This is pretty funny.
Number 10 is the reaction I repeatedly try to invoke when I write posts like this. Or this. Or this.
Basically the world would be a better place if people read more Jefferson.
The solution to DeLong's #10 is, of course, to recognize the world for what it is, recognize what is laudable, and don't be dogmatic about abstract concepts and norms that we make up.
The sabbath is made for man - man is not made for the sabbath.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Because he's a pompous jackass who deletes comments and only understands his neat little Keynesian macrocosm?
ReplyDeleteKeynes had some funny jokes about beauty contests and I don't find him the end-all be-all.
"The solution to DeLong's #10 is, of course, to recognize the world for what it is, recognize what is laudable, and don't be dogmatic about abstract concepts and norms that we make up."
ReplyDeleteActually, the solution to number 10 is to abandon Nozick's premise that led to an "oops" moment. When mathematicians come to an "oops" moment, they don't throw out deduction for "recognizing the world." They find out where they made their mistake.
Right, and if we were doing math you'd have a point.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of defending things on grounds of structured abstract principle, when casuitry is good enough?
ReplyDeleteExample: the obvious rebuttal to the Lovecraft statement is that if what he believes is true, England's class system should have never changed since the days of the Viking invasion 1200 years ago. And the likes of Rockefeller, Ford, or Woolworth are obvious descendants of feudal knights who fought alongside Alfred the Great.
Except, of course, that isn't even remotely true. Past conditions often have zero bearing on the present. The direct descendants of many who fought the Vikings in the ninth century could easily now be lone working class families in Manchester or Detroit.
It was precisely from a property system that Woolworth could borrow money and pledge his assets, and turn from beggar to millionaire. Result of past conditions, my foot.
re: "It was precisely from a property system that Woolworth could borrow money and pledge his assets, and turn from beggar to millionaire. Result of past conditions, my foot."
ReplyDeleteRight. I think it's worth reiterating the point that I'm not providing an argument against property. When I say that we should look to what is laudable, I have a system of private property in mind when I am saying that. The point is, we should drop this idea that there is any sort of ethical priority or logical necessity to a given status quo arrangement of property rights. That is what makes no sense. It doesn't mean there ought to be a free for all or somehow private property is illegitimate. Private property is legitimate - it is just not legitimate in some sort of a prioristic way or in some completely unchallengable way. It is ethically and logically conceivable for humans to confer to change and rearrange property rights without fear that they are violating some ethical principle because the very idea of property is shot through with ethical contradictions.
Private property is highly functional, and it is highly consistent with liberty, but ultimately it's an invention and tool of man.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteHayek would disagree with you.
"It is ethically and logically conceivable for humans to confer to change and rearrange property rights without fear that they are violating some ethical principle because the very idea of property is shot through with ethical contradictions."
Right, and it is also quite dangerous. Look, cooperative institutions by themselves are not easy to come by, thus it should not be surprising that an ethical priority is given to one that works well, decently, etc. In light of that, let's note that despite all the clamoring for change, you modern liberals have as yet to actually come up with a system of cooperative exchange, etc. that beats the system of private property rights as libertarians conceive such.
Who is claiming it's not dangerous?
ReplyDeleteWho is saying that ethical priority shouldn't be given to what works well, decently, etc.?
Who is interested in a system of cooperative exchange?
Who is interested in replace private property?
I'm not sure what you think you've read from me, but you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at.
I tend to read your comments through the lens of "The Road To Serfdom" actually.
ReplyDelete"to a given status quo arrangement of property rights"
ReplyDeleteI don't know anyone who recommends endorsing a status quo arrangement of property rights.