tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post843105805635119930..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": Do People Become More Conservative as They Age?Lester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-5674572329155815872008-03-21T11:33:00.000-05:002008-03-21T11:33:00.000-05:00Lester, two things in response. First, at least to...Lester, two things in response. First, at least to the extent that libertarianism arguments commend <I>truly</I> laissez-faire capitalism, I'd argue they too prove too much, in much the same way.<BR/><BR/>Second (and somewhat related), the Nazi <I>Reich</I> clearly breached Germany's citizenship contracts with Jews (and other "<I>Unerwünschten</I>"),* in a particularly heinous way. The legal remedy for this breach was partially imposed at Nürnberg. The result was far short of complete justice, of course, but then (at least arguably) we couldn't reasonably have expected more without better international <I>regulation</I>.<BR/><BR/>__________<BR/>*NOTE: If Walmart were to detain its Jewish customers for the day and force them to stock the shelves, the implied agreement that subtends the term 'customer' would be void; the fact that Walmart were doing so in an otherwise "free market economy" would be of little avail to those detained. (Yes, in a "free market" economy, Walmart has financial, reputational and legal incentives not to engage in such action. But then so did Nazi Germany. Alas, there's no accounting for the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal" REL="nofollow">sociopath</A>.)"Q" the Enchanterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01246928390589072951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-86126871721021473342008-03-21T08:46:00.000-05:002008-03-21T08:46:00.000-05:00Q, The idea seems to be that I am consenting to w...Q, The idea seems to be that I am consenting to whatever the government chooses to do to me, simply by virtue of not selling my house, leaving my friends and associates, and moving elsewhere to deal with another government (or moving to a desert island). I think this argument proves too much. It would mean that the Jews who didn't leave Nazi Germany when they could were consenting to the Nuremberg Laws, which therefore were not coercive. It would mean that, before Roe v. Wade, American women were consenting to not being allowed abortions by virtue of their not having moved to Denmanrk. Etc.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-75979756100413572562008-03-20T21:34:00.000-05:002008-03-20T21:34:00.000-05:00"The former is a voluntary exchange, the latter is..."The former is a voluntary exchange, the latter is at gunpoint."<BR/><BR/>It's a voluntary exchange on the market for nation-state residency or citizenship. Membership has its benefits and its costs. There are plenty of "substitutes" for American citizenship, and in any case, enterprising libertarians are free always create their own startup. (Steep barriers to entry, though!)"Q" the Enchanterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01246928390589072951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-86332654229699865522008-03-19T12:10:00.000-05:002008-03-19T12:10:00.000-05:00Anon, It sounds like you are saying that conservat...Anon, It sounds like you are saying that conservatives are more pro-government than liberals. That's not my experience. Or maybe you are saying, the phenomenon isn't a matter of growing more conservative as you age, it's a matter of becoming more pro-government (instead).Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-28856255557230971232008-03-19T11:29:00.000-05:002008-03-19T11:29:00.000-05:00As we grow older we lose our "piss and vinegar" an...As we grow older we lose our "piss and vinegar" and crave safety and comfort the same as we did from our mothers as children; so we learn to appreciate our gov't even if she was a bit tough on us.<BR/><BR/>Another baby boomer headed for medicare and social security.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-59185811110292539132008-03-18T15:21:00.000-05:002008-03-18T15:21:00.000-05:00>All the political positions you name are examples...>All the political positions you name are examples of a morally constrained state.<BR/><BR/>Or a belief that there just isn't any purpose served by the government acting in those ways.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-15894381739749636852008-03-18T10:14:00.000-05:002008-03-18T10:14:00.000-05:00Anon, I was responding to your saying "convincing...Anon, I was responding to your saying "convincing people to buy shit they don't need, it's taking," while on the other hand "welfare is not taking away from others in anything but a myopic sense." Which I took to mean that people who sell me things that you don't think I need must be forcing them on me, while the the welfare state somehow collects its money non-coercively. <BR/><BR/>Hallq, In the naturally constrained world, it's nature that constrains you -- actually, human nature. In the morally constrained world, it's moral principle that constrains you -- to be specific, individual rights are the constraint. All the political positions you name are examples of a morally constrained state. They are libertarian.