sh$@ - hamsters!
Sorry about the double-post.
Of course there has never been a “pure” form of any ideology put into practice. But you can look at those societies that are closer to one ideal or the other.
Frankly, I don’t find the utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) argument to be a valid one unless the “good” we’re talking about is freedom. Wealth disparity, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad.
kwildcat
As many conservatives have said in the past, and as I will reiterate here, conservatives are not against central authority where it is appropriate. As SentientMeat stated earlier, and I agree, a proper balance between the benefits of the market and government regulation is desirable.
All of this talk about sidewalks and such is illustrative from an abstract standpoint but doesn’t get us too far in the discussion since concrete facts are lacking. I propose, kwildcat, that you indicate an area where you feel that more government oversight is a good and beneficial thing (and of course where conservatives typically disagree) and then we tackle that issue as a proxy for the larger issue of the appropriate level of government involvement in the market. A “living wage”, universal health care, or any other liberal cause with an economic component would be a good candidate.
The problem is that it’s hard to point to any large business entity in the United States (the semicapitalist society I know the most about) that isn’t strongly supported by the government. When we talk about the virtues of antitrust legislation, for example, how do we talk about it without referring to the nineteenth-century railroads, to the oil barons of the early twentieth century, to Ma Bell? Yet each of these entities received massive government support, and I suspect that free-market advocates will claim it’s the government support that’s at fault, and suggest that the monopoly wouldn’t have been a problem otherwise.
Is that how you’d argue? If not, I’ll put all three of these examples forward and will be glad to discuss how government regulation of the free market in all three cases helped correct a problem inherent in the free market – namely, that free markets tend to favor big players, and once a big player reaches a certain market share, monopoly dynamics take over and start distorting supply/demand tensions.
IIRC, even Milton Friedman doesn’t argue completely for market deregulation; on the contrary, he argues that corporations should do everything legal they can do to increase their profits, and that the government should put regulations in place to make anything really nasty be illegal. Even Friedman recognizes that the market has inherent problems, and that in a society with a strong interest in private property, you need some measure in place to ameliorate these problems.
Daniel
nice!
Daniel
Restricting the debate to something with an economic component is fruitless - I do not disagree with Sam’s model of how the free market is supposed to work, nor do I disagree that when it works, it can be a good thing. The entire middle swath of the political spectrum is fiscally conservative, especially in the U.S. The differences between lib and con are negligible in that context and generally just a question of methodology - to me that makes it a nit-pick and not a GD.
My view goes back to what you said, “where appropriate”, and what I said, “what is desirable” (we’re talking about the same thing, essentially). Rather than a specific issue/component we can debate as proxy, the bone of contention is a fundamental world-view. To wit, is it necessary or desirable for individuals to collaboratively set standards for behaviour and action for the furtherance of a collaboratively envisioned outcome, or should be individuals exercise their own prerogatives without institutionalized community oversight in the genuine belief that such “free reign” will spontaneously produce the desired outcome.
I understand completely that this is ridiculously broad, and it makes debate frustrating, but you gotta understand that this is a very fundamental thing - it can’t be pinned down to one issue or one policy then extrapolated to cover all the bases. That’s why it’s an ideology, not a methodology.
Sam, have we diverged too much from your intent? In bringing in a social component to your initial economic post, are we assuming too much about conservative thought? Is it valid to believe there are significant free-market underpinnings to conservative social public policy ideology?
You are correct that liberals generally use altruistic ideals to justify their interventions. It is just that in both the example of the minimum wage, and in the “longer paths mean more exercise”, non-conservatives are advocating intervention in what the market would establish and trying to establish something else.
The same sorts of issues arise from your idea of establishing a minimum number of paths accessible to people who use wheelchairs as arise from any other sort of intervention. Some of the effects are tolerable, often they lead to absurdities. The classic example is Braille keypads on the ATMs at bank drive-thrus. The government, with the best intentions, has established an absurd, inefficient system of Braille keypads. Suppose it turns out in your wheelchair-accessible paths proposal above, that the number of paths available greatly exceeds the demands of the one or two wheelchair users that happen to attend that college? Suppose there are none at all, purely by coincidence? You have a supply, but no demand - which is inefficient.
One distinction between liberal and conservative thinkers is that conservatives claim that such negative effects are unavoidable, and should be considered before implementing some change. Which speaks to Scylla’s earlier example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and conservative reluctance to implement major changes based on what we want to happen.
