These three posts should make that simple fact self-evident - he is one of the most brilliant and open-minded person on the planet.
Conservative Vice:
Consider domestic policy. Policy X does not make a dent in the poverty rate, and this is pointed out by a critic. A conservative might respond: "But if those people would live by Confucian or Korean family values, they would do just fine."
The conservative vice is not intrinsic to conservatism, but I see it to an increasing degree. Perhaps it is a response to the combination of a nominal conservative majority in goverment yet a growing inability to control events.
This intellectual move is not in every case false. If we are considering the relative obligations of citizen and state, for instance, it must be recognized that a state can do only so much for self-destructive citizens. But when the vice is "applied" to situations where a more consequences-oriented approach is warranted, well, then it becomes a vice.
Liberal Vice:
"Trying too hard to limit risk will increase the number of global people who are just outright screwed over."
My sentence is the least politically palatable or salient of the three. But the more globalized the world becomes, the greater its relevance. It is imperative to keep the United States — the number one generator of global public goods — as a highly productive, innovative economy.
The modern liberal vice is to think that everyone can be taken care of, and/or to rule out foreigners from the relevant moral universe. Too many issues are (incorrectly) framed as "taking care" vs. serving the avarice of the wealthy.
Libertarian Vice:
The libertarian approach treats government vs. market as the central question. Another approach, promoted by many liberals, tries to improve the quality of government. This endeavor does not seem more utopian than most libertarian proposals. The libertarian cannot reject it on the grounds of excess utopianism, even though much government will remain wasteful, stupid, and venal. More parts of government could in fact be much better, and to significant human benefit and yes that includes more human liberty in the libertarian sense of the word.
Libertarians will admit this. But it does not play a significant role in their emotional framing of the world or in their allocation of emotional energies. They will insist, correctly, that we do not always wish to make government more efficient. Then they retreat to a mental model where the quality of government is fixed and we compare government to market.
It is possible to agree with the positive claims of libertarians about the virtues of markets but still think that improving the quality of government is the central task before us. One could love markets yet be some version of a modern liberal rather than a classical liberal. This possibility makes libertarians nervous, thus their desire to fix the quality of government in advance of making an argument.
Conservative Vice:
Consider domestic policy. Policy X does not make a dent in the poverty rate, and this is pointed out by a critic. A conservative might respond: "But if those people would live by Confucian or Korean family values, they would do just fine."
The conservative vice is not intrinsic to conservatism, but I see it to an increasing degree. Perhaps it is a response to the combination of a nominal conservative majority in goverment yet a growing inability to control events.
This intellectual move is not in every case false. If we are considering the relative obligations of citizen and state, for instance, it must be recognized that a state can do only so much for self-destructive citizens. But when the vice is "applied" to situations where a more consequences-oriented approach is warranted, well, then it becomes a vice.
Liberal Vice:
"Trying too hard to limit risk will increase the number of global people who are just outright screwed over."
My sentence is the least politically palatable or salient of the three. But the more globalized the world becomes, the greater its relevance. It is imperative to keep the United States — the number one generator of global public goods — as a highly productive, innovative economy.
The modern liberal vice is to think that everyone can be taken care of, and/or to rule out foreigners from the relevant moral universe. Too many issues are (incorrectly) framed as "taking care" vs. serving the avarice of the wealthy.
Libertarian Vice:
The libertarian approach treats government vs. market as the central question. Another approach, promoted by many liberals, tries to improve the quality of government. This endeavor does not seem more utopian than most libertarian proposals. The libertarian cannot reject it on the grounds of excess utopianism, even though much government will remain wasteful, stupid, and venal. More parts of government could in fact be much better, and to significant human benefit and yes that includes more human liberty in the libertarian sense of the word.
Libertarians will admit this. But it does not play a significant role in their emotional framing of the world or in their allocation of emotional energies. They will insist, correctly, that we do not always wish to make government more efficient. Then they retreat to a mental model where the quality of government is fixed and we compare government to market.
It is possible to agree with the positive claims of libertarians about the virtues of markets but still think that improving the quality of government is the central task before us. One could love markets yet be some version of a modern liberal rather than a classical liberal. This possibility makes libertarians nervous, thus their desire to fix the quality of government in advance of making an argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment