California's first true count of high school dropouts shows that one in four kids quit school last year - 127,292 - which is far more than state educators estimated before they began using a new student-tracking system.More here. Note that the number for black students was 42%.
The statewide 24-percent dropout rate also shows African American and Latino students leaving school at much higher rates than other ethnic groups, according to data released today by state schools chief Jack O'Connell.
The dropout rate is well above the 13 percent (67,107 students) that educators had earlier estimated using a less sophisticated counting method relied on for years.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Craptastic
Saturday, July 19, 2008
A Probably-Awesome Parking Plan in SF
From the Chronicle:
At the first test location - the 52-space, city-owned metered parking lot on California Street just west of the tony Fillmore Street retail-and-restaurant corridor - the city covered the meter heads with red bags with instructions directing motorists to a pair of pay stations. The program will move into other neighborhoods in coming months.Interestingly, the article is primarily about the concerns bicyclists have about losing the existing parking meters, which they chain their bikes to, and possible ways to keep them in place. My experience with Piedmont Ave. in Oakland, though, is that you can just leave the poles in the street and nobody seems to mind. They're not any uglier with their heads taken off. If you stopped calling them "parking meter poles" and started calling them "bike poles", I think soon enough everybody would forget where they came from in the first place.
...
Under the plan, parking prices would be adjusted according to demand. The ideal would be to have 85 percent of the parking spaces occupied. That way, parking spaces always would be available, meaning people would circle the block less in their polluting vehicles. The federal government, looking for ways to reduce congestion, awarded San Francisco an $18 million grant to help fund the $23 million pilot project. In all, 10 neighborhoods will be used in the study.
Redistributing Wealth vs. Killing People
Will Wilkinson makes a peculiar argument against the idea that wealth should be redistributed to minimize inequality now so that various sorts of injustices don't happen later:
Um, no. The way you justify taking preemptive action to avoid any problem is by evaluating the likelihood of realizing various costs and benefits. You don't go to the dentist only when you can make a "pretty convincing" argument that you will get a cavity if you don't. You should go to the dentist because you can make a pretty convincing argument that doing so is likely to help you avoid and/or stay on top of cavities. This is true even though going to the dentist is likely to impose very real costs on you now.
I don't mean to be nit-picky about this, but Wilkinson's rhetorical slight-of-hand, here, serves mostly to make the "bar" for preemptive redistribution seem bizarrely high. In reality, by any reasonable standard, the bar for preemptive redistribution is much, much lower than it is for preemptive war, mostly because the likely costs of preemptive war are much, much greater than the likely costs of preemptive redistribution.
P.S. - As an additional note, I'd point out that once you get past various naïve conceptions of property rights, the bar for justifying preemptive redistribution becomes lower still. The analogy with preemptive war obscures far more than it illuminates.
Update - Will says I'm neglecting the main point of his post (viz., that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that, in general, a high level of inequality "in fact increases the chance of exploitation or unfair procedures" by the relatively wealthy). Which is true! (Was I obligated to? Maybe I don't understand all of my bloggerly obligations.)
So to be fair, I don't have much to say on that question, although it strikes me as the kind of thing that's best looked at on a case-by-case basis.
But the portion of his argument that I quoted is either relevant or it's not, and the main point of my post was that the preemptive war analogy is really not that helpful of a way, in practice, to look at preemptive wealth distribution, or wealth redistribution generally, for that matter. I think it mostly serves as a rhetorical device to make the justificatory bar seem higher than it really is. (Which isn't to say there isn't a bar at all.)
The argument on offer here is an argument for preemptive redistribution. We have to redistribute so that injustice doesn’t occur. But this kind of argument, like arguments for preemptive war, face a high bar. You need to be pretty convincing that in the absence of preemptive action, something bad will occur. I think egalitarians almost never get over that bar.