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-55629434725827134372008-03-18T03:08:00.000-05:002008-03-18T03:08:00.000-05:00I said they're both taking:"Taxes via the state or...I said they're both taking:<BR/><BR/>"Taxes via the state or convincing people to buy shit they don't need, it's taking."<BR/><BR/>Whether it's voluntary or not is up to psychologists to decide (for the whole point of advertising is obviously to create a sense of necessity), but taxes themselves are at gun point only for those who don't own the government, and those who own the government run it (as John Jay said they ought to), wield it and are not necessarily subject to it. That's why taxes on the rich have dropped so dramatically in the last century (from 70% to 28% for the top personal tax bracket under Reagan alone). Since we already have this a flouting of the original principle of mutual protection, the (tacit) loosening of rules for those at top, I'm not sure how less government intervention (in the form of welfare, upperclass taxes, regulations, etc.) hurts. If anything it hews far closer to that fundamental contract than a government which works only to undergird its aristocracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-75604923986042793912008-03-18T00:23:00.000-05:002008-03-18T00:23:00.000-05:00I'm a little puzzled by your labeling of the natur...I'm a little puzzled by your labeling of the natural/moral constraint divide. I lean towards consequentialism in my theoretical sympathies, but very much accept the idea of practical constraints. Yet my views on social issues are what is called liberal: abortion should be mostly or entirely legal, at least some currently illegal drugs legal, same-sex relationships having exactly the same legal status as opposite-sex ones, etc. The debate is, at bottom, semantic, but I still find the use of terms odd.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-71735130850170460482008-03-17T23:34:00.000-05:002008-03-17T23:34:00.000-05:00So selling people things they "don't need" is taki...So selling people things they "don't need" is taking, but taxation is not. Sorry, I don't buy that. The former is a voluntary exchange, the latter is at gunpoint.Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-37983451799132521502008-03-17T22:53:00.000-05:002008-03-17T22:53:00.000-05:00well, that complete lack I mentioned, BUT welfare ...well, that complete lack I mentioned, BUT welfare is not taking away from others in anything but a myopic sense. For one to be rich amidst a society in the first place one must take from others. Taxes via the state or convincing people to buy shit they don't need, it's taking. There are plenty of other non-commercial means of becoming rich too, but they all involve slighting other people involved, giving one's self millions while the lowest rung works as many hours for pennies. I'm not sure how one can steal what has already been stolen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-17120218306448817652008-03-17T22:43:00.000-05:002008-03-17T22:43:00.000-05:00"...why not provide the welfare that events and ci..."...why not provide the welfare that events and circumstances have made a necessity for people.." The morally constrained answer is: that money isn't "provided," it's taken away from others. ... You seem to think that we have no alternative but to choose between forms of intrusive power. Either we take the nice intrusiveness of a European welfare state or we get some nastier form of tyranny. You are leaving out a third alternative. Do we really need masters at all?Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-23750627443612961912008-03-17T22:13:00.000-05:002008-03-17T22:13:00.000-05:00But if government is, in the first place a means o...But if government is, in the first place a means of banding people together towards some greater goal (i.e.: mutual protection, "protection" having become a looser word as history progresses) then why not fulfill that impetus in the forms it takes? why not provide the welfare that events and circumstances have made a necessity for people, etc.? having government in the first place seems to initialize this move towards "happy family" society, coercion is possible but by no means a necessity. Many European countries now have in terms of rights what many in the 19th and 18th centuries would have seen as only possible under some dictatorial authority. The market and society tends to adjust, as education begins more and more to convince even lower class people that they are, in fact, people and not born servants, born cogs, agitation for rights increases. Why because these people live under governments who at least feign benevolent for-the-people-by-the-people philosophy. If this should not be the case, then you have tyranny of the rich, church, or whomever, or a flat society of Tolstoyan communes wherein little happy families interact peacably with other little happy families (which strikes me, much as I wish it not so, as quixotic).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com