Interesting YT Conversations...

[Dax777]

You may (or may not) find Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind more congenial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html

Yes Sir I do. I'm a fan and was at his talk at Columbia a few months ago. Couldn't hang around long enough to get a signed copy :)

But generally find Haight a thoughtful and engaging writer/speaker. If I were still in college or had pursued a life long college person's career, I definitely would have been a heterodox member and promoter.

View point diversity and the open and critical discussion are the keys to our future.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

The thing with Haidt is that - if he is right (and I think he is on to something) - then our ethical and political judgements are largely intuitive and derived from evolutionary psychology. This makes sense to me as we make a lot of ethical decisions so quickly. So it's a confirmation of Hume's point that 'reason is the slave of the passions'. But I still think we need to deploy rationality to sort out which intuitions might be past their sell-by date. I would guess that a lot of them might cluster around sexuality. For example, condemnations of homosexuality and masturbation might marginally increase fertility rates among groups who adopt them, while adopting the idea that there's a God watching you all the time might discourage free-riders.

I'd suggest they read the opinion of an actual conservative.

A lot of my reading over the last 5 years has convinced me that the neoliberal version of conservatism as promoted by Hayek and Friedman is deeply flawed and morally questionable. The numbers don't crunch for it (in terms of economic growth) when compared to Keynesianism, and it typically produces more unequal societies that - in turn - lead to other problems to do with poorer mental and physical health, lack of trust etc.

I therefore see the rise of demagogic characters like Trump, Haider, Orban, Farage and groups like Lega Nord, the French National Front, the Tea Party and so on as a reaction to a neoliberalism that has created so many people disenfranchised people. As neoliberalism promotes the free movement of labour through cross-border deregulation, this makes immigrants an easy group to scapegoat. This is also ironic as many come from the MENA, where economic stagnation resulting from the introduction of neoliberal policies by entrenched leaders has taken place.

But in spite of all this, I am not averse to conservatism. For example, I do admire the dynamism and vibrancy of entrepreneurship and much prefer capitalism to any sort of planned system. All I would want to see is the introduction of a form of capitalism that is more regulated and that does not produce the inequalities that we are seeing. And I don't think that an 'Enron culture' based on the aforementioned economists and maybe characters like Ayn Rand is inevitable.

For example, I am an admirer of this chap:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/18/richer-sounds-boss-julian-richer-has-no-regrets

Any other corrective or balancing recommendations would therefore be appreciated.

 

[Rascal]

Triggernometry on youtube is worth a gander if you like these sort of chats.

I have watched a few and found people like that wretched Sargon of Akkad fella to be engaging and thoughtful, even the ultra libertarian nutjob Brendan O'Neill made some salient points. Last night I watched one with Kate Andrews from the IEA, fuck me, what a disengenous fool she is. I was nearly shouting at the TV at her lack of thought and understanding of the world. Paul Embery of the FBU gives a brilliant overview of LEXIT in one I found very interesting.

Give them a watch Biggsy lad.

 

[Rascal]

If anyone wants to know why conservatives are conservatives, I'd suggest they read the opinion of an actual conservative.

Go on, I am listening. BTW I am not a liberal, I am a Socialist so I would love to hear a take on Conservatism from somebody else. I take it from your usage of the wordings you are American so please educate me on American conservatism. The British version is a moral vacuum with a minute ideological history, it exists to be in power and to look after the interests of those with capital.

 

[Dax777]

The thing with Haidt is that - if he is right (and I think he is on to something) - then our ethical and political judgements are largely intuitive and derived from evolutionary psychology. This makes sense to me as we make a lot of ethical decisions so quickly. So it's a confirmation of Hume's point that 'reason is the slave of the passions'. But I still think we need to deploy rationality to sort out which intuitions might be past their sell-by date. I would guess that a lot of them might cluster around sexuality. For example, condemnations of homosexuality and masturbation might marginally increase fertility rates among groups who adopt them, while adopting the idea that there's a God watching you all the time mightintui discourage free-riders.

Interesting. And agree with deploying rationality in sorting out which intuitions might be out of mode. However, there is a balancing act here that must be considered, both rational thinking and evolutionary judgment have their strengths and neither should be dismissed lightly.