Um, no. The way you justify taking preemptive action to avoid any problem is by evaluating the likelihood of realizing various costs and benefits. You don't go to the dentist only when you can make a "pretty convincing" argument that you will get a cavity if you don't. You should go to the dentist because you can make a pretty convincing argument that doing so is likely to help you avoid and/or stay on top of cavities. This is true even though going to the dentist is likely to impose very real costs on you now.
I don't mean to be nit-picky about this, but Wilkinson's rhetorical slight-of-hand, here, serves mostly to make the "bar" for preemptive redistribution seem bizarrely high. In reality, by any reasonable standard, the bar for preemptive redistribution is much, much lower than it is for preemptive war, mostly because the likely costs of preemptive war are much, much greater than the likely costs of preemptive redistribution.
P.S. - As an additional note, I'd point out that once you get past various naïve conceptions of property rights, the bar for justifying preemptive redistribution becomes lower still. The analogy with preemptive war obscures far more than it illuminates.
Update - Will says I'm neglecting the main point of his post (viz., that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that, in general, a high level of inequality "in fact increases the chance of exploitation or unfair procedures" by the relatively wealthy). Which is true! (Was I obligated to? Maybe I don't understand all of my bloggerly obligations.)
So to be fair, I don't have much to say on that question, although it strikes me as the kind of thing that's best looked at on a case-by-case basis.
But the portion of his argument that I quoted is either relevant or it's not, and the main point of my post was that the preemptive war analogy is really not that helpful of a way, in practice, to look at preemptive wealth distribution, or wealth redistribution generally, for that matter. I think it mostly serves as a rhetorical device to make the justificatory bar seem higher than it really is. (Which isn't to say there isn't a bar at all.)
Thursday, July 17, 2008
More Energy Hijinks
Al Gore calls for a carbon-neutral grid within ten years
There is a somewhat useful attendant speculation on logistics here.
Yes, I do link to things other than the Oil Drum. Here TOD provides good data on where our power comes from, and why nameplate capacity is not the same thing as power delivered. However, his thoughts about wind power lead into the question I have about all this:
It seems fairly clear that a carbon-neutral grid is technologically possible. But where will the political will come from? Consumers buy their power from utilities, which in turn buy it from power plants. Because a utility is a natural monopoly, consumers can't individually reject the energy politics of their utility, unless they're prepared to go completely off-grid, which is not economically feasible for most.
This leaves State regulation as the best/only means of controlling where a utility buys its energy. PG&E has lately signed a number of big contracts to buy renewable power, as the State of California has a compulsory renewable portfolio standard. Which brings me finally to,
Is this really a Federal problem? What are the politics of making it into one?
I believe it is a Federal problem. The physical nature of the grid means that electricity is constantly passing between States, except in Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas. Given that your Investor-Owned Utility wants to burn coal in Kentucky, and sell the power to the Public Utility Commission in Atlanta, a National Renewable Portfolio standard makes legal sense.
But it also makes financial sense. It is all well and good to talk about "Building More Solar". But just who is going to set down and do that? Why build a plant that produces a kw/h for 5 cents, on its own schedule, when you can build one that produces power for 3 cents a kw/h, whenever you throw the switch?
With a State-level RPS, the PUC receives a mandate as part of its monopoly, and in turn stimulates the IOUs into helping the PUC achieve its goal. With a national RPS, individual IOUs would be directly required to diversify their portfolios, or be denied the right to transmit power across state lines. This would have several effects:
1) The culture of a particular state would allow for an 'opt-out'. This would not amount to seizure or nationalization.
2) The very people profiting from the externalities of carbon would be required to pay for the greening of the grid.
However, on the downside
1) There would be nothing requiring a PUC to buy the green power. Green capacity might just sit idle, if an IOU tried to charge more for its output.
Food for thought. Kudos to Gore for beginning the dialogue, and for pushing the overall discussion in the right direction.
There is a somewhat useful attendant speculation on logistics here.
