First it was Kling: here and here
Then there was my response
Then Kling upped the ante
Now Cowen is in.
Further, private conversations with unnamed liberals on my part have indeed confirmed that they think that Kling's position is so absurd as to constitute trolling, and so won't comment (feed the trolls). They can't actually believe that someone can mis-paint the core of progressivism so badly, and remain honest.
I disagree, and think that there's a fundamental misunderstanding going on...which my posts are trying to elucidate.
Trying again, with a slight shift. How do various political breakdowns view EVIL.
Libertarianism fundamentally cares about preserving the choices of the individual. The gut reaction from a libertarian is that EVIL is defined by actively hurting other people or actively forcing them to do things against their will (even to the point of motorcycle helmets...it's a violent visceral: "this is evil controlling bastards" response). Over time, libertarianism has also become actively concerned with the moderate to far future...and may ( I do ) feel strongly about negative impacts on future generations.
Conservativism fundamentally cares about preserving the goodness in our current societal structure. The gut reaction from a conservative is that EVIL is defined by trying to tear down the structures that are (while maybe imperfect) fundamentally good. Witness a conservative response to the constitution or the American Flag, or such. Over time, this has leaked into a general skepticism and active distrust of change in general.
Progressivism fundamentally cares about fairness and human dignity. The gut reaction from a liberal is that EVIL is defined by situations wherin a discoloration on Oprah's toe is addressed with expensive laser surgery, while a poor child in India quietly dies of malnutrition. Over time, this has leaked into a tendency to distrust market and traditional solutions.
All are real, reasonable ethics. I'd rather work to understand the other positions than fight. Anyhow...I'm public choice in politics, and think that part is inevitably corrupt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
I think you are pretty accurate about Ls and Cs, but your description of progressives seems lacking. It's not clear that concern for fairness should lead to calls for more regulation, especially if one believes that the regulators are likely to be just as foolish and venal as the people they are trying to regulate.
As a Conservative, I might be just as upset about the poor child in India as you are, I just don't see how that has anything to do with wanting more regulation. I might think that the fact that the poor aren't starving the USA has to do with the good institutions we've built up.
Ed,
Thanks for the comment.
I am a libertarian...I'll admit up front. However, I'm also committed to presenting the opposition fairly. (I need to bring out my Vernon Smith on types of fairness)
The rough question from the liberal (in response to your question) is: how else are you going to solve it soon?
Perhaps the liberal honestly believes like a good capitalist libertarian that if we left things capitalist for 30 years, there would be no more starving Indian kids. But if the progressive moral sense around fairness is developed in the way I say it is, then it is a moral outrage to wait 30 years for that to stop, rather than stepping on a couple bourgeois notions of unlimited property rights (or stupid deference to historical norms) while saving the kid today. </progressive rant>
It's a question of what is important, and while I am firmly in the libertarian camp...it is not (to me) obvious that my position is obviously correct to all comers.
Ed,
And I think you're absolutely correct in noting that the reason that USA poor are not starving has (mostly?) to do with the good-to-great institutions we have.
Um because by stepping on property rights they make things worse. Every single time.
When you feed the third world you actually end up doing two things,
1) you put local farmers out of business, because they can't compete with free food.
2) you end up placing more power in the hands of the local warlords who are running the place. The 3rd world simply does not have an agricultural production problem, they have a suboptimal distribution system.
Oh, I suppose it's possible to distribute food by going in with the military in an undeclared war and distributing food at the point of a gun, but that's hardly congruent with progressive ideology.
The libertarian solution is to accelerate local production and distribution by enabling micro-loans to third world farmers in order to accelerate local production and self reliance.
A 3rd world farmer doesn't need food, he needs $100 to buy better seed, better transport, and a few more tools. And he's happy to pay you back.
Mark,
I know what the libertarian solution is. The problem (from the progressive POV) is that the libertarian solution gets going, and takes effect, and ultimately succeeds on the order of a generation out.
And that doesn't do a damn thing about the issue today. If you've got a libertarian ethics...that's livable, we're building the future, with some pain now. If you've got a progressive ethics, you're contributing (passively) to dying children.
Regardless, the point here is about what the actual core differences are, not what are the solutions to the libertarian vision of the problem.
For a reverse of this.. check out:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/what-is-libertarianism.php
Then read the comments. I see nothing that is even close until comment 135.
"Progressivism fundamentally cares about fairness and human dignity."
I'm having a problem with this statement. A concern for "fairness" isn't a distinguishing characteristic of progressivism. I think the conservative, libertarian and progressive would all define fairness differently, but they all are concerned with it.
Additionally, if progressives were truly concerned with "Human Dignity" we would not see the same progressive social experiments that have failed in the past, to the detriment of "Human Dignity", tried once more. A contemporary example is single payer (government run) health care.