A lot of my reading over the last 5 years has convinced me that the neoliberal version of conservatism as promoted by Hayek and Friedman is deeply flawed and morally questionable.
The numbers don't crunch for it (in terms of economic growth) when compared to Keynesianism, and it typically produces more unequal societies that - in turn - lead to other problems to do with poorer mental and physical health, lack of trust etc.

I must admit I find the lots of economic terms like Keynesian, Neoliberal, Monetarism etc a little general. I think Economic theories are promoted at different times to combat new economic downturns. How effective these theories are at alleviating the problems they were deployed to tackle is often dependent on the leanings of whoever is reporting the success or failure.

In as much as that's true, I think you are right that the Chicago's school theories of Friedman/ Hayek as deployed under Pinochet did lead to higher levels of inequality there.

Whether that model is inferior to Keynesian theories strikes me as a matter of opinion. Now I'm no scholarly economist but my cursory view of these overaching theories is that they get popular in cycles and then lose popularity after one failure or the next.

That said, may I ask what you find morally questionable about Friedman's theories and application?

I therefore see the rise of demagogic characters like Trump, Haider, Orban, Farage and groups like Lega Nord, the French National Front, the Tea Party and so on as a reaction to a neoliberalism that has created so many people disenfranchised people. As neoliberalism promotes the free movement of labour through cross-border deregulation, this makes immigrants an easy group to scapegoat. This is also ironic as many come from the MENA, where economic stagnation resulting from the introduction of neoliberal policies by entrenched leaders has taken place.

I agree that rise of Nationalist sentiments are partly a reaction to globalization. But I won't say that is a reaction to Friedman/Hayeks theories persee. But globalization generally. The theories of globalization stand regardless of the economic theories underpinning individual state. BTW wasn't Keynes a globalist himself?

And also I take issues with attributing the problems in MENA countries to the effects of neoliberal policies. That's an overgeneralization. As most countries in the group aren't even free market countries. The economic theories of these countries are as diverse as any can be. And those theories don't seem to me to be the critical factor at play here.

But in spite of all this, I am not averse to conservatism. For example, I do admire the dynamism and vibrancy of entrepreneurship and much prefer capitalism to any sort of planned system. All I would want to see is the introduction of a form of capitalism that is more regulated and that does not produce the inequalities that we are seeing. And I don't think that an 'Enron culture' based on the aforementioned economists and maybe characters like Ayn Rand is inevitable.

For example, I am an admirer of this chap:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/18/richer-sounds-boss-julian-richer-has-no-regrets

Any other corrective or balancing recommendations would therefore be appreciated.

I don't think anyone will object to a form of capitalism that keeps the vibrancy of enterprise, raise a majority out of poverty, and reduce inequality in general, but the issue so far (at least in my amateur view of economics) is that no one has been able to perfect that system yet. And a lot of theories that have purported to be able to do so in the past have failed. So inextensibly conservatives stay worried and push back against these new promises that often don't deliver.

 

[Dax777]

Triggernometry on youtube is worth a gander if you like these sort of chats.

I have watched a few and found people like that wretched Sargon of Akkad fella to be engaging and thoughtful, even the ultra libertarian nutjob Brendan O'Neill made some salient points. Last night I watched one with Kate Andrews from the IEA, fuck me, what a disengenous fool she is. I was nearly shouting at the TV at her lack of thought and understanding of the world. Paul Embery of the FBU gives a brilliant overview of LEXIT in one I found very interesting.

Give them a watch Biggsy lad.

Interesting. May I ask what particular ideas of Kate Andrew's you find disingenuous and why? I tend to find her often quite honest and rhetoric free.

Edit: Also will give Triggernometry a view. Thanks :)

 

[Dax777]

Go on, I am listening. BTW I am not a liberal, I am a Socialist so I would love to hear a take on Conservatism from somebody else. I take it from your usage of the wordings you are American so please educate me on American conservatism. The British version is a moral vacuum with a minute ideological history, it exists to be in power and to look after the interests of those with capital.

Well I'm not a scholar in conservatism, I was simply suggesting that negative unflattering tropes being used to describe the intentions of others is a poor form of argument.

For example, I'm sure no British Conservative thinks the goal of their ideology is to protect the interest of those with capital as you've stated. Even if that turns out one as one of the byproducts of their philosophy.