Yes, I do link to things other than the Oil Drum. Here TOD provides good data on where our power comes from, and why nameplate capacity is not the same thing as power delivered. However, his thoughts about wind power lead into the question I have about all this:
It seems fairly clear that a carbon-neutral grid is technologically possible. But where will the political will come from? Consumers buy their power from utilities, which in turn buy it from power plants. Because a utility is a natural monopoly, consumers can't individually reject the energy politics of their utility, unless they're prepared to go completely off-grid, which is not economically feasible for most.
This leaves State regulation as the best/only means of controlling where a utility buys its energy. PG&E has lately signed a number of big contracts to buy renewable power, as the State of California has a compulsory renewable portfolio standard. Which brings me finally to,
Is this really a Federal problem? What are the politics of making it into one?
I believe it is a Federal problem. The physical nature of the grid means that electricity is constantly passing between States, except in Alaska, Hawaii, and Texas. Given that your Investor-Owned Utility wants to burn coal in Kentucky, and sell the power to the Public Utility Commission in Atlanta, a National Renewable Portfolio standard makes legal sense.
But it also makes financial sense. It is all well and good to talk about "Building More Solar". But just who is going to set down and do that? Why build a plant that produces a kw/h for 5 cents, on its own schedule, when you can build one that produces power for 3 cents a kw/h, whenever you throw the switch?
With a State-level RPS, the PUC receives a mandate as part of its monopoly, and in turn stimulates the IOUs into helping the PUC achieve its goal. With a national RPS, individual IOUs would be directly required to diversify their portfolios, or be denied the right to transmit power across state lines. This would have several effects:
1) The culture of a particular state would allow for an 'opt-out'. This would not amount to seizure or nationalization.
2) The very people profiting from the externalities of carbon would be required to pay for the greening of the grid.
However, on the downside
1) There would be nothing requiring a PUC to buy the green power. Green capacity might just sit idle, if an IOU tried to charge more for its output.
Food for thought. Kudos to Gore for beginning the dialogue, and for pushing the overall discussion in the right direction.
City Guides of San Francisco
My sister was in town yesterday and discovered the San Francisco City Guides, a group of over 200 volunteer history buffs who lead over 40 different tours around the city. You just check the schedule of tours online, show up at the designated spot, and some San Francisco enthusiast shows up to walk you around town while telling you stories. It's free, although they do accept donations at the end of the tour.
We saw 2 of them yesterday ("Gold Rush City" and "Nob Hill"), and both were very good, especially "Nob Hill". Our middle-of-the-weekday tours each had about 10 people, so I don't think there's much chance of an awkward, just-you-and-the-tour-guide session.
I strongly recommend the tours, and I'm more than a little embarrassed that my sister had to discover these for me, since I've lived in the Bay Area for almost a decade and she lives in Illinois.
We saw 2 of them yesterday ("Gold Rush City" and "Nob Hill"), and both were very good, especially "Nob Hill". Our middle-of-the-weekday tours each had about 10 people, so I don't think there's much chance of an awkward, just-you-and-the-tour-guide session.
I strongly recommend the tours, and I'm more than a little embarrassed that my sister had to discover these for me, since I've lived in the Bay Area for almost a decade and she lives in Illinois.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Energy Crisis: Red vs. Blue
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4125
The map alone will tell you something very important about the current/looming energy crisis: Republicans will be under pressure to push for short-term practical relief, but Democrats will, depending on your viewpoint, be "free" to meaningfully craft a long-term solution to the problem.
If Democrats gain the White House and a majority in both houses, one wonders what will become of those parts of the country where personal transportation costs are now pushing 20% of household income. With plug-in hybrids scheduled to debut in 2009, and a carbon-neutral grid only now becoming a long-term goal in blue states, I expect the only option Republican pundits will have will be to pound harder at the anti-environment message. How can Democrats effectively neutralize this potentially explosive source of opposition?
The map alone will tell you something very important about the current/looming energy crisis: Republicans will be under pressure to push for short-term practical relief, but Democrats will, depending on your viewpoint, be "free" to meaningfully craft a long-term solution to the problem.
If Democrats gain the White House and a majority in both houses, one wonders what will become of those parts of the country where personal transportation costs are now pushing 20% of household income. With plug-in hybrids scheduled to debut in 2009, and a carbon-neutral grid only now becoming a long-term goal in blue states, I expect the only option Republican pundits will have will be to pound harder at the anti-environment message. How can Democrats effectively neutralize this potentially explosive source of opposition?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Posts of Recent Relevance
A couple of subjects I'd posted about way back in the day came up in conversation yesterday, so I dug said posts up out of the archive. This was an easy post to write as it consists almost entirely of me plugging things I'd already written.
First, on discriminatory marriage institutions.
Second, on (the myth of) free will. In case it's not clear from the post, the reason I don't care for saying that people "earn" things is that the whole idea of free will doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
First, on discriminatory marriage institutions.
Second, on (the myth of) free will. In case it's not clear from the post, the reason I don't care for saying that people "earn" things is that the whole idea of free will doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Incoherence vs "unrecognized subtlety"
This whole discussion about libertarianism and liberalism is so facinating I'm sad I missed a lot of it due to a super-long awesome wedding party. Reading the comments however I think I have bit more to add.
Though it's generally never a good idea I'd like to draw a distinction between my own views and Paul's when he writes:
Allow me to be the first to plead guilty to being mistaken about my own beliefs. In rereading my previous post on liberalism I realize that it does a poor job of explaining what I believe. In fact, it seems that I defined liberalism so broadly that it could probably include most of conservatism. I guess this shouldn't be surprising. Both liberals and conservatives agree that the government should be used to make people's lives better - they just differ as to the best way. Liberals want to use government to create a high-speed rail system. Conservatives want to use it to stop people from drinking too much.
The only thing my definition does manage to do is distinguish my philosophy with the rights-based constricted ones like Communism and Libertarianism where rights based arguments - not efficiency ones - are used much more more often to define the role of the state in the economy.
But back to my crappy definition of liberalism. I first recognized this shortcoming when I started trying use the "more better options" business to explain why I support the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). It turns out it's pretty difficult. The "more, better options" doesn't include any concept of fairness which is pretty important. I think I ought to think about exactly how that figures in and if that can be used to distinguish conservatism from liberalism.
Though it's generally never a good idea I'd like to draw a distinction between my own views and Paul's when he writes:
...The point is that when you put pressure on thinking that is ostensibly "libertarian", you tend to find a hodge-podge of other philosophies being applied in selective ways. Sometimes it's strict constructionism, sometimes it's about negative liberty, sometimes it's about the inefficiency of government. That makes the arguments difficult to engage with and, I think, suggests that the philosophy itself is somewhat incoherent.Paul writes that since many libertarians don't seem to be applying their claimed precepts in a regular way that those individuals probably have an incoherent philosophy. I disagree. In the same way that a native English speaker can form coherent sentences without having to memorize thousands of grammatical rules, so to can people subscribe to and practice a coherent political philosophy without being consciously aware of which values they are applying and how. Indeed, I suspect that most politically aware people have very regular system of rules and values for making political decisions that they follow even if they are mistaken about the nature of their own political philosophy.
Allow me to be the first to plead guilty to being mistaken about my own beliefs. In rereading my previous post on liberalism I realize that it does a poor job of explaining what I believe. In fact, it seems that I defined liberalism so broadly that it could probably include most of conservatism. I guess this shouldn't be surprising. Both liberals and conservatives agree that the government should be used to make people's lives better - they just differ as to the best way. Liberals want to use government to create a high-speed rail system. Conservatives want to use it to stop people from drinking too much.
The only thing my definition does manage to do is distinguish my philosophy with the rights-based constricted ones like Communism and Libertarianism where rights based arguments - not efficiency ones - are used much more more often to define the role of the state in the economy.