I think it's more accurate to say that progressive leaders make people believe that the progressive movement is concerned with fairness and human dignity to the extent necessary to get them to cede their individual power (money, liberty, etc) to the progressive group, which the progressive leader represents.
Perhaps I'm being too cynical, and if I have offended, please accept my apology. And, yes, I realize something similar could be said of conservatives.
Additionally, I think the example of starving children in India brings with it an entire discussion regarding the social contract. I don't mean to derail this discussion, but perhaps one of the distinguishing characteristics of progressivism is the rejection of the state social contract in favor of a global social contract? Not being a progressive, I'm going to have to rely on others to determine if this is a distinguishing characteristic.
Dave,
Fair enough. You first point at the weakest part of my statement (fairness). Unfortunately, I haven't figured out a way to say it more clearly.
I suppose I'll have to post again tomorrow...suggesting where the difference lies.
However, you also point at something else with which I vociferously disagree.
I think it is essential in this argument to separate the goals of the archetypical smart progressive (or libertarian) from those of the political classes and what happens when the ideals hit Washington.
The smart progressive is offended by Oprah's toe getting better medical care than a starving child in South Chicago. They find this a morally repugnant state of affairs.
The "progressive" politicians use this very real, very reasonable moral position to do what you say. HOWEVER, this in no way detracts from the initial smart progressive position.
As a correlary: The smart libertarian is offended by the government takeover of 1/6 the American economy. They find this a morally repugnant state of affairs.
The "libertarian" politicians use this very real, very reasonable moral position to make it so the current, tremendously stupid FDA/AMA/Insurance-company run health-care world stays where it is. HOWEVER, this in no way detracts from the initial smart libertarian position.
Also,
Rob, thanks for the heads up on progressivism at Matt's place.
They support my position that there is really a fundamental disagreement in core values. Indeed the hidden disagreement in core values makes it so that people can't take a serious look at the good side of the opposing position's point of view. Hence the Kling-ian caricature of progressives, and the Yglesian commentariat's failure to parse libertarians.
Talking past one another ftw.
At its core:
Progressivism says, "Others (experts/the_voters/etc) know what's better for you than you do, and should be given power to tell you what to do and back it up with force."
This is the basic problem that Hayek had and showed with similar political philosophies in The Road to Serfdom.
Libertarianism says, "You should be able to do what you want as long as you don't initiate force or fraud, without having force or fraud initiated against you."
I agree that there is a fundamental disagreement between progressives and libertarians, the two philosophies are about as far apart as possible.
I used to be a progressive, when I was young, until I realized the information problem in government and that no one can effectively make good rules for everyone else, then I began transitioning to libertarianism.
Doc,
This is (roughly) the Klingian position. And I think there's a problem with it. The problem is that if you can't actually get anyone to admit that this is their position, the position is not likely to be a fair estimate of the opposing position.
Again, I'll ask:
The libertarian believes that the individual freedom from (person-based) coercion is (among) the greatest good(s), and that the outcomes (even unto death/debilitation) don't factor much into the fairness question.
The progressive believes that the results of the system in terms of equalish access to important things (Oprah vs. southsider on food, medicine, etc.) is (among) the greatest good(s), and that the path (even unto government confiscation) doesn't factor much into the fairness question.
This seems a FAIR characterization of the progressive position. It is a disagreement over what is important...not an agreement over the libertarian view of what is important, followed by a dismissal of the progressive position as not leading to the libertarian goal.
Apologies if that was harsh...if so unintentional.
I can live with a statement that my goal in systems is to maximize FUTURE (real) wealth for all.
I claim that the progressive position is attempting to maximize PRESENT utility for all.
And the conservative position is attempting to minimize disruption to the basically GOOD life we lead.
I'm not sure that there is really such a fundamental difference in core values as you suspect. I think the vast majority of humanity, regardless of political persuasion, feels emotional sympathies aroused when they perceive others suffering. I think almost all of us aspire toward a world in which suffering is greatly reduced. I agree with Doc Merlin that the basic difference is that Progressives disagree with Libertarians regarding the seriousness of coordination problems inherent in political and bureaucratic decision-making. I tend to think this is because they have not read enough Hayek or von Mises, which I will admit is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's just that I've never seen a convincing argument demonstrating how the state can be made to work as efficiently as the free-market.
Todd,
While I can't argue with you as to the truth of most of what you're saying:
"I agree with Doc Merlin that the basic difference is that Progressives disagree with Libertarians regarding the seriousness of coordination problems inherent in political and bureaucratic decision-making.", or even the diagnosis (insufficient Hayek).
I have to, as before, disagree around the focus.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, though. Can someone explain to me better: What action can/could be taken to help the starving southsiders/indians/etc. in the next week or two? year? two years?
I don't think the libertarians are even trying to answer those questions. And this is where the departure is. If the libertarians were answering the questions that were important to the progressive, we might have some conversation, but the questions that matter to the two sides are deemed largely secondary by the other sides.
Aside: commenter Mark Horning will now reply: cut taxes 80%...people have more $, they privately fund the charities to take care of southsiders/Indians/etc.
Progressives view this as a chancy option, and slow. And they don't care much about richer folks well-being compared with poorer folks.
If you don't realize which questions the progressives think are important...and you simply judge them off the questions you think are important, you're missing their position entirely.
He who defines the questions wins the argument.
Small rhetorical note, switch "human dignity" to "human welfare"
Human dignity is a term more often used by the right to describe why they are against extropian human augmentation goals. As in Bushes Bio Ethics committee.
"I think it is essential in this argument to separate the goals of the archetypical smart progressive (or libertarian) from those of the political classes and what happens when the ideals hit Washington."
I stand corrected. My apologies for going down that path.
Rob,
Thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll adopt it in v.(current+1).
The fairness bit is even more troublesome for me. If someone has suggestions for that...I suppose I have to post on Vernon Smith's fairness stuff before I go further down this path
Dave,
First, you just moved up 97 spots on my estimation of your character, just by amazingly good blog-comment generosity. No one does that.
Second, there is no apology needed. If you went there after reading my post, then I was insufficiently clear.
Aretae, I went back and read your original post in which I saw that you had already addressed, and discounted my assertion that the difference was essentially an appreciation (or lack thereof) of Hayek. I guess I can see where you are coming from. I do sometimes feel like I am speaking a different language when I talk to my more progressive friends. But I don't think your characterization of progressives as being overly concerned with fairness/dignity is going to help me understand the point of view any better. At least, I don't see how that perspective would motivate opposition to organ sales or support for cap and trade. How is taxing carbon emissions going to improve the quality of life of anyone living today, let alone those yet to be born who will deprived of additional economic growth? And on the issues where progressives seem to have an answer to help people in the next hour: what happens when the money runs out? Ignoring constraints doesn't eliminate them. Doubting evolution and spontaneous order doesn't stop them from happening.
"Perhaps I'm mistaken, though. Can someone explain to me better: What action can/could be taken to help the starving southsiders/indians/etc. in the next week or two? year? two years?
I don't think the libertarians are even trying to answer those questions. And this is where the departure is."
The tsunami a couple of years back provides an illustration of both the libertarian and progressive solutions in action. Right after the tsunami, you saw an outpouring of individual contributions to non-governmental organizations whose stated goal was to help the victims. IMO, a very Libertarian-style action.
You also saw the U.S. military proceed immediately to the region to save people who were trapped and distribute aid. Perhaps the model for a progressive / collectivist response as our tax dollars were used to help the victims regardless of our own desires.
Perhaps the difference lies more in the idea that Libertarians are interested in helping people as much as anyone, but don't want to be coerced into doing so. Progressives want to help people and see no problem in coercing others to do so as well, whether those others want to or not.
However, you ask specifically regarding what action should be taken now to help others as you describe. All I can offer is increasing awareness of those who need assistance and providing a means by which the individual can help them if he or she can and would like to do so.
At the risk of going off on a tangent, perhaps another discussion is defining to what extent progressives are willing to take property from one individual to help out another?
"...you just moved up 97 spots on my estimation of your character..."
You don't know me very well yet, so I'll be prepared to lose a few spots... ;)
Dave,
Great example on the Tsunami.
Nice suggestion of future direction (extent).
meta-discussion.
Goals are ordinal. Goal 1, goal 2, goal 3....
In general, the progressive's position for the goal of helping the poor/downtrodden is higher than the libertarian or conservative's corresponding goal.
In general the libertarian's position for the goal of non-coercion is higher than the progressive or conservative's corresponding goal.
In general the conservative's position for the goal of not upsetting the good life we have is higher than the progressive or libertarian's corresponding goal.
</META>
This means that fairly...the progressive concern for solving the problems of the poor is higher.
TODD:
Great answer.
Now...watch me play a progressive.
Why cap and trade?
Because carbon emissions are done by the wealthy, and hurt everyone (article of faith), therefore net cost to the poor.
Why opposition to organ purchase?
Because the poor are liable to need cash more than the rich, and so the rich will buy their health at the expense of the poor...and the poor will sell their health (extra organs) in order for just cash.
Aretae, those answers are very unsatisfying. I just don't understand how that represents the terminus of a political philosophy. It sounds like your saying that the progressive view boils down to this: If X might hurt rich people more than poor people, do X. If Y might benefit rich people more than poor people, do not do Y. Is that basically the progressive equation?
Todd,
That's a shift in focus to what I said, and my position here is that focus is essential.
The purpose of the progressive position is to help the relatively poor and downtrodden.
