to talk to Crude about the political etymology of `libertarian', or how it is used outside of the US?
I've read up on this before. It's still a contradiction in terms, etymology be damned.
Back to the campus questions. Let me get out my crystal ball - are you aiming to be a professor/stay in academia?
I'm willing to consider spelling out alternatives to the current system and performing a moral calculation when you're willing to listen.
I'm willing to listen. Having trouble taking you too seriously even though I agree with much of your 10 point plan. Sorry man, you've got interesting ideas and all, even some good arguments here and there, but this is getting a little comical for my tastes.
And again, I actually agree with some of your 10 point plans. Even most of it - hell, it doesn't go far enough. You still want to keep universities around! I'm more radical than you perhaps. ;)
One Brow: "A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools."
Sure, there are lots of factors. Some charters actually do worse than public schools, and in some states they overall do better while in other states they don't, unsurprisingly indicating that there are good ways to run a school and bad ways. Nationally, poor and foreign students did better at charter schools. And being able to select students isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course, in principle the public system could do all the good things that a good private school does, but if it's exactly the same, why bother? Certainly that doesn't indicate that public schools should be the default or that they're obviously superior.
Since you've asked on several occasions. Yes I am on campus. Yes I would like to be a professor, either in math or philosophy (if departments are still around when I'm through with `em!)
But as you seem to think these discussions entirely academic, I note that the proposals I mentioned are not the idle, ivory tower dreams you seem to think they are. The efficiency and usefulness of universal health care and high speed rail are hardly mere theoretical predictions. They are also not rare opinions. So if we think them good proposals, we need to generate support for them. Hence why I'm curious as to whether or not you have any serious objections.
As to the `contradiction in terms' item, I'm glad you've studied this. Care to tell me the contradiction?
Yes I am on campus. Yes I would like to be a professor, either in math or philosophy (if departments are still around when I'm through with `em!)
No kidding. :)
But as you seem to think these discussions entirely academic, I note that the proposals I mentioned are not the idle, ivory tower dreams you seem to think they are.
No, I don't think "universal health care" is an idle, ivory tower dream. Our lovely president's already working on that. It was the comments about factories I thought were real funny.
Out of curiosity, what sort of industrial level machines have you worked with before? Actually, what's your machine-use experience at all? Industrial lasers? CNC machines? Sawblades? How about freaking Lego masterminds?
I'd just like to know if you're bringing any practical experience to this plan to let the poor and unemployed go to town on idle factories to make railways. I have no guess on this front - maybe you're paying your way through college while working at a lumber mill or a machine shop.
Hence why I'm curious as to whether or not you have any serious objections.
To what? Universal health care? I do, but you seem to think that imagined efficiency is the sole real factor here - a lot of this is going to come down to different values and judgments of cultural effect.
As to the `contradiction in terms' item, I'm glad you've studied this. Care to tell me the contradiction?
Studied this? Where'd I say that? I've read up on it a little, but I'm not some master of this. The idea that you can implement your ideas and still maintain a 'libertarian' vision requires some funky reworking of the word 'libertarian'.
So far I'm hearing that if a factory is idle, then unemployed workers should be allowed in there to use it. Have I got that right?
Our lovely president's already working on that. It was the comments about factories I thought were real funny.
Hardly. No single payer. No public option. Instead, he's going to have people pay into a system which at best will be only slightly more efficient with a few less abuses by insurance companies.
And why are the comments about the factories funny?
I do, but you seem to think that imagined efficiency is the sole real factor here - a lot of this is going to come down to different values and judgments of cultural effect.
I don't think that at all. It's also the worse outcomes. It's the inconsistency with many other values, for example the conception of healthcare as a commodity, and not a right, disturbs me. I'm not a far outlier from the general population on this, and I am especially not an outlier as regards dissatisfaction with the current system (and Obama's `reform', from the left and the right). I'm perfectly aware that a system that works great elsewhere might not work here. I've read the first few pages of Democracy in America, and I have a modicum of common sense. There are several extant systems worth looking at, and doubtless any we might adopt will need modification.
Out of curiosity, what sort of industrial level machines have you worked with before? Actually, what's your machine-use experience at all? Industrial lasers? CNC machines? Sawblades? How about freaking Lego masterminds?
Not too many. I've only worked with medium-sized shop tools, and that was back when I was about 12. You seem to be under the impression that I advocate rounding up some random unemployed people and chucking them inside a factory, telling them what we'll pay them for, and seeing what happens. Now, how do you think such a program might actually be implemented?
The idea that you can implement your ideas and still maintain a 'libertarian' vision requires some funky reworking of the word 'libertarian'.
Hardly. No single payer. No public option. Instead, he's going to have people pay into a system which at best will be only slightly more efficient with a few less abuses by insurance companies.
Right. He's betraying the left libertarian socialist view!
It's the inconsistency with many other values, for example the conception of healthcare as a commodity, and not a right, disturbs me.
Yeah, because it's clearly a right. After all, you feel very strongly about it.
I'm not a far outlier from the general population on this,
Of course not. "I should get this! It's my right!" is pretty damn popular nowadays with health care. And, you know. Lots of other things. Probably Playstation 3s in the right neighborhoods.
You seem to be under the impression that I advocate rounding up some random unemployed people and chucking them inside a factory, telling them what we'll pay them for, and seeing what happens. Now, how do you think such a program might actually be implemented?
"Poorly", "with individuals effectively in charge and ownership of the property anyway" and more comes to mind.
Again, I await your demonstration.
How about stopping and thinking for a few moments what sort of system you'd need - and you would need a system - to even attempt to achieve this, much less implement it, without the whole thing turning into a black comedy? Excusing the comedy that would come with the system itself.
What part of your plans is the "libertarian" part again?
Right. He's betraying the left libertarian socialist view!
And virtually the views of the entire population, hardly just my idiosyncratic view.
Yeah, because it's clearly a right. After all, you feel very strongly about it.
Rights are things we have when we make good our claim to them. If you think healthcare is a commodity, and should be unnecessarily scarce, by all means make your case.
Of course not. "I should get this! It's my right!" is pretty damn popular nowadays with health care. And, you know. Lots of other things. Probably Playstation 3s in the right neighborhoods.
Despite my frequently minority views, I rarely find plurality, much less consensus, on demands for things like a right to a playstation. The closest thing I would imagine wanting to reconceive as a right would be internet access - at the very least, it is a product of public investment - but that doesn't necessarily need to be socialized to be secured.
"Poorly", "with individuals effectively in charge and ownership of the property anyway" and more comes to mind.
My original question remains open. We can look at details and do a compare and contrast. There's no other way to seriously say `this is better than that' about complex, real-life situations not involving propositions like `murder for fun' or `sex-slavery'.
How about stopping and thinking for a few moments what sort of system you'd need - and you would need a system - to even attempt to achieve this, much less implement it, without the whole thing turning into a black comedy? Excusing the comedy that would come with the system itself.
What part of your plans is the "libertarian" part again?
The part where I am attempting to systematically reduce coercion while securing basic rights in a realistic way, which is hard to do, as I've noted, in an intrinsically coercive system. That's how I've formulated many of the options you sneer at: as better up to such things than the current option or other proposals with which I am familiar. "Keep what we have" is itself a proposal, and it is deeply and unnecessarily coercive.
I do not see the contradiction in terms. Libertarianism has traditionally been socialist or quasi-socialist. Tell me what you find obvious that I do not.
Now, I do not know what to expect from my `ideal' society, because my `ideal' society is not going to form anytime soon. Hence I do not know what to expect the outcome to be. That's because I cannot in advance tell the population the precise system it must or should tolerate, because that's sort of what democracy entails, and I do not anticipate all of the major issues and technologies of the future. I do not think that federated direct democracy, perhaps with a federal constitution and independent judiciary, need self-destruct into tyranny as I believe - even know - that right libertarianism systems would if ever they could be implemented or approximated. But radical democracy does depend on a very active polity.
I think this is possible, and I think there are plenty of precedents. But what that active polity will be like, I cannot be entirely sure. But I would like to give it the opportunity to control its own affairs.
But what is it that you perceive in others that allows you to tell if they are feeling "entitled?" And if you are generalizing from people who receive assistance, would you say you know enough such people to form accurate generalizations on what the effect of their receiving aid is. As I said, most people receiving welfare are not just children, but young children under 12. Do you know enough of these children to determine that, in general, assistance makes people feel entitled? Generalizing from personal experience seems a very shaky basis for the widespread program changes you suggest.
And I asked about this moral duty you feel to prevent feelings of entitlement precisely because it is not commonly listed among the moral duties. Much less that it is such a severe moral duty that we should eliminate government programs that help people in pursuit of it. And why is "entitlement" the only negative emotion that demands that sort of action? What about jealousy? If we're using government policy to prevent negative emotions, shouldn't we eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich because they make the middle-class feel jealous?
I think you feel they should suffer because obviously government sponsored programs reach more people than local charities, and you advocate eliminating government programs in favor of local charities.
Let me offer a hypothetical choice, to try to gauge where your moral priorities are:
A) A universal healthcare system is established, and because of access to healthcare, 100 lives are saved, but hundreds of millions of people begin to feel entitled to healthcare.
B) Universal healthcare is not established, all 100 lives that would have been saved are lost, but no one feels entitled to healthcare.
Which scenario do we have more of a responsibility to bring about?
I do not think that all our morality needs to be spelled out in the Bible. But I think you need some basis for thinking we have this specific moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled, and that this moral duty is so pressing we should pursue it even if it means increasing the suffering of young children. It is precisely because this moral duty you outline seems so anti-Christian that I ask you for some Biblical support.
No, I do not think that "feeling entitled" is okay, I simply don't think that I have a moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled. And even if I were to have such a moral duty, it would not be anywhere near as high on the hierarchy of duties as the prevention of suffering in children. So I don't think I could ever justify the decision to deprive a great number of mostly young children from financial and medical assistance in order to prevent them from feeling entitled to this assistance.
Jesse Parrish said... As I have run it by faculty before to some interests, I think that many individual courses could be eliminated. This might only especially apply to my area of study (mathematics), but I think that separating courses from each other leads to a lot of lost insights. I think that (slightly more advanced than introductory) set theory/mathematical logic, algebra, topology, combinatorics, probability theory, real analysis, and math history would all benefit from combination.
I can see the benefits to the mathematics students. However, in most of the lower-level courses, and a few of the upper level, mathematics students are not even the primary course attendees. Does it benefit the electrical engineers to sit through material on number theory? Does the clinical psychologist benefit from topology? Major changes to the course structure would need to be coordinated through many departments, most of whom will not want their student to take more courses than is necessary.
Anonymouse: "If you define freedom as the absence of government, might I suggest you relocate to friendly Somalia?"
Ah! Anonymouse is a fool, perhaps one who doesn't allow fools to dictate (and waste) my time.
Anonymouse: "By the way, you do know that God, in the Bible, demanded that private property be handed over to pay for the poor and orphans, on penalty of death, right?
So, it couldn't be more obvious: God is a liberal."
... and, apparently, he's a fool who imagines he can lie about God.
"A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools."
"Liberals" never really stop ... hmmm ... selectively presenting "the facts", do they? "Liberal" mythology does not equal truth; and, frequently (as in this case), truth will be in the opposite direction of "liberal" mythology.
"It's great for the school. How about for the chidren not selected?"
Translation: If everyone can't get a "perfect" education (whatever that means), then it is "unjust" that one may get a better one.
====== On the bright side, "liberals" have so chipped away at the underpinnings of all western societies that, within our lifetimes, these interminable "arguments" will come to an end. For, as a wise guy might have said recently, “When you’re trying just to survive, silly (and socially destructive) ideas like ‘social justice’ (i.e. life sinecures for “public servants”) don’t much seem to matter.”
I disagree with his analysis that capitalism requires pricing commodities higher than their worth. What it DOES depend on, however, is creating demand for goods that are not really necessary. That is at the root of many of our problems in the 21st Century, from global climate change, to overpopulation, to environmental destruction, to the sterile "mall culture" so prevalent among the youth of today's USA or Japan (and elsewhere), to our current economic recession.
I'll freely admit I am not worrying about textbook definitions here. For the sake of clarity, in whatever further posting I may make to this thread, I define capitalism as "the system we are currently living under in America".
Just as I normally define communism as "the system we observed in East Germany" (I choose East Germany, since it was the most advanced of the communist states), and socialism as "the system today operative within the European Union (EU)".
IlÃon said... Translation: If everyone can't get a "perfect" education (whatever that means), then it is "unjust" that one may get a better one.
I don't recall saying anything about justice. I'm just pointing out that when you allow the private/charter schools ot take the best, least expensive students, it will still fall upon the open-enrollment public schools to take the students that require the most c0ost for the least return, unloess you are planning on denying them the opportunity for schooling at all.
But what is it that you perceive in others that allows you to tell if they are feeling "entitled?"
The utter lack of appreciation for what they receive, the absence of a sense of debt to anyone, the reduction or absence of a desire - even if possible - to get beyond and therefore give up the assistance, and more.
you know enough such people to form accurate generalizations on what the effect of their receiving aid is.
Absolutely. Some of these people are good friends and family. People I care about and know well.
Generalizing from personal experience seems a very shaky basis for the widespread program changes you suggest.
What "widespread program changes", pal? I haven't suggested any - I've spoken extremely broadly, and suggested attitudes and ideas more than "program changes". Fighting some phantoms, I see.
No, I'm reasoning just fine. You, meanwhile, seem to be outraged at the very thought that some people may feel 'entitled' and that this may be a bad thing that we should pay attention to, even work against.
And I asked about this moral duty you feel to prevent feelings of entitlement precisely because it is not commonly listed among the moral duties.
I really don't care about what is "commonly listed" or not. Oh golly, am I deviating from the norm? No, it can't be! Nooooooo!
Much less that it is such a severe moral duty that we should eliminate government programs that help people in pursuit of it. And why is "entitlement" the only negative emotion that demands that sort of action? What about jealousy? If we're using government policy to prevent negative emotions, shouldn't we eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich because they make the middle-class feel jealous?
Again, 'eliminate government programs'? I haven't outlined any specific policy ideas here, much less called for the utter elimination of welfare, etc. Goddamn people with reading comprehension problems in this thread, fighting arguments they've had with other people and are projecting onto me.
Frankly, I think the very idea of trying to find government solutions to these problems is part of the sickness itself. Hence my emphasis on personal action, and making the focus as local as possible. But that's a tough concept for you, apparently, so you know - keep shadow boxing.
Further, 'entitlement' isn't a mere emotion like happy or sad - it's an attitude, it involves beliefs and approaches. So, swing and a miss there on your part. But okay, let's play your Cute Logic 101 game: Apparently the SCOTUS ruled the wrong way in Brown v Board of Education, because the argument fundamentally turned on the personal feelings of the students.
So, since we're at the Stupid Human Tricks point in this conversation already, I'm just going to take on the full comedy option here and denounce your racism.
I think you feel they should suffer because obviously government sponsored programs reach more people than local charities, and you advocate eliminating government programs in favor of local charities.
More lack of reading comprehension. Where did I say I "advocate eliminating government programs" in this way? Ask Bob Prokop (who probably detests my politics), Ilion, and most others here: I have in the past entirely supported some amount of welfare for people, even some medical care, though I disagree with all of them about the amounts. I think it should be limited. I even said, quote: Second, if government assistance really is a necessity, try to make it as local as possible. There's a reason for that: Because I don't utterly discount the idea of some government assistance in principle or practice.
Let me guess why you're coming at me as an anon: Your foot ends up in your mouth pretty often when you're not in friendly company, so better to screw up as an anon rather than connected to your typical nick, eh? ;)
Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitlement is real, and that feeling entitled is immoral. I just don't think it ranks on the list of ills that merit changes in public policy. I don't think it's a significant reason to make government programs more local, or to make any changes in policy at all. Whether you want to call it an emotion or a disposition, I don't see how the presence or absence of feelings of entitlement in others should be of any concern to the government whatsoever. If any particular national program, because of its superior reach and resources, helps more people than would be helped if the program went local, I think we have a very clear moral responsibility to keep the program national. Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.
Is it your contention that nowhere in the Bible does God demand that private money and property be transferred to the poor, and promise suffering and death if this demand is disobeyed?
Anonymouse: "... Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them."
Jesus didn't command anyone to lobby Caesar and the Senate to send the Legions around to "collect", under threat of violent death (no scare-quotes needed on that part), "donations" for "the poor" to be "distributed" by "caring professionals" (who must, of course, be compensated for their time and effort; and handsomely so, lest they, too, be "poor") ... which is, after all, what this Anonymouse is really advocating.
Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitlement is real, and that feeling entitled is immoral. I just don't think it ranks on the list of ills that merit changes in public policy.
"Feeling entitled is immoral" according to you? Huh.
And you don't think the secondary affects to behavior, attitude and thought matter when considering policies? Sure, man. Even if you don't, hooray for disagreements.
Whether you want to call it an emotion or a disposition, I don't see how the presence or absence of feelings of entitlement in others should be of any concern to the government whatsoever.
Concern of the government? How about concern of the people, regardless of the damn government?
Either way - of course you don't. Because you're apparently pretty damn naive and have trouble thinking things through. What you're basically saying here is that 'affects on attitude and behavior is not a concern which should factor into policy considerations'. Okay, you run with that.
Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.
And the Lord said, "Give them food and clothing. Then, you know. Fuck the lot of 'em. Your duty's done. Concern about their behavior, about their attitudes, about their thought? Please. Just vote Obama in 2012. See you on Democratic Underground."
Somewhere in Corinthians I'm sure.
Yeah, your understanding of morality, particularly Christian morality, doesn't impress me. Reading comprehension issues. Shocking, it's as if we're discovering a pattern here.
I can't say that I "detest" your politics, since I haven't been able to figure out what they are.
I, however, make no pretense about my being anything other than a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, snail darter saving, illegal immigrant coddling, feminist, multicultural, brie and Chablis swilling, tax and spend, proud blue state liberal!
One Brow: "It's great for the school. How about for the children not selected?"
Depends. If kids who are poor or can't speak English are getting kicked out, that wouldn't be good... but those groups actually benefit. What if the children not being selected are the jerks and bullies who would only drag down the other students? If the school does better because its students are doing better, that's good for those students. Obviously the reality is more complex than that, but whatever the details, the solution is unlikely to be a big centralized bureaucracy.
Anonymous said... Depends. If kids who are poor or can't speak English are getting kicked out, that wouldn't be good... but those groups actually benefit.
Only if the school is willing to invest the extra money required to teach poor/ESL kids. Even when they are not profit-motivated, private schools have to balance the books. There will be more poor/ESL kids rejected for that reason alone.
What if the children not being selected are the jerks and bullies who would only drag down the other students?
Are there any current private schools that perform this sort of exclusion? Schools can predict this behavior before admission? Bullies and jerks don't seserve a chance to educate themselves to be better people? I just don't see this point as being relevant; the possibility seems too remote.
If the school does better because its students are doing better, that's good for those students.
Yet, it's liberals who get accused of being elitest.
Obviously the reality is more complex than that, but whatever the details, the solution is unlikely to be a big centralized bureaucracy.
Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely".
For me, the real solution is in elevating the importance of a strong education for every child.
On education, discrepancies in performance are very often due to discrepancy in parental emphasis on education. Usually, there is no magic `religious schools are better' or `private schools are better' formula. I think it more important to emphasize parental participation in education.
Education should be a community activity, not merely a state activity. How exactly this is to be accomplished will obviously vary at the local level, hence the importance of local control. One idea I've had is to organize - perhaps even pay or otherwise incentivize - extra-curricular sessions targeted at children and adults. They may be for advanced students and well-educated adults, or catch-up courses for more forgetful parents and struggling students.
If options are made available, this could lower student/faculty ratios in classes. Further, university students could participate. For another example, scholarships and grants could be given to undergraduates/graduates who participate in extra-curricular teaching.
We're getting nowhere. You're just repeating what I say in an insulting tone. It's possible I'm misunderstanding you. Let me ask you a straightforward question to see if I understand your position correctly.
Which state of affairs is preferable:
A) Every person in the United States has access to high quality healthcare, and every person in the United States develops a sense of entitlement towards that healthcare
or
B) Large numbers of people in the United States do not have access to adequate healthcare, but no one in the United states feels entitled to healthcare
If it is the case that we can't help very large numbers of people without them feeling entitled to that help, should we err on the side of helping more people or on the side of preventing people from feeling entitled?
And if you could answer without insulting me, that would be a nice change of pace.