In some instances, these negative effects are either minor enough to be tolerated, or are hidden costs. Non-conservatives can then claim that they have found a free lunch, and that their ideas have only good effects and no drawbacks. It is only until enough minor bad effects accumulate enough to be apparent that pressure builds to return to a free-market solution. We are seeing this to some extent in California now.
It is like tax increases. Liberals often point out that some tax increase amounts to only a few dollars a year per taxpayer. In the single instance, that is often true. If you make that argument often enough, and get enough tax increases, the amounts become burdensome. “A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon you are talking real money,” as Senator Dirksen famously remarked,
And there are several instances in which the effects of one intervention in the free market become apparent enough on their own. Attempts to legislate pay equity, increases on luxury taxes on yachts, even the ultimate managed economic model of socialism/communism are clear examples of the failures of those who believe that the laws of supply and demand can be revoked by legislative fiat.
And, in each case, the motives for the change were presented as entirely altruistic.
There ain’t no free lunch, even if you intend to use the free lunch to feed the homeless. Conservatives are often the ones suggesting cost-benefit analyses on proposed changes to social welfare and environmental legislation. Liberals often won’t hear of it, preferring instead to judge their programs on what they intend rather than what they achieve.
Regards,
Shodan
kwildcat
And the answer IMO is “Yes” and “No” and “Perhaps”. It all depends on the nature of the behavior, the results desired, the level of agreement among the individuals on this issue, the efficacy of the existing system, the structures already in place which could be used (or which are a detriment) as well as a numerous other things. You are correct in saying that this question is too broad to answer without delving into specifics. It is essentially unanswerable.
You have indicated a desire to include social effects as part of this discussion. I think that’s wise as economics is tied to social and civic policy. The two are inseparable. Joined at the hip as it were. You have indicated in previous posts that you are concerned about gross social inequality and the existence of public policy safeguards. When you say “social inequality” I assume that you’re actually referring to “economic inequality” (please correct me if I’m wrong here). This is why I believe Sam Stone has focused his discussion on the economic aspects of conservatism. Many liberals feel that that the best way to decrease inequality between the classes is to use government as a tool for the benefit of the poor (presumably to help increase the levels of economic mobility). Fiscal conservatives on the other hand feel that the methods endorsed by liberals will be counterproductive to the issue of poverty in the U.S. So you see, it’s not that Sam (as I see it) is ignoring the social aspects of conservatism it’s that he recognizes that the question of inequality (which you yourself are focusing on) is based firmly in the realm of economics.
First, [url=
Second, when you suppose there are no wheelchair users at the college, or that the number of paths paved for them greatly exceeds their demands, you’re supposing that you ignore the proposed solution – namely, that folks in wheelchairs can apply to exemption to the “market-driven” method of determining where paths are placed. Obviously, if there are no wheelchair-users, no such exemptions will be applied for. The key here is to look for efficient solutions to market inequities, not to propose an absurdly inefficient solution, then throw up your hands in despair and say, “Goodness, it’s just too expensive to solve this problem – I give up!”
Third, cite, please, that
That’s a distinction between people with a shred of common sense and those without. Of course liberals also recognize that any change will have unforeseen consequences, some of which will be negative. That’s not a distinction at all between liberals and conservatives.
Finally,
I disagree entirely – in fact, I think you’ve got it backward. Conservatives often focus on a principle, and damn the results of the principle. Let the free market decide everything, even if it leads to greater suffering. Lock up nonviolent drug offenders, even if it makes prison into a training ground for violent criminals.
As for cost-benefit analyses, liberals generally recognize that not everything in human experience is easily matched to a dollar amount. There are other ways to measure program achievement than a balance sheet.
To the extent that people of any political persuasion focus on ideology rather than results, I agree that they’re being foolish: if someone opposes a welfare-reform program not because it’ll cause suffering but because people have a right to free food, they’re being just as absurd as people who advocate locking up nonviolent drug users because drug users are immoral. You’re incorrect to suggest that liberals have any sort of monopoly on idealism, however.
Daniel
I guess I should point out that supporting free markets and limited government is not “conservatism.”
Sam,
Excellent exposition - could you possibly address a couple of points I have? I’ve snipped the relevant items below:
First, let me say that I understand what you’re saying about the spontaneous order of the free market economy. I agree that it is an accurate way of describing how a free market comes into existence and functions once the “rules” have been established. What I take issue with is your assumption that once the “rules” have been established, the sponteneous order that will arise is a highly efficient, optimized order. I would contend that the only we can assume this is if our initial conditions (the “rules” we’ve established) are correct. That is, the rules we start out with will bring about this highly efficient, optimized order.
