Or why an impersonal concern with outcomes is superior to dudgeon:
__________________________________
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/01/l ... iples.html
Libertarians of Weak Principles
In general there are two types of critics of the social insurance state. One type--Milton Friedman, say--claims that the social insurance state is bad policy because its benefits misalign incentives and the reduction in the size of the pie outweighs whatever distributional benefits are attained. A second type--the Robert Nozicks, the Ayn Rands, the Robert Borks--say that the social insurance state is immoral because its benefits are theft by parasites and loafers.
That is why it is noteworthy when Robert Bork files a tort lawsuit of a type he has denounced against the Yale Club of New York, why it is noteworthy when Robert Nozick uses the Cambridge Rent Control Board to extort money from Eric Segal, and when Ayn Rand accepts Medicare because otherwise her lung cancer surgeries would bankrupt her.
Joshua Holland
Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them: Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well. Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).... Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.” “Morally and economically,” wrote Rand in a 1972 newsletter, “the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull.”...
Rand... believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism. Evva Joan Pryor... interviewed in 1998 by Scott McConnell, who was then the director of communications for the Ayn Rand Institute.... “She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn’t like, which was Medicare and Social Security,” Pryor told McConnell. “I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on – with gusto – we argued all the time. The initial argument was on greed,” Pryor continued. “She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn’t watch it. Since she had worked her entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”...
[A]t least she put up a fight before succumbing to the imperatives of the real world – one in which people get sick, and old, and many who are perfectly decent and hardworking don't end up being independently wealthy....
A central rule of the U.S. political economy is that people are attracted to the idea of “limited government” in the abstract—and certainly don’t want the government intruding in their homes—but they really, really like living in a society with adequately funded public services.
That's just as true for an icon of modern conservatism as it is for a poor mother getting public health care for her kids.
________________________________________________
I had heard the story of Nozick before but not the other two examples. This made me wonder if a lot of the attraction of Rand is that it appeals to the some kind of adolescent wish-fulfillment fantasies that sell "Conan" comic books. People like to fantasize about being the all-conquering hero.
yrs,
rubato
On the peril of conflating moral with practical principles.
Re: On the peril of conflating moral with practical principl
Believe me, that the most common assertion I hear from service members before they suffer injury, or combat trauma is :
I'm the Master of my Own Destiny!
Really? So, why couldn't you stop the IED or mortar that killed curtailed your convey, 'eh?
Juss sayin'
I'm the Master of my Own Destiny!
Really? So, why couldn't you stop the IED or mortar that killed curtailed your convey, 'eh?
Juss sayin'
Re: On the peril of conflating moral with practical principl
And for an interestingly different take on it all ...
To sum up the differences they fall into three sorts.
1. A system of determining right and wrong based on transactions, Libertarians, Ayn Rand &c.
Their rule is that any outcomes which are the result of individual agreements entered into freely and without coercion are by definition just (in their world the fact that you or your family will starve and die if you refuse a 'take it or leave it' offer is not coercion). All social security, medicare, &c is theft even if those benefitting from it will all die otherwise. No criticism of the rules is allowable merely because the outcomes are bad. The individual is everything and any mention of poverty levels, public health, is just noise.
2. A system of determining right and wrong based on the net outcomes, Utilitarians, MIlton Friedman* &c.
A system which produces the greatest good for the greatest number is better than one which does not. The impacts of the rules on individuals can be different if the overall outcome is better. This theory is tough to argue against because of the plasticity of the meaning of 'good'.
3. A system of determining right and wrong based on how the rules were agreed to, Democracy, Jefferson and, somewhat loosely, Rawls and Liberals .
(I'm running out of time here)
What matters is that we can all agree on what the rules are. The act of our agreement justifies the rules and the outcomes. This presumes that we can change the rules based on seeing what the outcomes are of different schemes of laws.