It seems to me that your argument is just against taxation in general. As a liberal I have to pay for many programs I do not like. Do you think it's immoral for the government to take money from me to pay for NASA, or farming subsidies, or a bloated military industrial complex, or a corrupt penal industrial complex, etc?
I guess my question is, why would a Christian prefer his tax dollars go towards the military rather than, for example, universal healthcare?
Certainly, no particular way of governing is mandated in detail in the Bible, but it seems to me that support for universal healthcare is more Christian than support for a large military.
Nothing is wrong with NASA in the abstract, but I'd prefer that money went towards things like a universal healthcare program. And yes, yes, I know NASA doesn't cost much in the grand scheme of things. I'm not a Conservative; I'm not actually suggesting that in a democracy, I shouldn't have to pay for things that a majority of my fellow citizens approve of that I do not.
I'm simply making the point that the role of government is an ongoing negotiation. Inevtiably, in a diverse democracy, some of my tax dollars will go to programs I don't approve of. Portraying the situation in such ridiculously dramatic terms as Illion does just obscure the issue. If any of Illion's colorful descriptions were accurate, then the only morally tolerable state would be a state without any taxation at all, which is to say, no state at all.
You've already noted this, but funding for NASA is a pittance in comparison with healthcare costs. The key point, I think, is that healthcare would be less expensive in a universal system. The burden on businesses would also be much reduced, so other economic benefits should result.
On NASA funding, it functions - like much of military funding - as a subsidy for technology. I'm fine with subsidizing technological development (virtually all modern electronics arose out of subsidized program, the exceptions being research conduct at Bell Labs and other state-protected monopolies), if only we would separate it from military uses and the unending stream of noise about `security'.
Conservatives are right to note that taxation is inherently coercive. What they usually miss, I think, is that the alternative - for virtually all of the past and the foreseeable future - has effects which are far more coercive. And this is before we even begin to discuss what would be lost, or the effects of gross inequality. For being in a country dangerously close to being a banana republic, the obsession of conservatives with taxation is disconcerting.
Just one more socialist shill: "I'll freely admit I am not worrying about textbook definitions here. For the sake of clarity, in whatever further posting I may make to this thread, I define capitalism as "the system we are currently living under in America"."
Translation: I'm going to pretend that the socialism in which the US has been increasingly mired for the past century is "capitalism"; and then, pointing out that it's not working very well, I'm going to call for a doubling-down on socialism.
One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely"."
My point is that the solution doesn't lie in its bigness, its centralization, or its bureaucracy.
Anonymous said... One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely"."
My point is that the solution doesn't lie in its bigness, its centralization, or its bureaucracy.
I can agree with that. Bigness, centralizaiton, and bureaucracy can only help implement solutions, or parts of solutions, that are universal in nature. Regarding the parts of the solutions that are more varied, they will not help at all.
78 comments:
Can you believe in capitalism without making greed a virtue?
How?
Because in a capitalistic system, your business is yours to run - complete with whatever principles you wish to maintain. It's not like if you're a capitalist you have to devote yourself to screwing everyone over. You can make an argument that the system promotes that sort of behavior - but insofar as that sort of greed is concerned, capitalism has one hell of a rival in socialism.
I'd actually like to know how you can believe in socialism without making greed a virtue. I'm sickened by what I see happening to some of the people I know who receive considerable money from the government. There's no appreciation for it, no sense of society debt. Only entitlement.
Regardless, short answer to your very valid question: "Self-discipline". Same way you can eat at a buffet multiple times per week and not necessarily become a big fatass.
My own solution for the capitalist is somewhat different. I maintain that capitalism, if it works the way it is supposed to, puts limits on what even the greedy can do to screw people over. If your competitor treats people better and doesn't screw people over, then all the business will go to the competitor and your business will die a merciful death. Merciful not for you, but for the public. If you're greedy, you can only be so greedy because of competition. But if you aren't as greedy, it only means that it will be more natural for you to do what it was always in your best interest to do in the first place.
At least that is how it is supposed to work. But I don't think it will work automatically or unconditionally.
Under communism, you not only have people getting free lunches, you also get the people who pass out the free lunches taking double servings, because the "need" more.
There is also the question of how you deal with the well-intentioned victims of economic ill fortune. If we don't help them, they suffer undeservedly, but if we do help them, then some people will end up with that sense of entitlement.
There is also the question of how you deal with the well-intentioned victims of economic ill fortune. If we don't help them, they suffer undeservedly, but if we do help them, then some people will end up with that sense of entitlement.
And my response there: First, try to make the 'help' as private as possible. And I don't mean 'private charities', I mean down to individuals seeking to help their immediate and extended families, their neighbors, etc before even the private charities get in. Second, if government assistance really is a necessity, try to make it as local as possible. Down to the neighborhood level, the city level, so there's a more direct connection made between 'the people giving' and 'the people taking'.
I think what's key is making any assistance as voluntary and personal as possible.
That said, what I'm suggesting is a considerable cultural undertaking and imperfect. But it at least points in the direction I think we should be working and thinking, from my (Catholic) view.
As you say, it doesn't always work out automatically or unconditionally. But I don't believe in perfect systems anyway this side of life.
Looking around at every economic system currently on this planet, the sad truth is that NONE OF THEM work particularly well in the 21st Century. And it's no good harkening back to some previously effective system that may have been appropriate in the 19th or 20th Centuries, and saying we should emulate (or resurrect) them. Their day is done.
I don't believe we can clearly see today what system will emerge in the next few decades to cope with increasing population pressures, global climate change, shifting demographics, and new technologies. No matter what country you point to, be it China or Brazil or Germany or the USA, they all have their strong points as well as glaring weaknesses. My
suspicion is that whatever emerges will have some characteristics of each of those four countries I listed.
I would hope it manages to combine Germany's social contract, Brazil's optimism, China's discipline, and the USA's entrepreneurship.
But whatever it will be, it ain't gonna look like what we have today!
(And no, greed is NOT good. It's one of the seven deadly sins.)
I'm unsure as to whether or not any economic system, historical or present, would be considered purely capitalist, as I do not think any such system, even if realized, would be stable. If at some point the machinery of state does not interfere in the markets, then either labor or business will soon ensure that it does. If that machinery does not exist, it will be created. Restraint in matters of greed is rewarded by the market in matters of industry. Were large businesses allowed to self-destruct through internal corrosion due to individual businesses, there would be a cyclic value to these rewards. But in an economy dependent on such means to organization, allowing that market discipline would be a major catastrophe for almost everyone.
I do not think that capitalism and greed can be separated as values. If we conceive of capitalism as a market of ownership and we grant the principle of scarcity, I see no other conclusion. One may ameliorate the commitment to greed by advocating a mixed system, as most people do. But these have their obvious imperfections as well, and it is difficult to avoid unsafe concentrations of power.
I'd actually like to know how you can believe in socialism without making greed a virtue.
I believe in giving people control over their own lives. Socialism, in case you're confused, does not require a commitment to centralized control or even to `entitlements' - the valuing of which I do not think translates into greed, though they have their shortcomings.
I think people should have more control over their private lives, including their economic lives. Who controls you more? Your employer or your government? Why love either when they do so?
The difficult job is to provide a coherent, principled means to reform. I'm still working on the details, many of which are probably best left open for circumstantial judgment to be made. But there are institutional structures which are easy to recognize as things-to-be-worked-against, I think. For example, institutions which incentivize dishonesty and actions which no participant thinks good for the health of society, or even their own long term well-being.
Such structures occur and are expected to occur in government and in large, unaccountable powers like major corporations. Furthermore, they occur not as footnotes but as central operating procedures. I recall the only part of Grapes of Wrath I liked reading in High School: "The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it."
That could have very easily been written today. Similar things could easily be written about oil companies, tobacco companies, and you name what else.
I think fundamental structural changes will be necessary in the future, and I wonder which way it will go. In the meantime, I can second this value: "I think what's key is making any assistance as voluntary and personal as possible." The difficulty being, of course, that attempting to humanize and make voluntary decent acts in such a corrupt system is very difficult. But it should be pursued as much as may be.
*is not rewarded*
I believe in giving people control over their own lives. Socialism, in case you're confused, does not require a commitment to centralized control or even to `entitlements' - the valuing of which I do not think translates into greed, though they have their shortcomings.
In case I'm confused? Right. ;)
I don't think entitlements can be entirely disconnected from greed. Oh, a person can receive charity or consideration without greed being a factor. Just as a person can run a business without greed being a factor (unless any desire to earn a profit or build a business is 'greed' now). But systems have a way of encouraging certain behaviors, even attitudes. I'm more than willing to grant that a capitalist system can encourage some greed in that vein. What I don't buy is that a socialist system is somehow different.
Really, one problem with a very capitalist system is that, if a business gets big enough or its people connected enough, it can start pursuing socialist policies for yet more profit. Most people may not think of government bailouts of the wealthy as socialism, but it is what it is.
The difficulty being, of course, that attempting to humanize and make voluntary decent acts in such a corrupt system is very difficult. But it should be pursued as much as may be.
If you took me to mean 'the government should be encouraging people to be charitable and giving', no, that's not what I'm saying. Call it more fundamental than that, something that should happen on as close to the personal level as possible. I don't need government authority - local, state, or federal - to convince me to help out my neighbor, or to try and convince my neighbor to help out his neighbor. The habit - not necessarily displayed by anyone in this thread - of thinking of problems like these in terms of "What should the government do?" is a problem itself.
That Grapes of Wrath quote can have the word "government" swapped in for "bank" and it'd still be damn accurate.
In case I'm confused? Right. ;)
To be clear, I would think that the confusion would be understandable. Left libertarian socialism is hardly a headline grabber in the way that Bolshevism is.
Really, one problem with a very capitalist system is that, if a business gets big enough or its people connected enough, it can start pursuing socialist policies for yet more profit. Most people may not think of government bailouts of the wealthy as socialism, but it is what it is.
"Socialism for the rich, free markets for the poor", as a common slogan goes. To me, there's little distinction between `state socialism' and `state capitalism'. The line between `public power' and `private power' rather evaporates. Hence why the many recent bailouts - extending back several decades - are inconsistent with my own somewhat idiosyncratic brand of socialism.
If you took me to mean 'the government should be encouraging people to be charitable and giving', no, that's not what I'm saying.
That's not how I took it. As far as I can tell, I agree entirely with your succeeding sentiments. Allow human decency, and it will occur.
That Grapes of Wrath quote can have the word "government" swapped in for "bank" and it'd still be damn accurate.