I’m sure you are familiar with the computer simulation called “The Game of Life”. A very simple computer simulation that starts with a few very basic rules. Over time, depending on the initial rules established, some semblance of order is often achieved. But again, the key element here is the initial rules. If you start out with one set of rules, the computer simulation with grow and evolve into a stable (yet dynamic) order. However, if you start out with another set of rules, the simulation can grow and evolve and reach a period of stablility, then widely careen out of equilibrium and cease to run anymore.
The other item I take issue with is the phrase “we’ll all for change so long as it arises spontaneously out of the natural order of things.” I think it would help if you could explain more by what you mean by the “natural order of things”? Are we talking in the context of a free market? Political economy? Society as a whole? What? Again, an assumption I think you are making is that what may arise spontaneously will automatically achieve some optimal, efficient order (if I’m wrong here, please say so).
I think liberals want the same things - basic rules that ensure safety, liberty, and promote the correct direction for society in large strokes. Where (I think) liberals differ with conservatives is with regards to those rules (i.e. initial conditions). Some conservatives seem to think that the free market “spontanoeusly arose”, forgetting the initial conditions that allowed the free market to come into existence. Adam Smith (a liberal in his day) himself was accutely aware that a free market can only arise and function within the context of a society that emphasizes the rule of law and fair/equitable justice for all.
I tend to agree with your assessment that liberals have the tendency to want to “tinker” with the rules in regards to the market by having the government involved (to the detrement of the economy in many cases). But I think that some liberals, unlike some conservatives, understand that it’s very difficult to divorce the market from the wider society within which it resides. And that’s why liberals often promote greater government intervention. It’s making sure of getting the initial conditions right that will allow for the spontaneous order of the economy/society to emerge that is optimal for everone.
Crap, I screwed up an important piece of coding in the last post. Here’s the relevant part:
First, The Master doesn’t think Braille on ATMs is absurd:
Daniel
Why is the OP titled conservatism?
F.A. Hayek is (was) not an example of conservative ideology (whether economic or social).
Read his Why I Am Not a Conservative, where he explains the difference between conservative ideology and his own, which he describes as either classic liberalism or old whig (he didn’t particularly like the term libertarian).
So what gives? I’m with Hayek (on the political compass), but last time I checked I was not a conservative either.
annaplurabelle:
I’d venture to say that Sam is more of a libertarian than a conservative. And I agree with Hayek. I prefer to the term “classic liberalism”, but it’s a bit cumbersome and less widely recognized.
eponymous,
I am in general agreement with you that liberals share some of the same goals as conservatives. Generally speaking I would say that liberals are humane, decent people who want whats good for the nation. I would also agree that it’s true that the market doesn’t function well without the rule of impartial and fair laws. I hope you’ll agree with me though when I say that the government should not attempt to legislate economic prosperity for any individual. Government should only attempt to make the economic playing field as level as is practically possible (freedom to work and live how you please, rule of law, the judicial system, etc. are all a part of this) and then let the chips fall where the may. This may guarantee economic inequality due to luck, skill, or effort of the individuals involved but in a meritocracy IMO it would be the only fair way to apportion rewards. By stating this I’m not saying we have as close to a meritocracy as we can possibly get. Nor am I saying that even if we were to achieve such a “as close to a meritocracy as we can get” that we would necessarily desire people who were grossly incompetent or unlucky in the financial game living on the streets. As a wealthy society we would still want to provide a certain level of services to such unfortunate people. What I am saying is that we must accept, in such a meritocracy, the existence of inequality to a certain degree.
The problem IMO is that it is very difficult to reverse ineffective or damaging tinkering. In addition it isn’t always clear when the best time to stop is. It becomes especially problematic when the ideal thing to do is nothing. I can’t imagine a point in time where liberals might say “There. We’re done. That’s the best it’s ever going to get.”. Perhaps this is an unfair characterization of liberals on my part. The Democratic party would do much to relieve my state of mind regarding their modus operandi if a piece of proposed legislation had clear, measurable goals, automatic periodic review, and an explicit acknowledgement at the time it was implemented that the program and/or legislation would be reformed or removed if it did not meet those goals.
I’d like to see the raised hands of anyone who disagrees with this statement.