But back to my crappy definition of liberalism. I first recognized this shortcoming when I started trying use the "more better options" business to explain why I support the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). It turns out it's pretty difficult. The "more, better options" doesn't include any concept of fairness which is pretty important. I think I ought to think about exactly how that figures in and if that can be used to distinguish conservatism from liberalism.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Predictions - Chait - 9/18/2008
Via Matt Yglesias, Jon Chait makes the following prediction:
Expiration Date: September 18, 2008
Anway, let me now go on the record to say that another McCain staff shake-up is, if not inevitable, very likely. McCain's staff is just too factionalized to remain stable unless McCain is consistently winning. And Schmidt is a Bush 2004 veteran who lacks the deep emotional ties to the candiate that other McCainiacs have. I predict that at some point, probably just before or just after the convention, there will be a move to "Let McCain be McCain," and new boss Steve Schmidt will be replaced with either John Weaver or Mike Murphy, to try to recreate the magic of the 2000 campaign.Let's say that "just after the convention" could mean up to two weeks later.
Expiration Date: September 18, 2008
Saturday, July 05, 2008
America Rules. England Sucks.
Because every day's the 4th of July in my book. (NSFW)
America Rules England Sucks - Watch more free videos
America Rules England Sucks - Watch more free videos
Solar & Clean Energy Act of 2008
There's some weirdness around California's Proposition 7:
The full text of the measure can be seen here.
Note that Prop. 7 is only about 40 pages long, not 70. For comparison, Prop. 6 (changing criminal penalties) is about 30 pages long, but probably contains more words. Proposition 5 - which changes sentencing guidelines for non-violent offenders - is about 60 pages long.
A November ballot measure to boost the amount of renewable energy generated by California utilities has attracted a wildly diverse group of opponents - from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the Democratic Party and Pacific Gas and Electric Co.Normally I'd defer to the relevant interest groups on an issue like this, but it's not obvious from the Chronicle article how much of the opposition is legit and how much is sour grapes from not being included in the process.
...
The measure requires all California utilities to generate at least half their power from alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by 2025, well above the 33 percent level Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to see by 2020. Utilities currently must reach a 20 percent goal by 2010.
...
The groups, many of which had been working on energy legislation for years, were never really brought into the initiative effort, said Ralph Cavanaugh of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"There was very late consultation," he said. "We asked them last November to step back and take a look at the measure, but by then they already had a finished product."
The initiative sets up such a detailed plan for dealing with renewable energy and siting and building the new, greener power plants that it opens the way for many unintended consequences, Cavanaugh said. Even groups closely involved with renewable energy, such as the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology, have lined up against Prop. 7.
"If you're going to legislate at the ballot box, keep it simple, don't write 70 pages," he added. "Our objection isn't to their good intentions, but to their bad initiative."
The full text of the measure can be seen here.
Note that Prop. 7 is only about 40 pages long, not 70. For comparison, Prop. 6 (changing criminal penalties) is about 30 pages long, but probably contains more words. Proposition 5 - which changes sentencing guidelines for non-violent offenders - is about 60 pages long.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Not A Flag Tattoo?
Judging which candidate to vote for can be difficult. Fortunately, there are quick and easy ways of identifying which ones are best suited for office. From a CNN poll:
Happy 4th!
Another question asked in June: How often should a U.S. presidential candidate wear a flag pin (when dressed in other than casual clothes)?Personally, I think presidential candidates should always wear a button with my face on it. That way I know they care about me and are looking out for me.
Forty-one percent of respondents said a candidate should always wear one. Another 13 percent said "frequently," 16 percent said "sometimes," 19 percent said "only occasionally," and 9 percent said "never."
Happy 4th!
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
What's liberalism
I think Bret brings up some good points in the post below and he's opened my eyes to how unclear I've been in my formulation of what liberalism is. In order to help myself think more clearly (and help give others firmer grounds upon which to attack any mistakes I might be making) let me try to restate my definition of Liberalism."Liberalism argues that government should give people more and better options if a mechanism can be found to reliably do so."
There are a lot of things that are left unsaid here so let me break it down into bite-sized pieces.
"...government should give people more and better options..."
The idea here is that it would be nice if we had more options, and if the options we had were better. Obviously these two desires can conflict. It would be nice if I had the option of getting good health care. In fact, I'd like it so much I'd be willing to trade my current condition (many bad options) for one in which having good health care was my only option.