You're quite correct.
I don't think entitlements can be entirely disconnected from greed.
Not entirely, surely. But I think there is a distinction between the quality and quantity of greed necessary for the practice of capitalism/state capitalism, and that required for the maintenance of minimal welfare programs. I see socialized medicine as means to securing basic human rights more than an entitlement, but that aside: is it really more greedy to secure basic welfare than it is to keep the system privatized? If so, for whom is it greedy? I see it as a genuinely altruistic project, as well as good economic sense when properly implemented.
is it really more greedy to secure basic welfare than it is to keep the system privatized? If so, for whom is it greedy? I see it as a genuinely altruistic project, as well as good economic sense when properly implemented.
"Pay taxes to support this or we'll put you in jail or shoot you." rather puts a damper on the whole "altruistic project" thing. If I say "you have too much money, give a tenth of it to these nice people or I'm throwing you in prison", I question describing the whole incident as altruistic.
As 'for whom is it greedy', how about the people for whom it makes 'good economic sense' if it's implemented? Or does an act become non-greedy so long as the person doing it feels that they're securing some kind of human right or feels strongly about it?
None of the systems offered are perfect. Attempting to expand government influence more and more in the name of altruism is a mistake, and continues to feed a culture that promotes a general sense of entitlement, a lack of appreciation or self-reliance, and an over-reliance on the 'government' quasi-deity.
"Pay taxes to support this or we'll put you in jail or shoot you." rather puts a damper on the whole "altruistic project" thing. If I say "you have too much money, give a tenth of it to these nice people or I'm throwing you in prison", I question describing the whole incident as altruistic.
Hence my earlier comment about the difficulty of enacting a measure without coercion in an inherently coercive system. Of course, the alternative is "Dear poors, be lucky enough to have lots of money or die young." And in a system in which making money is rent-slavery, that is also coercion.
As 'for whom is it greedy', how about the people for whom it makes 'good economic sense' if it's implemented? Or does an act become non-greedy so long as the person doing it feels that they're securing some kind of human right or feels strongly about it?
Altruism need not be profitless. Most businesses would benefit from lower healthcare costs (hence the recent opening in the debate after decades of popular concern.) We don't need to draw a sharp line between greed and altruism to see the distinction between this act and the alternative, I don't think.
None of the systems offered are perfect. Attempting to expand government influence more and more in the name of altruism is a mistake, and continues to feed a culture that promotes a general sense of entitlement, a lack of appreciation or self-reliance, and an over-reliance on the 'government' quasi-deity.
I'm not interested in expanding government interest, as I am not interested in universal healthcare while leaving the rest of government power intact. There are easy ways to diminish violent state coercion without watching elderly people die needlessly. For some examples popular on the left and right, we could do wholly without the drug war and most of our military funding.
As for the sense of entitlement, people here work far more than is necessary, as labor is distributed so inefficiently. One can increase welfare benefits to the point that the unemployed refuse to work, but it is very rare (there was such an instance a couple of decades ago in Germany, if I recall correctly), and we are far from that threshold.
People like working. People usually like being useful to others. The solution is not welfare; that's a band-aid. Rather, the solution is to give people the opportunity to do meaningful work and have control over their economic lives.
Hence my earlier comment about the difficulty of enacting a measure without coercion in an inherently coercive system. Of course, the alternative is "Dear poors, be lucky enough to have lots of money or die young." And in a system in which making money is rent-slavery, that is also coercion.
Because what, that's even close to the situation in the US? "Have lots of money or die young"? What's our average lifespan here again? Must be wall to wall wealthy folks if it's over 60.
Altruism need not be profitless.
What sort of definition of 'altruistic' are you working with when you're reaping monetary profit from it? Kind of stretching that 'altruism' word a bit far.
I may as well say capitalism is just wall to wall altruism. Why, there's people benefiting in that system after all!
There are easy ways to diminish violent state coercion without watching elderly people die needlessly. For some examples popular on the left and right, we could do wholly without the drug war and most of our military funding.
Elderly people die needlessly? Have we uncovered some cure for old age?
I'm all in favor of pulling out of military commitments, and I'd like to see the fed out of quite a lot of the drug stuff. But no, 'universal health care' I have no interest in. That's not really 'diminishing violent state coercion' anyway, it's just trading one type for another.
As for the sense of entitlement, people here work far more than is necessary, as labor is distributed so inefficiently.
"Than is necessary"? According to who? Labor is distributed inefficiently? How can we tell, and even if we could tell, so what?
Rather, the solution is to give people the opportunity to do meaningful work and have control over their economic lives.
Maybe the solution is to let them make and attain those opportunities for themselves. Maybe the best we can aim for is a system where there will still be some inefficiencies, even some tragedies, but opportunities and freedom to go with it.
What sort of definition of 'altruistic' are you working with when you're reaping monetary profit from it? Kind of stretching that 'altruism' word a bit far.
I doubt I'll be reaping a net profit from a universal system, as my prospects of a good career are decent enough. But suppose otherwise. There remains a difference between self-interest, altruism, and self-sacrifice. Altruism is a happy mixture of the others. Socialized medicine is obviously not purely a self-sacrificial process. I don't think we would want such a process.
Because what, that's even close to the situation in the US? "Have lots of money or die young"? What's our average lifespan here again? Must be wall to wall wealthy folks if it's over 60.
Depending on the illness, that is the situation. On average, there is perhaps 5 years difference or so between the most affluent and the least. Usually, it's more about quality of health, which for a wage-laborer translates into general welfare. And that's because we do pay for rescue operations. (More of which are needed when health insurance is unaffordable, delaying treatment.)
That's not really 'diminishing violent state coercion' anyway, it's just trading one type for another.
Yeah, there's a payment/payoff process. But the difference is between demanding a slightly larger fraction of income on those who can afford it, and demanding the entire wages of those who cannot - where the demand is at all possible. So I think it more than a mere trading of types. And again, the socialized alternative is far more efficient, and there would be economic benefits.
"Than is necessary"? According to who? Labor is distributed inefficiently? How can we tell, and even if we could tell, so what?
To use a dated but illustrative example: compare wartime production and the percentage of output directed to wartime use as opposed to domestic use in the US or Britain during either world war. The results are very interesting. As another obvious example: ask what happens to unemployed labor, contrasting what you find with the fact that working time is increasing. There are more: look at `artificial industries' which do not actually produce or distribute goods, but serve only as internal bets (like much of the trading that lead to the recent crisis), or at research-oriented businesses in which genuinely novel research is greatly disincentivized (pharmaceuticals, many others). Look at the administrative costs of private health insurance, which far outstrip socialized systems. Look at what happens to closed down factories, which are completely capable of being converted by needing labor to satisfying outstanding needs (such as producing high-speed rail). Look at the highway-based transportation system. Look virtually anywhere you like, and you will find major examples.
Maybe the solution is to let them make and attain those opportunities for themselves. Maybe the best we can aim for is a system where there will still be some inefficiencies, even some tragedies, but opportunities and freedom to go with it.
That's precisely the sort of system I advocate. It's called left libertarian socialism.
As for the specific subject of Greed, might I offer the following:
"Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have." (Hebrews 13:5)
Victor said: "capitalism, if it works the way it is supposed to"
Just how is it supposed to work. Do you expect it be fair? just? equitable? Economnic systems do not have these attributes. The "supposed to " part of the ecomonic system needs to come from another source. The system itself has no moral compass. It has not intentionality. An economic system "works" if goods are produced and distributed. We should not expect clean choices between captitalisma and socialism to produce a "supposed to be" society.
I believe in protecting people from the Leviathan monsters who are most likely to harm us. In Dickens' day, the Leviathan monsters were capitalists, and that era, unsurprisingly, produced Karl Marx. In Soviet Russia the Leviathan monster was, of course the Party, which controlled the government. That means that we have to constantly be making judgment calls about whether to privatize this, or socialize that. No one thinks of privatizing the US Military, except the CEO of Blackwater. Ditto for the fire and police departments. K-12 education is probably best left as a government service. The auto industry should be private.
If Rodney Stark got his history correct in The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, and the origins of capitalism were rooted in the inventions of monks, then I think that pretty much answer the question....no greed inevitably.
But suppose otherwise. There remains a difference between self-interest, altruism, and self-sacrifice. Altruism is a happy mixture of the others.
Altruism is a mix of self-sacrifice and self-interest? Again: This is a pretty interesting take on 'altruism'. I guess capitalism is filled to the brim with altruism after all.
My skepticism goes double for describing the guy holding the gun in the 'Hey you, give your money to that other guy' act as altruistic.
Depending on the illness, that is the situation. On average, there is perhaps 5 years difference or so between the most affluent and the least.
Let's say I grant that - I won't ask for a cite. It's a 5 year difference in record high totals, with the whole 'have lots of money or die young' thing being narrowed down to 'depending on the illness'. Yes, I know there are nations which outperform us to the tune of a few years. I think it still goes to show that for whatever complaints are made of the US system, we're not nearly in some kind of horrid crisis situation on this front.
But the difference is between demanding a slightly larger fraction of income on those who can afford it, and demanding the entire wages of those who cannot - where the demand is at all possible. So I think it more than a mere trading of types. And again, the socialized alternative is far more efficient, and there would be economic benefits.
Touted efficiency and 'economic benefits' in exchange for ramping up a social and political plague, to fix a system that - for all people scream about it - actually isn't all that worse than the supposed ideal systems, granting the popular metrics. Not persuasive to me.
To use a dated but illustrative example: compare wartime production and the percentage of output directed to wartime use as opposed to domestic use in the US or Britain during either world war.
Should we compare the freedom and heavy-handed intrusiveness of government during those eras as well?
Look virtually anywhere you like, and you will find major examples.
I see examples of inefficiency. Examples which cry out for a socialist revamping of the system? Not really.
That's precisely the sort of system I advocate. It's called left libertarian socialism.
Ignoring that that's a contradiction in terms...
Wake me up when the "left libertarian socialists" advocate as part of their plan the elimination of the university system in favor of internet-based autodidact-favoring education methods, as well as the elimination of mandatory schooling.
Victor: "K-12 education is probably best left as a government service."
Really? There are obvious arguments for keeping armies or utilities public — they can't be split up and spread around the way you can have a bunch of competing capitalist bakeries. But schools easily work more like bakeries, and the private ones seem to do a lot better than the public ones.
Anonymous said...
But schools easily work more like bakeries, and the private ones seem to do a lot better than the public ones.
A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools.
All societies, even the most remote Bushmen and even the Soviets from Lenin on, are capitalistic. Some are more efficient at it (us); some are less (the Soviets and especially the Bushmen). Some base their production of wealth upon the consumption of one thing (us: oil), others on other things (the Bushmen: their own muscle power); (the Soviets: human lives).
The fact is -- and this really burns "liberals" and may explain why they, following the tuggings of their leftist puppet-masters, want to burn down the whole world so as to extirpate capitalism -- western-style capitalism, and to be more precise, free-market capitalism *encourages* the public virtues. It is trade, and the more open and more free the better, which turns potential enemies (i.e. sources of booty) into potential customers (i.e. sources of more and easier-got wealth than booty ever could deliver, and potentially inexhaustable, to boot) and even into friends.
Crude: "I may as well say capitalism is just wall to wall altruism. Why, there's people benefiting in that system after all!"
You might as well -- and you'd be far nearer the truth of the matter than Mr Socialism-Apologetic can ever get.
In a free-market -- you know, that little thing that the socialists and the protectionists and the rent-seekers hate -- it is not the "greedy" (whatever in the Hell that word means in the mouths of "liberals" and socialists) man who gains vast wealth, but the man who best serves and pleases his fellow man.
Bill Gates (or, for that matter, any of the old "Robber Barons") in his "greed" has done more good for humanity than all the goo-gooers since time began. Goo-gooers aren't about the business of doing good -- if they were, they'd not always have their nose in someone else's business -- they are about the business of being seen as doing good.
Crude: "Ignoring that ['left libertarian socialism' is] a contradiction in terms..."
Perhaps not so much. There must be *some* reason why most of the libertarians so frequently side with the "liberals" and other socialists when it matters.
Consider, for starters, Vox Day and his constant drum-beating for protectionism -- corporate/socialistic welfare for certain organized interests at the expense of the unorganized mass of the rest of us -- along with his intentional and false conflating of "classical economics" (i.e. Smith, Ricardo, el at) with the Keynesian falacy.
"... But schools easily work more like bakeries, and the private ones seem to do a lot better than the public ones."
Which is why bakeries -- and supermarkets -- must be brought under the control of The State.
VR: "I believe in protecting people from the Leviathan monsters who are most likely to harm us. In Dickens' day, the Leviathan monsters were capitalists, and that era, unsurprisingly, produced Karl Marx. ..."
I know you're not stupid. Your claim is not only false, it's bullshit-false. And yet, you make it -- and the likelihood of you correcting it is next to nill.
It was not capitalists who were the "Leviathan monsters" in Dickens' day, it was anti-capitalists (good "Christian" folk, all), it was monopolists (you know, the *real* sort, the ones with government guns backing up their "business plan"), it was, as it always has been and always will be, governments causing the misery of the many so as to enrich the few-and-connected.
It was, in fact, capitalists who, for a few generations, chained those "Leviathan monsters".
"I'm sickened by what I see happening to some of the people I know who receive considerable money from the government. There's no appreciation for it, no sense of society debt. Only entitlement."
Yes. It's called conservative, right-wing politics. And the 'considerable' money provided by the government is called 'tax relief' or 'tax concessions' to the rich, through the unequal burden paid by the middle and the worker classes in the community to counter the enormous hog troughs of reduced or nil company and corporations tax levels. Yes. Greed is indeed the quintessential characteristic of unbridled, rampant and uncontrolled capitalism. Such a circumstance is synonymous with the arch right-wing conservative evangelical and fundamentalist ideology of christendom. Indeed the notion of the 'prosperity gospel' promulgated by many fundamentalist christians is anathema to basic teachings as I understand it, and I'm an atheist, remember] of the original message of christian theology and over time has been grossly warped and compromised.
There is no such thing as a 'free market'. Free markets by their very nature lead to maximum entropy whereby monopoly and monopolistic behaviour is the natural end product, a totally uninspired and unintended consequence of free market capitalism. Monopoly and organizational collusion are both unfriendly and undemocratic consequences of unchecked capitalism. Markets are a product of social and cultural development, and like every other aspect of human endeavour must be subject to the rule of law. If there is rampant greed through capitalism, then the laws do not reflect the appropriate level of social governance. There should be no occasion for the Gordon Geckos of the world to prosper. They are not princes of industry. They are cancers.
There are too many organizations in the US that are too big to control and too big to fail. This is an intolerable consequence and an indictment of unregulated greed. These are the very signals that should be a klaxon warning to the community, that there is a cancer in the very fabric of society that has to be resolved. The current banking system, the very foundation of capitalism, is one such economic activity of humans that is diseased through and through, and nothing less than a root and branch investigation [and open-ended grand jury] will be able to exorcise the Gordon Geckos, at both the individual and corporate level.
Paplinton,
That was your best post ever! If Victor's website had a "Like" button, I'd press it.
Bob
"That was your best post ever! If Victor's website had a "Like" button, I'd press it."
Equity, fairness and justice are the key drivers, as you and I no doubt agree. Moderation of all that we do, to minimize harm and encourage individual and social well being. The only way to go.
I have some questions for Crude:
1) How exactly do you judge the presence or absence of entitlement in others?
2) What makes you think you have a moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled?
3) What exactly makes this feeling of entitlement so dangerous that it is worth allowing poor people (most of whom, statistically, are young children) to suffer?
4) If you are a Christian, what is your Biblical justification for putting this supposed moral duty to prevent feelings of entitlement in others (which is curiously not mentioned in the Bible) above the clear Biblical injunctions to take care of the poor?
Sorry, question 3 should have read "what makes this feeling of entitlement so dangerous that the poor should be allowed to suffer in order to avoid it?"
I "feel" myself entitled to all the fruit of this Anonymouse's labors, past, present and future. I "feel" myself entitled to vote for the politicians who will promise to use government agents to track down and identify this Anonymouse, and to use government violence and compulsion, unto violent death, to compell this Anonymouse to surrender all his labor to The State ... so that it may be "redistributed" to me.
It seems that many are still incapable of seeing any distinction between `altruism' and `greed'. I'll let those help themselves.
Crude,
I think it still goes to show that for whatever complaints are made of the US system, we're not nearly in some kind of horrid crisis situation on this front.
Right; we're only paying double the price for worse outcomes while running hefty deficit, only one of those worse outcomes being a lower life expectancy. (Would you like to find others?) That's more `cute bunny rabbit' than `crisis', right?
I see examples of inefficiency. Examples which cry out for a socialist revamping of the system? Not really.
I've listed several proposals already, including allowing local control of unused factories by local laborers to produce more efficient means of transport (rail) and universal healthcare. Why, exactly, are these things not worth doing?
Ignoring that that's a contradiction in terms...
Hence my earlier warnings about confusion... Well I tried. Anybody else here care to talk to Crude about the political etymology of `libertarian', or how it is used outside of the US?
Wake me up when the "left libertarian socialists" advocate as part of their plan the elimination of the university system in favor of internet-based autodidact-favoring education methods, as well as the elimination of mandatory schooling.
I'm willing to consider spelling out alternatives to the current system and performing a moral calculation when you're willing to listen.
Also, a bow to Papalinton.
As long as "Crude" has brought up the subject of universities...
Our current university system is as sick as our economic one, and getting sicker. The big name U's all rely on big-name donors to beef up their athletic (read: football) programs to rake in more television revenue. Learning takes a distinct back seat at formerly reputable institutions such as Boston College or the University of Maryland to fund raising and high-priced linebackers.
But far, far worse is the very disturbing trend toward "For Profit" Universities, such as the University of Phoenix, where education is sacrificed at the altar of False Practicality. I wouldn't mind half so much, if these institutions actually delivered on their promise of making students competitive, but the results don't match their claims - not by a long shot. And what's lost is even the slightest nod toward well-roundedness.
My answer? Eliminate ALL competitive athletics at state run universities, and renew the emphasis on liberal arts in the private ones. I know - dream on! But, even knowing it will never happen, it remains what should be done.
But, to return to the original theme of this thread, in the end it all comes down to GREED.
On the subject of universities, there are several directions. As to internet versions, I have my doubts. I'm all for encouraging more auto-didactic methods, but I think that at advanced levels, self-instruction is already a major part of education - at least in my areas of interest.
That said, I feel that the system does need reform, and I'm not in minority here. I lack the expertise for overly detailed proposals, and doubtless there are innovators in education ahead of me in these matters, but I have some rough ideas:
1. Standardized course-numbers and equivalency, at least in `non-specialized' classes.
Obviously, a 200/2000-level course at one school might not transfer to another. I very often hear fellow students complain that their courses failed to transfer, leaving them to retake material which does not interest them and wasting time and money. For lower-level courses and most upper level courses, I do not see why a standardization would be a problem. In higher level and specialized classes, on the other hand, variation and significant time devoted to the particular interests of the instruction can be quite valuable.
There could be several levels corresponding to the `same' course as institutions require.
2. More transparency in published research and content.
I think we can do more or less without closed-access journals. More obviously, I cannot conceive of a need to make students pay for textbook content, especially for things like calculus. Faculty and advanced students can update textbooks as necessary (as good ones already do.)
3. Use of internet and technology.
Though I have serious doubts about substituting the concrete institution for the webcam, I would not mind allowing students to stay off campus most or possibly even all of the time. However, I would not mind a policy of `two-way camera' for those who choose to attend lectures via the web, for purposes of checking attendance and enabling at-home taking of quizzes and tests.
4. Greater participation.
As it is, grad students are the dedicated workhorses of faculty, but many advanced undergraduates could also serve as great servants.
5. Starting earlier.
Introductory material in philosophy and abstract algebra is (in my experience) rarely encountered as standard material in our high schools. That could easily happen. But perhaps more importantly, the history of topics like these (and the sciences) should be standard material.
6. Cost efficiency and scholarly emphasis.
I second Prokop: end sports.
7. Deinstitutionalization.
By this, I mean that one should not be obligated to attend `a university' or to transfer `between universities' to conduct studies. Especially at higher levels, collaboration and discussion with faculty at a variety of institutions is vital.
8. Undermine credentialism.
I propose that `degrees' are frequently unnecessary. For employers, the record in relevant courses is the only important feature. The concept of `degree' does have some use, such as in helping to recognize those with a `well-rounded' education. But I think this, like the institution attended, is over-played, at least with course quality as it is.
9. Collaborative teaching.
Again, I would want feedback from faculty here, but I think that in some cases, faculty do not need to be `assigned' to particular courses. Rather, qualified faculty/students could arrange schedules for teaching and essential material. I'm not sure if this is done anywhere, but I have not heard of it.
I have several other ideas, but I'll keep them to myself for the moment.
10. Except this one.
As I have run it by faculty before to some interests, I think that many individual courses could be eliminated. This might only especially apply to my area of study (mathematics), but I think that separating courses from each other leads to a lot of lost insights. I think that (slightly more advanced than introductory) set theory/mathematical logic, algebra, topology, combinatorics, probability theory, real analysis, and math history would all benefit from combination. (The strays here are advanced courses in differential equations, partial differential equations, and numerical analysis, but doubtless at least the beginning ideas could be introduced with the other material.) A lot of the graduate-level material I have found could easily have been part of my undergraduate courses had it been introduced in an integrative course.
I would be interested in a unified, multi-volume, open access/freely editable text for undergraduate-level mathematics. I think one could easily be built from open access material that already exists. When I am competent enough, I would be interested in collaborating with others on the project.
Whether this works for faster-moving fields, I do not know. But in combination with the idea of a collaborative faculty and participatory student body, it all feels very attractive.
Wow. My head is spinning after reading Number 10. Don't you think that such a structure makes it easy for stuff to "fall off the table", without at least some sort of rigidity to the curriculum? Or am I missing something?
But whatever, I think it's clear that maybe we should be open to radical new forms of higher education. Sure, there is potential for embarrassing disasters, like the New Math fiasco of a couple of decades back, but the status quo sure isn't working!
Prokop,
I'm not sure about your background in mathematics, but my experience and that of the faculty I have consulted have been in uniform agreement that the segmenting of modern mathematics is largely arbitrary and causes more losses than gains.
Further, a series of integrative courses would be less time-consuming. From the beginning, one would not have to waste a class per course doing things like introducing notation and common terminology. The `integrative aspect' of mathematics is already present, but my impression is that it is largely confined to graduate schools and even there it is incomplete. (One algebraist told me that most working mathematicians have little to no understanding of math history, philosophy, or logic, apart from number theorists. Now that I mentioned it, number theory and geometry could easily fit in an integrative course.)
Secondly, things like the lengths of proofs of many results are far shorter in `one subject' than `another'. This is especially true where combinatorics can be employed.
Thirdly, the full conception of universally-used theorems is often unavailable in segmented courses. For an example given to me by my combinatorics instructor, the full statements of the multiplication rule and the pigeonhole principle are given only infrequently. With the full force of these principles, one can very quickly prove Ramsey's theorem.
Things like this constantly happen. The deep links between algebra (basically, study of functions and relations on sets) and combinatorics (e.g. you can represent symmetric relations using simple graphs) fall apart in separated courses. I cannot even begin to talk about the losses to probability theory due to a lack of historical understanding and combinatorial proficiency.
Even more severely, exercises which are accessible and lead to interesting insights - and these are essential to learning math - go almost completely out the window whenever one is confined to exercises solvable using only the previous section(s) of an already amputated text. Integrative exercises, especially those related to historically important results, are very powerful. But this is not a tool available for most undergraduate students, since you cannot assume that your probability students are competent in algebra or analysis or combinatorics or even capable of using the Axiom of Choice/Zorn's Lemma.
(I should add, for the benefit of non-math majors needing math courses, that equivalent courses for other majors are usually already offered. It also would not be difficult to offer `segment' versions separately.)
(As for `new math', I'm not talking about a dramatic shift in low-level mathematics. Integrative mathematics can't really happen without content that is normally introduced at the sophomore/junior level.)
No, I'm not advocating forcing integrative mathematics at the high school level or below. Further, I think it pointless to introduce set theory without some mathematical maturity, and as it gets more advanced I think a historical and philosophical background is in order.
Illion,
If you define freedom as the absence of government, might I suggest you relocate to friendly Somalia?
By the way, you do know that God, in the Bible, demanded that private property be handed over to pay for the poor and orphans, on penalty of death, right?
So, it couldn't be more obvious: God is a liberal.
And I oppose the death penalty.
*Runs behind barricade, glances over the top.*
1) How exactly do you judge the presence or absence of entitlement in others?
On a case by case basis which I form generalities from. How do you do it? Or doesn't it matter?
2) What makes you think you have a moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled?
My understanding of morality and nature. What makes you think you have a moral duty to do anything at all? Or do those things just not exist for you?
3) What exactly makes this feeling of entitlement so dangerous that it is worth allowing poor people (most of whom, statistically, are young children) to suffer?
Define 'suffering'. And what makes you think I think they should be "allowed to suffer" anyway? The fact that I disagree with universal health care and think charity should be as personal and local as possible?
4) If you are a Christian, what is your Biblical justification for putting this supposed moral duty to prevent feelings of entitlement in others (which is curiously not mentioned in the Bible) above the clear Biblical injunctions to take care of the poor?
You think all Christian beliefs require chapter and verse biblical justification? On the flipside, are you telling me that all "biblical injunctions" I accept must be written into law?
Swing and a miss, kid. But keep telling yourself that "feeling entitled" is entirely okay. Whatever floats your boat. Sorry, I mean whatever floats the boat you deserve to have but don't because evil people won't buy you one.
Jesse,
Right; we're only paying double the price for worse outcomes while running hefty deficit, only one of those worse outcomes being a lower life expectancy. (Would you like to find others?) That's more `cute bunny rabbit' than `crisis', right?
Yeah, it is more 'cute bunny rabbit' than 'crisis'. The deficit is not due to our lack of universal health care, and mere inefficiency does not mean we should switch to another system. Even if it were more efficient for the US - very debatable - efficiency is only one metric to consider, not the sole one, not even the best one.
I've listed several proposals already, including allowing local control of unused factories by local laborers to produce more efficient means of transport (rail) and universal healthcare. Why, exactly, are these things not worth doing?
Wow.
That's all I have to say. Well, that and "Are you still on campus?" and "Do you intend to ever leave it?"
No, that's not a response to your plans. Just a couple of questions borne of amusement.
Hence my earlier warnings about confusion... Well I tried. Anybody else here care to talk to Crude about the political etymology of `libertarian', or how it is used outside of the US?
I've read up on this before. It's still a contradiction in terms, etymology be damned.
Back to the campus questions. Let me get out my crystal ball - are you aiming to be a professor/stay in academia?
I'm willing to consider spelling out alternatives to the current system and performing a moral calculation when you're willing to listen.
I'm willing to listen. Having trouble taking you too seriously even though I agree with much of your 10 point plan. Sorry man, you've got interesting ideas and all, even some good arguments here and there, but this is getting a little comical for my tastes.
And again, I actually agree with some of your 10 point plans. Even most of it - hell, it doesn't go far enough. You still want to keep universities around! I'm more radical than you perhaps. ;)
One Brow: "A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools."
Sure, there are lots of factors. Some charters actually do worse than public schools, and in some states they overall do better while in other states they don't, unsurprisingly indicating that there are good ways to run a school and bad ways. Nationally, poor and foreign students did better at charter schools. And being able to select students isn't necessarily a bad thing. Of course, in principle the public system could do all the good things that a good private school does, but if it's exactly the same, why bother? Certainly that doesn't indicate that public schools should be the default or that they're obviously superior.
Crude,
Since you've asked on several occasions. Yes I am on campus. Yes I would like to be a professor, either in math or philosophy (if departments are still around when I'm through with `em!)
But as you seem to think these discussions entirely academic, I note that the proposals I mentioned are not the idle, ivory tower dreams you seem to think they are. The efficiency and usefulness of universal health care and high speed rail are hardly mere theoretical predictions. They are also not rare opinions. So if we think them good proposals, we need to generate support for them. Hence why I'm curious as to whether or not you have any serious objections.
As to the `contradiction in terms' item, I'm glad you've studied this. Care to tell me the contradiction?
Jesse,
Yes I am on campus. Yes I would like to be a professor, either in math or philosophy (if departments are still around when I'm through with `em!)
No kidding. :)
But as you seem to think these discussions entirely academic, I note that the proposals I mentioned are not the idle, ivory tower dreams you seem to think they are.
No, I don't think "universal health care" is an idle, ivory tower dream. Our lovely president's already working on that. It was the comments about factories I thought were real funny.
Out of curiosity, what sort of industrial level machines have you worked with before? Actually, what's your machine-use experience at all? Industrial lasers? CNC machines? Sawblades? How about freaking Lego masterminds?
I'd just like to know if you're bringing any practical experience to this plan to let the poor and unemployed go to town on idle factories to make railways. I have no guess on this front - maybe you're paying your way through college while working at a lumber mill or a machine shop.
Hence why I'm curious as to whether or not you have any serious objections.
To what? Universal health care? I do, but you seem to think that imagined efficiency is the sole real factor here - a lot of this is going to come down to different values and judgments of cultural effect.
As to the `contradiction in terms' item, I'm glad you've studied this. Care to tell me the contradiction?
Studied this? Where'd I say that? I've read up on it a little, but I'm not some master of this. The idea that you can implement your ideas and still maintain a 'libertarian' vision requires some funky reworking of the word 'libertarian'.
So far I'm hearing that if a factory is idle, then unemployed workers should be allowed in there to use it. Have I got that right?
Our lovely president's already working on that. It was the comments about factories I thought were real funny.
Hardly. No single payer. No public option. Instead, he's going to have people pay into a system which at best will be only slightly more efficient with a few less abuses by insurance companies.
And why are the comments about the factories funny?
I do, but you seem to think that imagined efficiency is the sole real factor here - a lot of this is going to come down to different values and judgments of cultural effect.
I don't think that at all. It's also the worse outcomes. It's the inconsistency with many other values, for example the conception of healthcare as a commodity, and not a right, disturbs me. I'm not a far outlier from the general population on this, and I am especially not an outlier as regards dissatisfaction with the current system (and Obama's `reform', from the left and the right). I'm perfectly aware that a system that works great elsewhere might not work here. I've read the first few pages of Democracy in America, and I have a modicum of common sense. There are several extant systems worth looking at, and doubtless any we might adopt will need modification.
Out of curiosity, what sort of industrial level machines have you worked with before? Actually, what's your machine-use experience at all? Industrial lasers? CNC machines? Sawblades? How about freaking Lego masterminds?
Not too many. I've only worked with medium-sized shop tools, and that was back when I was about 12. You seem to be under the impression that I advocate rounding up some random unemployed people and chucking them inside a factory, telling them what we'll pay them for, and seeing what happens. Now, how do you think such a program might actually be implemented?
The idea that you can implement your ideas and still maintain a 'libertarian' vision requires some funky reworking of the word 'libertarian'.
Again, I await your demonstration.
Hardly. No single payer. No public option. Instead, he's going to have people pay into a system which at best will be only slightly more efficient with a few less abuses by insurance companies.
Right. He's betraying the left libertarian socialist view!
It's the inconsistency with many other values, for example the conception of healthcare as a commodity, and not a right, disturbs me.
Yeah, because it's clearly a right. After all, you feel very strongly about it.
I'm not a far outlier from the general population on this,
Of course not. "I should get this! It's my right!" is pretty damn popular nowadays with health care. And, you know. Lots of other things. Probably Playstation 3s in the right neighborhoods.
You seem to be under the impression that I advocate rounding up some random unemployed people and chucking them inside a factory, telling them what we'll pay them for, and seeing what happens. Now, how do you think such a program might actually be implemented?
"Poorly", "with individuals effectively in charge and ownership of the property anyway" and more comes to mind.
Again, I await your demonstration.
How about stopping and thinking for a few moments what sort of system you'd need - and you would need a system - to even attempt to achieve this, much less implement it, without the whole thing turning into a black comedy? Excusing the comedy that would come with the system itself.
What part of your plans is the "libertarian" part again?
Right. He's betraying the left libertarian socialist view!
And virtually the views of the entire population, hardly just my idiosyncratic view.
Yeah, because it's clearly a right. After all, you feel very strongly about it.
Rights are things we have when we make good our claim to them. If you think healthcare is a commodity, and should be unnecessarily scarce, by all means make your case.
Of course not. "I should get this! It's my right!" is pretty damn popular nowadays with health care. And, you know. Lots of other things. Probably Playstation 3s in the right neighborhoods.
Despite my frequently minority views, I rarely find plurality, much less consensus, on demands for things like a right to a playstation. The closest thing I would imagine wanting to reconceive as a right would be internet access - at the very least, it is a product of public investment - but that doesn't necessarily need to be socialized to be secured.
"Poorly", "with individuals effectively in charge and ownership of the property anyway" and more comes to mind.
My original question remains open. We can look at details and do a compare and contrast. There's no other way to seriously say `this is better than that' about complex, real-life situations not involving propositions like `murder for fun' or `sex-slavery'.
How about stopping and thinking for a few moments what sort of system you'd need - and you would need a system - to even attempt to achieve this, much less implement it, without the whole thing turning into a black comedy? Excusing the comedy that would come with the system itself.
What part of your plans is the "libertarian" part again?
The part where I am attempting to systematically reduce coercion while securing basic rights in a realistic way, which is hard to do, as I've noted, in an intrinsically coercive system. That's how I've formulated many of the options you sneer at: as better up to such things than the current option or other proposals with which I am familiar. "Keep what we have" is itself a proposal, and it is deeply and unnecessarily coercive.
I do not see the contradiction in terms. Libertarianism has traditionally been socialist or quasi-socialist. Tell me what you find obvious that I do not.
Now, I do not know what to expect from my `ideal' society, because my `ideal' society is not going to form anytime soon. Hence I do not know what to expect the outcome to be. That's because I cannot in advance tell the population the precise system it must or should tolerate, because that's sort of what democracy entails, and I do not anticipate all of the major issues and technologies of the future. I do not think that federated direct democracy, perhaps with a federal constitution and independent judiciary, need self-destruct into tyranny as I believe - even know - that right libertarianism systems would if ever they could be implemented or approximated. But radical democracy does depend on a very active polity.
I think this is possible, and I think there are plenty of precedents. But what that active polity will be like, I cannot be entirely sure. But I would like to give it the opportunity to control its own affairs.
Anonymous said...
And being able to select students isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It's great for the school. How about for the chidren not selected?
Crude:
But what is it that you perceive in others that allows you to tell if they are feeling "entitled?" And if you are generalizing from people who receive assistance, would you say you know enough such people to form accurate generalizations on what the effect of their receiving aid is. As I said, most people receiving welfare are not just children, but young children under 12. Do you know enough of these children to determine that, in general, assistance makes people feel entitled? Generalizing from personal experience seems a very shaky basis for the widespread program changes you suggest.
And I asked about this moral duty you feel to prevent feelings of entitlement precisely because it is not commonly listed among the moral duties. Much less that it is such a severe moral duty that we should eliminate government programs that help people in pursuit of it. And why is "entitlement" the only negative emotion that demands that sort of action? What about jealousy? If we're using government policy to prevent negative emotions, shouldn't we eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich because they make the middle-class feel jealous?
I think you feel they should suffer because obviously government sponsored programs reach more people than local charities, and you advocate eliminating government programs in favor of local charities.
Let me offer a hypothetical choice, to try to gauge where your moral priorities are:
A) A universal healthcare system is established, and because of access to healthcare, 100 lives are saved, but hundreds of millions of people begin to feel entitled to healthcare.
B) Universal healthcare is not established, all 100 lives that would have been saved are lost, but no one feels entitled to healthcare.
Which scenario do we have more of a responsibility to bring about?
I do not think that all our morality needs to be spelled out in the Bible. But I think you need some basis for thinking we have this specific moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled, and that this moral duty is so pressing we should pursue it even if it means increasing the suffering of young children. It is precisely because this moral duty you outline seems so anti-Christian that I ask you for some Biblical support.
No, I do not think that "feeling entitled" is okay, I simply don't think that I have a moral duty to prevent others from feeling entitled. And even if I were to have such a moral duty, it would not be anywhere near as high on the hierarchy of duties as the prevention of suffering in children. So I don't think I could ever justify the decision to deprive a great number of mostly young children from financial and medical assistance in order to prevent them from feeling entitled to this assistance.
Jesse Parrish said...
As I have run it by faculty before to some interests, I think that many individual courses could be eliminated. This might only especially apply to my area of study (mathematics), but I think that separating courses from each other leads to a lot of lost insights. I think that (slightly more advanced than introductory) set theory/mathematical logic, algebra, topology, combinatorics, probability theory, real analysis, and math history would all benefit from combination.
I can see the benefits to the mathematics students. However, in most of the lower-level courses, and a few of the upper level, mathematics students are not even the primary course attendees. Does it benefit the electrical engineers to sit through material on number theory? Does the clinical psychologist benefit from topology? Major changes to the course structure would need to be coordinated through many departments, most of whom will not want their student to take more courses than is necessary.
Anonymouse: "If you define freedom as the absence of government, might I suggest you relocate to friendly Somalia?"
Ah! Anonymouse is a fool, perhaps one who doesn't allow fools to dictate (and waste) my time.
Anonymouse: "By the way, you do know that God, in the Bible, demanded that private property be handed over to pay for the poor and orphans, on penalty of death, right?
So, it couldn't be more obvious: God is a liberal."
... and, apparently, he's a fool who imagines he can lie about God.
"A lot of that is selection bias. when private schools are required to accept all students (as in the case of many charters), they do not outperform public schools."
"Liberals" never really stop ... hmmm ... selectively presenting "the facts", do they? "Liberal" mythology does not equal truth; and, frequently (as in this case), truth will be in the opposite direction of "liberal" mythology.
"It's great for the school. How about for the chidren not selected?"
Translation: If everyone can't get a "perfect" education (whatever that means), then it is "unjust" that one may get a better one.
======
On the bright side, "liberals" have so chipped away at the underpinnings of all western societies that, within our lifetimes, these interminable "arguments" will come to an end. For, as a wise guy might have said recently, “When you’re trying just to survive, silly (and socially destructive) ideas like ‘social justice’ (i.e. life sinecures for “public servants”) don’t much seem to matter.”
Stevens-Arroyo has a thought provoking piece on Capitalism from a Catholic viewpoint in the Washington Post online, here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/catholic-america/post/time-for-a-catholic-economy/2011/08/31/gIQAgyGzrJ_blog.html
I disagree with his analysis that capitalism requires pricing commodities higher than their worth. What it DOES depend on, however, is creating demand for goods that are not really necessary. That is at the root of many of our problems in the 21st Century, from global climate change, to overpopulation, to environmental destruction, to the sterile "mall culture" so prevalent among the youth of today's USA or Japan (and elsewhere), to our current economic recession.
"... his analysis that capitalism requires pricing commodities higher than their worth."
The claim is incoherent ... but it is effective rhetoric when directed at people who wish to be deceived.
"What it DOES depend on, however, is creating demand for goods that are not really necessary."
That's not capitalism, that's consumerism/Keynesianism.
I'll freely admit I am not worrying about textbook definitions here. For the sake of clarity, in whatever further posting I may make to this thread, I define capitalism as "the system we are currently living under in America".
Just as I normally define communism as "the system we observed in East Germany" (I choose East Germany, since it was the most advanced of the communist states), and socialism as "the system today operative within the European Union (EU)".
IlÃon said...
Translation: If everyone can't get a "perfect" education (whatever that means), then it is "unjust" that one may get a better one.
I don't recall saying anything about justice. I'm just pointing out that when you allow the private/charter schools ot take the best, least expensive students, it will still fall upon the open-enrollment public schools to take the students that require the most c0ost for the least return, unloess you are planning on denying them the opportunity for schooling at all.
But what is it that you perceive in others that allows you to tell if they are feeling "entitled?"
The utter lack of appreciation for what they receive, the absence of a sense of debt to anyone, the reduction or absence of a desire - even if possible - to get beyond and therefore give up the assistance, and more.
you know enough such people to form accurate generalizations on what the effect of their receiving aid is.
Absolutely. Some of these people are good friends and family. People I care about and know well.
Generalizing from personal experience seems a very shaky basis for the widespread program changes you suggest.
What "widespread program changes", pal? I haven't suggested any - I've spoken extremely broadly, and suggested attitudes and ideas more than "program changes". Fighting some phantoms, I see.
No, I'm reasoning just fine. You, meanwhile, seem to be outraged at the very thought that some people may feel 'entitled' and that this may be a bad thing that we should pay attention to, even work against.
And I asked about this moral duty you feel to prevent feelings of entitlement precisely because it is not commonly listed among the moral duties.
