tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post4307879938569099721..comments2023-08-10T07:41:11.827-07:00Comments on Bajillion: Incoherence vs "unrecognized subtlety"Tommaso Sciortinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13682166317937996902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-5084170652913114492008-07-11T20:42:00.000-07:002008-07-11T20:42:00.000-07:00Yeah, if you cut through the rhetorical flourishes...Yeah, if you cut through the rhetorical flourishes of conservative ideology, conservatism is pretty clearly indifferent to providing "more and better options" on the economic front, and outright opposed to "more and better options" on the social front.<BR/><BR/>The economic aspect of that point is maybe less clear than the social aspect, so to say a little more about it: I think the typical argument is that markets distribute resources most <I>efficiently</I>. Efficiency, however, has nothing <I>per se</I> to do with maximizing the quality of option sets available to people, it's just about not wasting inputs. Without an additional argument about the distribution of outputs, conservatism can't rightly be said to be concerned primarily with optimizing sets of options for as many people as possible.<BR/><BR/>(Now, I do think there's a tendency for free-marketeers to, on the fly, decide that in addition to being the most efficient system, the free market is also the best at doing whatever the subject at hand is. I don't think that quite rises to the level of being part of the ideology. It just sort of muddies the waters.)<BR/><BR/>But in any event, I think Tom's right and that we shouldn't pretend that "conservative" just means "economic conservative". The conservative social agenda is pretty blatantly anti-option in a lot of ways.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510253316398518908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-70510280089531323252008-07-11T06:03:00.000-07:002008-07-11T06:03:00.000-07:00Modern conservatism and modern liberalism both spr...Modern conservatism and modern liberalism both spring from the classic liberalism that held markets in high esteem. But of course, holding them in high esteem doesn't mean you think they work better always and everywhere. Social conservatives certainly don't believe that the market is capable of providing the cultural options they want - that's why they support free speech restrictions like flag burning amendments, V-chip mandates, etc.Tommaso Sciortinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13682166317937996902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-29940538747079713352008-07-10T22:37:00.000-07:002008-07-10T22:37:00.000-07:00Is that sarcasm? It's hard to tell.Is that sarcasm? It's hard to tell.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510253316398518908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-67609683480263211342008-07-10T22:08:00.000-07:002008-07-10T22:08:00.000-07:00Conservatism tries to reduce meaningful options? T...Conservatism tries to reduce meaningful options? That's ridiculous. Conservatism simply holds that the market is better at providing options than the government is!Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01408213733969902155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-44797550868886260252008-07-09T07:50:00.000-07:002008-07-09T07:50:00.000-07:00It also occurs to me that I really don't think you...It also occurs to me that I really don't think your definition of liberalism is too broad, or includes much of conservatism. Conservatism tends to be indifferent to (and often tries to minimize) the number and quality of meaningful options available to people. Hence things like dry counties and most of the rest of the Republican social agenda.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510253316398518908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-9705899416161295402008-07-08T20:04:00.000-07:002008-07-08T20:04:00.000-07:00While I agree that it's possible, as a logical mat...While I agree that it's <I>possible</I>, as a logical matter, that people can "subscribe to and practice a coherent political philosophy without being consciously aware of which values they are applying", as a practical matter I see no evidence that that is, in fact, the case for most people, least of all libertarians.<BR/><BR/>I think if you were correct about this, Tom, it wouldn't be too hard to determine what "coherent political philosophy" was being practiced by particular people. But, in fact, it's <I>virtually impossible</I> to do so.<BR/><BR/>Returning to your language example, I'd say that one remarkable feature of language is that almost nobody actually adheres to the rules of grammar in a truly consistent way. Just ask Rebecca!Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510253316398518908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-20832137688577910992008-07-08T18:56:00.000-07:002008-07-08T18:56:00.000-07:00Fair enough.Fair enough.Tommaso Sciortinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13682166317937996902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31432976.post-60304331393878556842008-07-08T18:45:00.000-07:002008-07-08T18:45:00.000-07:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism<BR/><BR/>I think, on a technical level, what we're really talking about is, Tom, Bret, and Paul.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01408213733969902155noreply@blogger.com