_______________________________
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/d ... erned.html
Deriving Their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
With respect to whether Ayn Rand's receiving more in Medicare services (a lot more!) than she paid into the system was honorable, Alex Tabarrok asks:
Alex Tabarrok Asks a Question... - Grasping Reality with Eight Tentacles: Libertarians of Weak Principles: Regarding Rand, so it was hypocritical for Karl Marx to buy vegetables at the market?
I answered:
Yes, it was. On Marx's principles, he had a moral duty to find those whose surplus value was extracted and who were thus underpaid for their labor on the commodities he consumed, and compensate them.
You can sleep easy if you play by the rules even if you think the rules are non-optimal, as long as you point that out. That's Milton Friedman.
You cannot sleep easy if you play by the rules if you think the rules give you a license to steal. That's Robert Nozick, Robert Bork, and Ayn Rand.
That's the difference between utilitarian and deontological theories. Deontology is a bitch.
Alex Tabarrok replies:
A fair and very interesting answer. I expected you to say something like DSquared which would let Marx off the hook but Rand also.
In your view, a non-hypocritical moral philosophers must bears a huge burden to live in a world not of his or her making, perhaps only Jesus and Peter Singer can apply and I'm not even sure about Jesus.
I think I want to revise and extend my remarks. The distinction I see is not quite deontology/utilitarian--although it is related.
The best place to start on this, I think, is with TJ:
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
* that all men are created equal
* that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
* hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Start with this.
One stand you can then take is to say that the government's powers are just--for I have consented to the procedures by which the laws are made, and I participate in making the laws to which I then subject myself. You can then go on to say that the rules of the economic game we have set up using the government as our collective instrumentality are non-optimal because they do not lead to the greatest good of the greatest number. And you can argue that we should change the rules of the economic game.
In this case, there is no dishonor in playing by the rules of the economic game as they have been established by us through the instrumentality of our government
The other stand you can take--the stand that Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Robert Bork, and Karl Marx take--is to say that you don't care whether or not people have consented to these procedures. You then go on to say that the rules of the economic game are illegitimate. You say that the government's just powers do not extend to establishing legitimate rules of the economic game that tax me to pay for medical care for parasites, restrict the rent Eric Segal can charge me for living in his apartment, allow the filing of frivolous slip-and-fall lawsuits, or force proletarians to sell their labor-power for less than the value of their labor. And you say that those who play by the rules of the game are thieves.
In that case you do not merely assert that the rules of the economic game as set up are unwise but go further and say that they are illegitimate. And then you do have a duty not to be a thief--even under color of law.
And so:
* if you are Ayn Rand you cannot honorably receive more in Medicare services than you paid into the system,
* if you are Robert Nozick you cannot honorably use the Cambridge Rent Control Board to perform an action you would characterize as theft from Eric Segal,
* if you are Robert Bork you cannot honorably perform an action that you would characterize as extorting a tort settlement from the Yale Club of New York, and
* if you are Karl Marx you cannot honorably monetize a bourgeois's extraction of surplus value from a proletarian.
I am not sure where Peter Singer falls on this issue. I have never been sure to what extent he is a performance artist. I have never been sure to what degree the modality of his philosophy is an "ought" and to what degree it is a "must."
__________________________________________________
yrs,
rubato
*Yes, I'm sure that MIlton Friedman believed in democracy, I was following the usage from the clip.
To sum up the differences they fall into three sorts.
1. A system of determining right and wrong based on transactions, Libertarians, Ayn Rand &c.
Their rule is that any outcomes which are the result of individual agreements entered into freely and without coercion are by definition just (in their world the fact that you or your family will starve and die if you refuse a 'take it or leave it' offer is not coercion). All social security, medicare, &c is theft even if those benefitting from it will all die otherwise. No criticism of the rules is allowable merely because the outcomes are bad. The individual is everything and any mention of poverty levels, public health, is just noise.