I really don't care about what is "commonly listed" or not. Oh golly, am I deviating from the norm? No, it can't be! Nooooooo!
Much less that it is such a severe moral duty that we should eliminate government programs that help people in pursuit of it. And why is "entitlement" the only negative emotion that demands that sort of action? What about jealousy? If we're using government policy to prevent negative emotions, shouldn't we eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the rich because they make the middle-class feel jealous?
Again, 'eliminate government programs'? I haven't outlined any specific policy ideas here, much less called for the utter elimination of welfare, etc. Goddamn people with reading comprehension problems in this thread, fighting arguments they've had with other people and are projecting onto me.
Frankly, I think the very idea of trying to find government solutions to these problems is part of the sickness itself. Hence my emphasis on personal action, and making the focus as local as possible. But that's a tough concept for you, apparently, so you know - keep shadow boxing.
Further, 'entitlement' isn't a mere emotion like happy or sad - it's an attitude, it involves beliefs and approaches. So, swing and a miss there on your part. But okay, let's play your Cute Logic 101 game: Apparently the SCOTUS ruled the wrong way in Brown v Board of Education, because the argument fundamentally turned on the personal feelings of the students.
So, since we're at the Stupid Human Tricks point in this conversation already, I'm just going to take on the full comedy option here and denounce your racism.
I think you feel they should suffer because obviously government sponsored programs reach more people than local charities, and you advocate eliminating government programs in favor of local charities.
More lack of reading comprehension. Where did I say I "advocate eliminating government programs" in this way? Ask Bob Prokop (who probably detests my politics), Ilion, and most others here: I have in the past entirely supported some amount of welfare for people, even some medical care, though I disagree with all of them about the amounts. I think it should be limited. I even said, quote: Second, if government assistance really is a necessity, try to make it as local as possible. There's a reason for that: Because I don't utterly discount the idea of some government assistance in principle or practice.
Let me guess why you're coming at me as an anon: Your foot ends up in your mouth pretty often when you're not in friendly company, so better to screw up as an anon rather than connected to your typical nick, eh? ;)
Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitlement is real, and that feeling entitled is immoral. I just don't think it ranks on the list of ills that merit changes in public policy. I don't think it's a significant reason to make government programs more local, or to make any changes in policy at all. Whether you want to call it an emotion or a disposition, I don't see how the presence or absence of feelings of entitlement in others should be of any concern to the government whatsoever. If any particular national program, because of its superior reach and resources, helps more people than would be helped if the program went local, I think we have a very clear moral responsibility to keep the program national. Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.
Illion:
Is it your contention that nowhere in the Bible does God demand that private money and property be transferred to the poor, and promise suffering and death if this demand is disobeyed?
Anonymouse: "... Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them."
Jesus didn't command anyone to lobby Caesar and the Senate to send the Legions around to "collect", under threat of violent death (no scare-quotes needed on that part), "donations" for "the poor" to be "distributed" by "caring professionals" (who must, of course, be compensated for their time and effort; and handsomely so, lest they, too, be "poor") ... which is, after all, what this Anonymouse is really advocating.
"Is it your contention that nowhere in the Bible does ..."
It is, as I have already made clear, my contention that you are intellectually dishonest. ANd I don't allow fools to dictate the use of my time.
Let me repeat myself, Crude: I realize that entitlement is real, and that feeling entitled is immoral. I just don't think it ranks on the list of ills that merit changes in public policy.
"Feeling entitled is immoral" according to you? Huh.
And you don't think the secondary affects to behavior, attitude and thought matter when considering policies? Sure, man. Even if you don't, hooray for disagreements.
Whether you want to call it an emotion or a disposition, I don't see how the presence or absence of feelings of entitlement in others should be of any concern to the government whatsoever.
Concern of the government? How about concern of the people, regardless of the damn government?
Either way - of course you don't. Because you're apparently pretty damn naive and have trouble thinking things through. What you're basically saying here is that 'affects on attitude and behavior is not a concern which should factor into policy considerations'. Okay, you run with that.
Because Jesus commanded me to feed the poor, not to be a watchdog over whether or not they were sufficiently grateful that I was feeding them.
And the Lord said, "Give them food and clothing. Then, you know. Fuck the lot of 'em. Your duty's done. Concern about their behavior, about their attitudes, about their thought? Please. Just vote Obama in 2012. See you on Democratic Underground."
Somewhere in Corinthians I'm sure.
Yeah, your understanding of morality, particularly Christian morality, doesn't impress me. Reading comprehension issues. Shocking, it's as if we're discovering a pattern here.
Crude,
I can't say that I "detest" your politics, since I haven't been able to figure out what they are.
I, however, make no pretense about my being anything other than a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, snail darter saving, illegal immigrant coddling, feminist, multicultural, brie and Chablis swilling, tax and spend, proud blue state liberal!
And yes, before you get around to saying it, I do hate freedom, and I want the terrorists to win!
One Brow: "It's great for the school. How about for the children not selected?"
Depends. If kids who are poor or can't speak English are getting kicked out, that wouldn't be good... but those groups actually benefit. What if the children not being selected are the jerks and bullies who would only drag down the other students? If the school does better because its students are doing better, that's good for those students. Obviously the reality is more complex than that, but whatever the details, the solution is unlikely to be a big centralized bureaucracy.
Anonymous said...
Depends. If kids who are poor or can't speak English are getting kicked out, that wouldn't be good... but those groups actually benefit.
Only if the school is willing to invest the extra money required to teach poor/ESL kids. Even when they are not profit-motivated, private schools have to balance the books. There will be more poor/ESL kids rejected for that reason alone.
What if the children not being selected are the jerks and bullies who would only drag down the other students?
Are there any current private schools that perform this sort of exclusion? Schools can predict this behavior before admission? Bullies and jerks don't seserve a chance to educate themselves to be better people? I just don't see this point as being relevant; the possibility seems too remote.
If the school does better because its students are doing better, that's good for those students.
Yet, it's liberals who get accused of being elitest.
Obviously the reality is more complex than that, but whatever the details, the solution is unlikely to be a big centralized bureaucracy.
Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely".
For me, the real solution is in elevating the importance of a strong education for every child.
On education, discrepancies in performance are very often due to discrepancy in parental emphasis on education. Usually, there is no magic `religious schools are better' or `private schools are better' formula. I think it more important to emphasize parental participation in education.
Education should be a community activity, not merely a state activity. How exactly this is to be accomplished will obviously vary at the local level, hence the importance of local control. One idea I've had is to organize - perhaps even pay or otherwise incentivize - extra-curricular sessions targeted at children and adults. They may be for advanced students and well-educated adults, or catch-up courses for more forgetful parents and struggling students.
If options are made available, this could lower student/faculty ratios in classes. Further, university students could participate. For another example, scholarships and grants could be given to undergraduates/graduates who participate in extra-curricular teaching.
Crude,
We're getting nowhere. You're just repeating what I say in an insulting tone. It's possible I'm misunderstanding you. Let me ask you a straightforward question to see if I understand your position correctly.
Which state of affairs is preferable:
A) Every person in the United States has access to high quality healthcare, and every person in the United States develops a sense of entitlement towards that healthcare
or
B) Large numbers of people in the United States do not have access to adequate healthcare, but no one in the United states feels entitled to healthcare
If it is the case that we can't help very large numbers of people without them feeling entitled to that help, should we err on the side of helping more people or on the side of preventing people from feeling entitled?
And if you could answer without insulting me, that would be a nice change of pace.
Illion,
It seems to me that your argument is just against taxation in general. As a liberal I have to pay for many programs I do not like. Do you think it's immoral for the government to take money from me to pay for NASA, or farming subsidies, or a bloated military industrial complex, or a corrupt penal industrial complex, etc?
I guess my question is, why would a Christian prefer his tax dollars go towards the military rather than, for example, universal healthcare?
Certainly, no particular way of governing is mandated in detail in the Bible, but it seems to me that support for universal healthcare is more Christian than support for a large military.
Anon,
What's wrong with NASA?
Nothing is wrong with NASA in the abstract, but I'd prefer that money went towards things like a universal healthcare program. And yes, yes, I know NASA doesn't cost much in the grand scheme of things. I'm not a Conservative; I'm not actually suggesting that in a democracy, I shouldn't have to pay for things that a majority of my fellow citizens approve of that I do not.
I'm simply making the point that the role of government is an ongoing negotiation. Inevtiably, in a diverse democracy, some of my tax dollars will go to programs I don't approve of. Portraying the situation in such ridiculously dramatic terms as Illion does just obscure the issue. If any of Illion's colorful descriptions were accurate, then the only morally tolerable state would be a state without any taxation at all, which is to say, no state at all.
Anonymous,
You've already noted this, but funding for NASA is a pittance in comparison with healthcare costs. The key point, I think, is that healthcare would be less expensive in a universal system. The burden on businesses would also be much reduced, so other economic benefits should result.
On NASA funding, it functions - like much of military funding - as a subsidy for technology. I'm fine with subsidizing technological development (virtually all modern electronics arose out of subsidized program, the exceptions being research conduct at Bell Labs and other state-protected monopolies), if only we would separate it from military uses and the unending stream of noise about `security'.
Conservatives are right to note that taxation is inherently coercive. What they usually miss, I think, is that the alternative - for virtually all of the past and the foreseeable future - has effects which are far more coercive. And this is before we even begin to discuss what would be lost, or the effects of gross inequality. For being in a country dangerously close to being a banana republic, the obsession of conservatives with taxation is disconcerting.
Just one more socialist shill: "I'll freely admit I am not worrying about textbook definitions here. For the sake of clarity, in whatever further posting I may make to this thread, I define capitalism as "the system we are currently living under in America"."
Translation: I'm going to pretend that the socialism in which the US has been increasingly mired for the past century is "capitalism"; and then, pointing out that it's not working very well, I'm going to call for a doubling-down on socialism.
You people never change.
One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely"."
My point is that the solution doesn't lie in its bigness, its centralization, or its bureaucracy.
Anonymous said...
One Brow: "Explain why, with particular regard to school systems, a big, centralized bureaucracy is inferior to the degree that it makes a solution "unlikely"."
My point is that the solution doesn't lie in its bigness, its centralization, or its bureaucracy.
I can agree with that. Bigness, centralizaiton, and bureaucracy can only help implement solutions, or parts of solutions, that are universal in nature. Regarding the parts of the solutions that are more varied, they will not help at all.
Post a Comment