Furthermore the "people" in the above phrase is important too. It would be unfair for government to expand one person's opportunities at the expense of everyone else. Taken to the extreme this would be confiscatory as Bret rightly points out. However, we should recognize that the services provided by government are a package deal. As long as the overall affect is to expand the opportunities for the vast majority (i.e. "people") I think we can excuse the odd program which is basically confiscatory if taken alone. I would put Social Security and the Civil Rights act into this group. With such programs, government can reach out to improve the options of people who are left behind by other programs.
(As a corollary to the above, people who eat pudding do not, as a class, constitute a group that has been ill-served by government so a program to help them could not be justified.)
Now the question naturally arises: Who decides what's more and better and for whom? Bret asked precisely these questions and they are good ones. If you're just trying to decide what you personally support, then use your own metric. If we're trying to decide what the government should actually do, well... this is why we have a democracy. With the proper minority protections in place (which our constitutions provides in spades) I see no problem in resolving these questions at the ballot box.
"...if a mechanism can be found to reliably do so."
Lastly, government should only act if it can do so effectively, technically and politically. On a technical level, we should only support government programs if we expect them to produce the intended effect if carried out competently (i.e. No to price-caps and wage controls). On the political level, we should only support program if we think they're going to be politically sustainable in the long term. Thus we need to be wary of regulatory capture, rent seeking, and good old fashioned unintended consequences.
This last issue is - I suspect - what Bret is getting at when he calls me a "techno-liberal". I suspect he thinks I'm only looking at the technical aspects of government programs while ignoring the very real threats posed by government failures like regulatory capture. If that is the case then I'll assure everyone that I am aware of these issues and even made a point to include them in my formulation of Liberalism and indeed, in my personal political beliefs. This is why I support a carbon tax much more strongly than cap-n-trade.
So, to sum up: There are a lot of judgment calls that this formulation leaves open. Of course there is: it's a pragmatic philosophy that doesn't pretend to give you all the answers. Still, much better no answer than a wrong one.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Predictions - DeLong - 10/4/2008
Predictions are cheap, especially on the internet. So why not keep track of them?
Hearing that President Bush extended unemployment benefits, Brad DeLong makes the following prediction:
Expiration Date: October 4, 2008.
Hearing that President Bush extended unemployment benefits, Brad DeLong makes the following prediction:
It seems to me likely that--whatever happens to the economy--George W. Bush has just produced four bad unemployment-rate headlines on the Saturdays August 2, September 6, and October 4.
Expiration Date: October 4, 2008.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Giving the wrong answer vs. no answer
Ok, Bret inspired me to post this.
No good political philosophy can answer every political question without sliding into dangerous idealism. But we can certainly hope that a philosophy will give us constructive ways to think about every question. As an example liberalism argues that government should give people more and better options if a mechanism can be found to reliably do so. On it's own, this doesn't settle the question over whether we should - for example - support universal health care. But it at least gives us a way to organize our subjective judgments to make a political decision.
In contrast to liberalism, libertarianism seems a much more far-reaching. It says that "I should be allowed to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't harm others". This is a simplification of course. But instead of leaving difficult questions open - like liberalism or conservatism for that matter - it seems to give us exactly the wrong answer on a host of issues.
Is the government allowed to regulate portions of the economy merely because doing so will lead to prosperity? Libertarianism says no. Not unless you can show it involves someone harming someone else. So goodbye universal health care or even preventing insurers from discriminating against those with hereditary conditions. And the federal reserve system is out as well.
But that's not all, because there's nothing in the libertarian formulation that seems to account for the level at which government programs are enacted. So I don't see why street-lights or Bart or Cal trans, or even state parks or zoning laws are allowable under this philosophy. And indeed, there are many libertarians that think just that.
Ok. Now that I've made libertarians angry by over-simplifying their views let me step back and recognize that this probably isn't what most libertarians think. On the occasions that I've made this argument to libertarians their response was basically to whip off the mask and to reveal a totally different, non-libertarian, philosophy underneath. For some it's radical federalism: the belief that somehow local government is better than federal government (which is wrong for a whole host of reasons). For others it's a kind of soft liberalism that dares-not-speak-its-name: people should be left alone unless we can prove there's a really good reason to do so. For others it's good old conservatism: they just want to cut the welfare state to force people to turn to churches and other similar organizations for support.
I don't think you get this with other philosophies. Liberalism doesn't always give you an answer, but at least you don't have to jettison it to get pragmatic solutions to everyday problems. With a lot of libertarians on the other hand, it really does seem like it's just an attitude masquerading as a philosophy.
No good political philosophy can answer every political question without sliding into dangerous idealism. But we can certainly hope that a philosophy will give us constructive ways to think about every question. As an example liberalism argues that government should give people more and better options if a mechanism can be found to reliably do so. On it's own, this doesn't settle the question over whether we should - for example - support universal health care. But it at least gives us a way to organize our subjective judgments to make a political decision.
In contrast to liberalism, libertarianism seems a much more far-reaching. It says that "I should be allowed to do anything I want, as long as it doesn't harm others". This is a simplification of course. But instead of leaving difficult questions open - like liberalism or conservatism for that matter - it seems to give us exactly the wrong answer on a host of issues.
Is the government allowed to regulate portions of the economy merely because doing so will lead to prosperity? Libertarianism says no. Not unless you can show it involves someone harming someone else. So goodbye universal health care or even preventing insurers from discriminating against those with hereditary conditions. And the federal reserve system is out as well.
But that's not all, because there's nothing in the libertarian formulation that seems to account for the level at which government programs are enacted. So I don't see why street-lights or Bart or Cal trans, or even state parks or zoning laws are allowable under this philosophy. And indeed, there are many libertarians that think just that.
Ok. Now that I've made libertarians angry by over-simplifying their views let me step back and recognize that this probably isn't what most libertarians think. On the occasions that I've made this argument to libertarians their response was basically to whip off the mask and to reveal a totally different, non-libertarian, philosophy underneath. For some it's radical federalism: the belief that somehow local government is better than federal government (which is wrong for a whole host of reasons). For others it's a kind of soft liberalism that dares-not-speak-its-name: people should be left alone unless we can prove there's a really good reason to do so. For others it's good old conservatism: they just want to cut the welfare state to force people to turn to churches and other similar organizations for support.
I don't think you get this with other philosophies. Liberalism doesn't always give you an answer, but at least you don't have to jettison it to get pragmatic solutions to everyday problems. With a lot of libertarians on the other hand, it really does seem like it's just an attitude masquerading as a philosophy.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Most People Are DJs. Also Thieves.
Since this blog came up in conversation today, I thought I'd mention that I endorse 100% of the things Kevin Carey says here. To sum up:
- The Hold Steady is awesome.
- Stealing music is lame.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Carbon Offsets
Via the libertarians at Marginal Revolutions comes this website making fun of liberals who think carbon offsets are good:
I understand the importance of protecting the environment but I also believe in capitalism. That means that in my ideal world people would charged for the damage they do and that the rich would obviously be able to pay for more carbon than the poor. I see no problem with using offsets in a reasonably ingenious stop-gap effort while we try to set up a more market-based carbon-tax or cap-and-trade scheme.
Ha ha! Those stupid liberals! Seriously though, does anyone see the fatal flaw in this satire? Cheating is bad for the individuals involved but has little effect on society at large. Releasing carbon into the atmosphere has no immediate negative effects but hurts society. Offsets don't do anything to mitigate the immediate effects of something but could work at alleviating the cumulative evils. QEDAt Cheatneutral, we believe that we should all try to reduce the amount we cheat on our partners, but we also realise that fidelity isn't always possible.
That's why we help you neutralise your cheating. Your actions are offset by a global network of fidelity, developed by us. By paying Cheatneutral, you're funding monogamy-boosting offset projects - we simply invest the money you give us in monogamous, faithful or just plain single people, to encourage them to stay that way.