2. A system of determining right and wrong based on the net outcomes, Utilitarians, MIlton Friedman* &c.
A system which produces the greatest good for the greatest number is better than one which does not. The impacts of the rules on individuals can be different if the overall outcome is better. This theory is tough to argue against because of the plasticity of the meaning of 'good'.
3. A system of determining right and wrong based on how the rules were agreed to, Democracy, Jefferson and, somewhat loosely, Rawls and Liberals .
(I'm running out of time here)
What matters is that we can all agree on what the rules are. The act of our agreement justifies the rules and the outcomes. This presumes that we can change the rules based on seeing what the outcomes are of different schemes of laws.
_______________________________
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/d ... erned.html
Deriving Their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
With respect to whether Ayn Rand's receiving more in Medicare services (a lot more!) than she paid into the system was honorable, Alex Tabarrok asks:
Alex Tabarrok Asks a Question... - Grasping Reality with Eight Tentacles: Libertarians of Weak Principles: Regarding Rand, so it was hypocritical for Karl Marx to buy vegetables at the market?
I answered:
Yes, it was. On Marx's principles, he had a moral duty to find those whose surplus value was extracted and who were thus underpaid for their labor on the commodities he consumed, and compensate them.
You can sleep easy if you play by the rules even if you think the rules are non-optimal, as long as you point that out. That's Milton Friedman.
You cannot sleep easy if you play by the rules if you think the rules give you a license to steal. That's Robert Nozick, Robert Bork, and Ayn Rand.
That's the difference between utilitarian and deontological theories. Deontology is a bitch.
Alex Tabarrok replies:
A fair and very interesting answer. I expected you to say something like DSquared which would let Marx off the hook but Rand also.
In your view, a non-hypocritical moral philosophers must bears a huge burden to live in a world not of his or her making, perhaps only Jesus and Peter Singer can apply and I'm not even sure about Jesus.
I think I want to revise and extend my remarks. The distinction I see is not quite deontology/utilitarian--although it is related.
The best place to start on this, I think, is with TJ:
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
* that all men are created equal
* that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
* hat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Start with this.
One stand you can then take is to say that the government's powers are just--for I have consented to the procedures by which the laws are made, and I participate in making the laws to which I then subject myself. You can then go on to say that the rules of the economic game we have set up using the government as our collective instrumentality are non-optimal because they do not lead to the greatest good of the greatest number. And you can argue that we should change the rules of the economic game.
In this case, there is no dishonor in playing by the rules of the economic game as they have been established by us through the instrumentality of our government
The other stand you can take--the stand that Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Robert Bork, and Karl Marx take--is to say that you don't care whether or not people have consented to these procedures. You then go on to say that the rules of the economic game are illegitimate. You say that the government's just powers do not extend to establishing legitimate rules of the economic game that tax me to pay for medical care for parasites, restrict the rent Eric Segal can charge me for living in his apartment, allow the filing of frivolous slip-and-fall lawsuits, or force proletarians to sell their labor-power for less than the value of their labor. And you say that those who play by the rules of the game are thieves.
In that case you do not merely assert that the rules of the economic game as set up are unwise but go further and say that they are illegitimate. And then you do have a duty not to be a thief--even under color of law.
And so:
* if you are Ayn Rand you cannot honorably receive more in Medicare services than you paid into the system,
* if you are Robert Nozick you cannot honorably use the Cambridge Rent Control Board to perform an action you would characterize as theft from Eric Segal,
* if you are Robert Bork you cannot honorably perform an action that you would characterize as extorting a tort settlement from the Yale Club of New York, and
* if you are Karl Marx you cannot honorably monetize a bourgeois's extraction of surplus value from a proletarian.
I am not sure where Peter Singer falls on this issue. I have never been sure to what extent he is a performance artist. I have never been sure to what degree the modality of his philosophy is an "ought" and to what degree it is a "must."
__________________________________________________
yrs,
rubato
*Yes, I'm sure that MIlton Friedman believed in democracy, I was following the usage from the clip.