Frankly, Republicans would reassure me if they did the same thing. This includes when tax cuts are passed, when troops are sent overseas, when criminal penalties are increased, when the police are given additional powers, when schools are forced to conform to new ethical or testing standards, and so on.
Again, when we talk in broad terms like this, I think we end up saying platitudes that apply to Democrats and Republicans alike. While I think this thread is very instructive about the philosophy informing some conservative intellectuals, I’ve not seen any useful generalizations about the actual behavior of conservative or liberal politicians in the United States.
Daniel
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Grim_Beaker *
**kwildcat
And the answer IMO is “Yes” and “No” and “Perhaps”. It all depends on the nature of the behavior, the results desired, the level of agreement among the individuals on this issue, the efficacy of the existing system, the structures already in place which could be used (or which are a detriment) as well as a numerous other things. You are correct in saying that this question is too broad to answer without delving into specifics. It is essentially unanswerable.[/QOTE]
But it is answerable - the answer is exactly what the conservative-liberal divide is all about. Are you saying there’s no way to definitively conclude which answer is right? Hell, that’s axiomatic.
-
No, not talking about just economic inequality - economics is simply one manifestation among many of social inequalities, and to believe it’s the only or the most important one is facile. It helps in that we can use market examples as understandable analogies for the purpose of debate, but such an approach often diverts our attention to the tree instead of the forest.
-
Nor am I (or any other liberal, for that matter) advocating the elimination of inequality - we are not Harrison Bergeron-types http://www.libertarianthought.com/texts/harrison.html. What the devotees of “free market” philosophy seem unwilling to accept is that the system they describe inherently and inevitably results not just in the concentration of power/wealth/prestige in the hands of the few, but also in the institutionalization of barriers to the redistribution of that power/wealth/prestige. You are approaching the mark with your comment about mobility - it is the fair opportunity for mobility between these strata that liberals insist upon, and in a “civil” fashion.
In more explicit terms, without regulation, the haves will tend naturally and inevitably to continue acquiring more than the have-nots. In addition, as the power of the haves grows over the have-nots, the haves equally inevitably tend to create systemic barriers to protect what they have and prevent the have-nots from getting it. You are ultimately left with an unsustainable condition of a miniscule few haves with a great many have-nots who have no institutional mechanism to become haves, or even hope to become haves. Since we are dealing with people, and not number theories, should such a circumstance come to pass (and historically, it has) the result is the violent redistribution of power/wealth/prestige.
An institutionalized mechanism which provides for fair opportunity to acquire “more” and dis-incentives to do so to the detriment of others is an admittedly artificial scenario (so far as free-marketers are concerned), but one that liberals recognize is essential to achieve any public good. This does not mean “a tool for the benefit of the poor”, as you say. This means that if individuals are specially disadvantaged by artificial means (e.g. kids can’t get jobs because they can’t go to college because their school district was poor because a corporation moved their factory overseas because they could increase their profits), there is an obligation to remedy those circumstances (e.g. special grants to the school system that improves the quality of education that results in a better trained workforce so another company says, “hey, let’s put our factory in that town because they’ve got educated workers and a nice community” which enriches the school district’s tax base so after a while they don’t need the special grants to maintain higher standards of education).
I seriously don’t understand how any conservative can look at a scenario like this and maintain their dogmatic belief that less intervention is always a good thing.
Furthermore, if a conservative says, “well, if it really worked the way you described, intervention would be a good thing”, then BANG!, they’ve become a liberal - because it DOES work that way.
Daniel
While I don’t expect any of the Dopers who have participated in this thread to disagree with that statement I wanted to include it to address that segment of liberals whose aim is, apparently, equal results.
Precisely. As I said earlier the question is essentially unanswerable the way it’s being posed. Specifics are required for any discussion of this nature.
In conclusion: Platitude! Platitude, yea, platitude. Inasmuch as things are platitude. Are we not men?!!! Platitude. Platitude.
Tell me something: How far off is your assertion above, to Vonnegut’s satirical scenario, in the cite you disavow (while speaking for liberals):
“And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
On the one hand you are advocating artificial circumstances as essential. But then you go on to condemn “artificial circumstances” in another scenario, as a means of advocating even more… artificial circumstances???
I realise we’re not arguing specifics here, but do you see how your platitudes are inconsistent, even with your assertion of what liberals believe re the elimination of inequality:
John Mace: I see your point. But I think the lack of terminology distinction muddles the arguments once you get past general philosophy and into actual behaviour. Would that all conservatives practiced what Sam Stone preaches… 