I understand the importance of protecting the environment but I also believe in capitalism. That means that in my ideal world people would charged for the damage they do and that the rich would obviously be able to pay for more carbon than the poor. I see no problem with using offsets in a reasonably ingenious stop-gap effort while we try to set up a more market-based carbon-tax or cap-and-trade scheme.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Great minds think alike
See this at Lawyers, Guns and money. The princess bride is the ultimate political metaphor of our time.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Was the civil war was about slavery or states rights?
I got into another brief discussion about the causes of the civil war yesterday. The issue of contention seemed to be:
- What was the civil war really about?
And as a special bonus question:
- Was
I took the liberal position ("Slavery, duh" and "good guy") my counterpart took the conservative position ("states rights" and "bad guy"). Here’s my thinking. Let me know if I’ve missed something.
By our modern standards
Granted the majority of confederate soldiers probably believed they fought for states rights and not slavery. But I bet most Russian soldiers in WWII thought they were fighting for freedom and equality rather than extending the power of Stalin into
Friday, September 14, 2007
The danger of navel-gazing and the princess bride
Atrios asks:
Well, I know what you don't do. No self-respecting Homo sapiens would even think of leaving said group. Not while other options are available. Like anyone experiencing cognitive dissonance the very first thing you try is contorting logic beyond all recognition to avoid the fact that you have no idea what your doing. In this case, a lot of energy gets focused on slicing and dicing the exact meaning of "conservative".
What kind of wacky beliefs and tricks of logic are they looking for? The basic requirement is tribalism. Your new definition of conservative has to include all the people you like and exclude all the people you don't (no matter how decent your enemies may be). Plus on some abstract level it has to exclude all those stupid beliefs you and your friends supported and all your opponents fought against. Case in point.
In my many years of blogging nothing has amazed me more than the capacity of certain people to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" while holding positions and fundamental values diametrically opposed to their stated ideology. Honestly. If you suspect that the president should be allowed to spy, imprison, and torture you, without judicial oversight of any kind and if you also call yourself a libertarian - well - I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I don't want to sound like I'm immune to cognitive dissonance. I was a fake Catholic for many years. But the point is, we should all try to be more aware of what we believe and who we claim to agree with. This time, I mean it!
Does anybody want a peanut?
...why is that conservative bloggers are perpetually writing some version of "what conservatism means..." or "what conservatives think..."Let me suggest that when the meaning of an ideology can't be determined from the policies espoused by its proponents - or when those policies are manifestly unpopular and wrong - adherents suffer cognitive dissonance. In this particular case the belief that conservatives are good and right is conflicting with fact that the policies conservatives have favored have lead our nation into more than one cluster-f*ck. What can one do when the group you've decided you belong to turns out to be stupid?
Well, I know what you don't do. No self-respecting Homo sapiens would even think of leaving said group. Not while other options are available. Like anyone experiencing cognitive dissonance the very first thing you try is contorting logic beyond all recognition to avoid the fact that you have no idea what your doing. In this case, a lot of energy gets focused on slicing and dicing the exact meaning of "conservative".
What kind of wacky beliefs and tricks of logic are they looking for? The basic requirement is tribalism. Your new definition of conservative has to include all the people you like and exclude all the people you don't (no matter how decent your enemies may be). Plus on some abstract level it has to exclude all those stupid beliefs you and your friends supported and all your opponents fought against. Case in point.
In my many years of blogging nothing has amazed me more than the capacity of certain people to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" while holding positions and fundamental values diametrically opposed to their stated ideology. Honestly. If you suspect that the president should be allowed to spy, imprison, and torture you, without judicial oversight of any kind and if you also call yourself a libertarian - well - I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I don't want to sound like I'm immune to cognitive dissonance. I was a fake Catholic for many years. But the point is, we should all try to be more aware of what we believe and who we claim to agree with. This time, I mean it!
Does anybody want a peanut?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)