Anyway, I think it might be a better exercise anyway to take say some of the points made in the article about liberals and conservative as a jump off point to explain why conservatives may hold the views they hold that differs from the unflattering claims the author made as to why.

I'll find 2 examples and we can discuss that.

 

[Dax777]

@Rascal let's take these 2 claims by the author for example:

• Liberals feel that protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them.

• Conservatives are pro-gun because they want to be able to defend themselves against criminal threats of any type.

His postulating here doesn't hit the point. What's the value of not having guns vs having guns. If you think restrictions on guns reduces violence then you'd lean towards government regulating guns. However if you think rise and fall of violence is not necessarily related to gun ownership, then an infringement on your constitutional rights just seems like a government power grab.

By the way contrary to popular opinion there is some evidence for both positions. In America for example increased gun regulation has seldom resulted in reduced violence.

The most heavily regulated states also tend to have the most violence. Granted that could be an egg/chicken issue I.e the violence may have preceded the regulations. But what we can definitely confirm from those regulations is that they've had little effect on reducing the violence post regulations. Often, it's other measures and also factors outside governments purview that changes the rate of violence.

So when a conservative says, nah, I'll keep my guns. What they are in fact saying is this, since I have a constitutional right to own guns (regardless of why that right was granted) you'd need substantial evidence that shows that violence is reduced significantly if you want to infringe on those rights.

Minor improvement in some states, no changes in others and worsening in others all suggests to the conservative that value derived from the infringement on those rights aren't worth the loss of those rights..

Liberals and the pro gun restrictions movement on the other hand often point to countries with gun restrictions as evidence of the value of restricting gun rights. England, Australia, Japan and Norway are good examples. With Buy-backs and restrictions on ownership evidencing a reduction in gun violence.

In response, the conservative will point out that focussing on gun violence is silly. Of course if you ban all guns, gun violence will go down, but the real question is whether Violence goes down. If people simply just change their tools for committing violence then restrictions on guns are a pointless power grab. For the most part, it's a discussion of these nuances that conservatives seem to want.

Liberals on the other hand seem convinced by their theories and find those who ask for discussion to be at best morally inferior and at worst stalling out of selfish self interest.

*Italiced the above*, as it can be read as a negative view from a non-liberal. But liberals say things that confirm the above constantly.

The point here isn't to argue that liberals opinions are right or wrong, but rather to argue that they are not right simply because they've been asserted. And opinions, and theories without evidence ( or with evidence that isn't focused on the right point) simply aren't enough to sidestep the required rigorous discussion, talk less infringe upon a constitutional right.

Being Pro Guns and anti-government infringement in the US is a matter of principle. Not a "fear of criminal threat, or a backwards love of guns" ( albeit some do love them guns), as liberals often claim.

 

[Rascal]

Interesting. May I ask what particular ideas of Kate Andrew's you find disingenuous and why? I tend to find her often quite honest and rhetoric free.

Edit: Also will give Triggernometry a view. Thanks :)

Andrews immediately conflated Socialism with the USSR for a start, it is a rudimentary falsehood to do so. Then went to talk about the NHS and did so in a manner of somebody whose ideas were already made up about the NHS without actually thinking it through and then proceeded to make the usual points I associate with a person who advocates laissez faire economics on a grand scale.

I have no time for think tanks and I think the IEA and the TPA are two scurrilous examples of them at their worst. They have undue influence on democracy and that in itself clouds my judgement of the likes of Andrews because I do not trust her motives.

I will answer your other posts in the morning, thanks for replying. Cheers.

 

[Dax777]

Andrews immediately conflated Socialism with the USSR for a start, it is a rudimentary falsehood to do so. Then went to talk about the NHS and did so in a manner of somebody whose ideas were already made up about the NHS without actually thinking it through and then proceeded to make the usual points I associate with a person who advocates laissez faire economics on a grand scale.

I have no time for think tanks and I think the IEA and the TPA are two scurrilous examples of them at their worst. They have undue influence on democracy and that in itself clouds my judgement of the likes of Andrews because I do not trust her motives.

I will answer your other posts in the morning, thanks for replying. Cheers.

Wait was this from her Triggernometry appearance? And will watching that help this conversation?.

Off to check it out.