If a policy is likely to shift utility away from the poor, it tends to be opposed by the progressive moral vision.
If a policy is likely to shift utility towards the poor, it tends to be supported by the progressive moral vision.
Again, the issue of politics intervening in the reality of implementation is a separate issue.
I think that if you assume that the progressive moral position is that those without power need help...and those in power don't. Indeed, a trade which increases the comparative power of the poor is relatively good. \
Can you dispute the results? for sure.
Can you dispute the moral intuition? That's a lot harder.
Aretae, accepting your proposition that the prime objective of the progressive is to help the poor/downtrodden still leaves me unable to explain how progressives seem to end up supporting so many policies that seem to harm the poor disproportionately: cap and trade, minimum wage laws, tobacco taxes, licensing restrictions, trade restrictions, prohibition on organ sales, soda taxes, the list is depressing.
Do you think that progressives would 1) admit that many people poor people have preferences for activities and items that do not accord with their own, and 2) allow them to pursue the fulfillment of those desires without hindrance so long as the pursuit does not involve harming another?
You talk about transferring utility, which is how I imagine many in the progressive movement view their policies. If that is the case, however, then, based on the policies listed above, it seems to me that progressives either do not accept or do not appreciate the subjective nature of utility and the implications subjectivity has for the a prior likelihood of success for top down government solutions.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that it seems to me that most progressives are less concerned about helping the poor get what they want, and more concerned about getting everyone to accept what progressives think everyone else should want.
That may seem uncharitable, but that seems to me to be the most direct way of connecting progressive philosophy with progressive policy.
Can someone explain to me better: What action can/could be taken to help the starving southsiders/indians/etc. in the next week or two? year? two years?
Simple. We could probably sweep their airforce from the skies withing a week or two. Now the Indians have nuclear weapons, so we'll probably have to use a few of our own, but hey, you can't make an omelet without braking a few eggs now can you?
Now once we have thoughtfully devastated their industrial infrastructure we ought to be able to distributing food to the poor starving Indian masses. (of which you just created a whole bunch more, but hey it's not results that matter now is it? It's only intent.
See, it doesn't matter that the so called progressives mean well because the results of their policies are always decremental. Every time. And that is where the big disconnect between the libertarian mindset is. Hey lets try X. Um, made things worse. The answer is well don't do that again, not lets do it again harder, it's sure to work this time...
"Do you think that progressives would 1) admit that many people poor people have preferences for activities and items that do not accord with their own, and 2) allow them to pursue the fulfillment of those desires without hindrance so long as the pursuit does not involve harming another?"
Actually, based on my conversations with a few progressives, the assumption is that experts should decide what people need, as opposed to what they want, and the government should supply the need or mandate that private enterprise supply the need.
It's a philosophy that assumes that people are slaves to their own uncontrollable greed which keeps them from eating right, buying the right items or being "socially conscious".
However, Aretae is correct. In every case, the overriding concern is either helping the "have nots" directly (government run health care), or helping them indirectly (cap & trade a.k.a. saving the planet from global warming). It's never a concern for the progressive that they are taking something from someone else to supply these things. Overwhelmingly the government is taking the property of "rich" people, who can afford any takings because their rich, or "corporations" which can afford any takings because it's assumed that all corporations are greedy and have more property than they should.
That the specific processes put in place already, like nationalized health care in other countries, haven't worked as advertised is immaterial because the goal of providing health care to all (which we already have in the U.S., BTW) is the important issue.
So, to the progressive, it's a moral issue that our nation hasn't instituted this government takeover of the private sector and anyone who disagrees with them is evil, on the payroll of corporations, etc.
It seems to me, truly, that what you are doing is trying to describe a progressive in a way that appeals to their vanity. That were you to try and describe them for a disinterested observer, with the goal of accuracy you must come to a different formulation.
What is exactly your goal with here? and the goal after that?
Now to work on more formulation I agree that if a bunch of economically aware Progressives got hold of say Cuba, that they would not seek to increase the power of the government, but would indeed devolve it. But how exactly? Outside of introducing democracy, freedom of speech, press etc. What would they do to alter the economic policies? Where would they introduce private ownership of property and trade? Where would they not?
Now the police matter where they aren't, you assert, for "brutality" I think is a red hearing. I don't think there is a major political faction openly for police brutality. But I will forgive you this. Certainly they might be more alarmed by such things than certain conservatives. But again they do not overall wish to move policing from government hands to private, indeed overall they wish to give the policing function of government much broader economic territory to function in. Even if they wish the police to act with greater kindness. To give one item, Clinton was very big on announcing that he brought 100,000 extra police to the streets.
Still I think you need as part of your definition or core if you will, to have something that explains the almost unfailing consistency for the kind of solutions they seek. Its not just a random coincidence or accident of historical development.
One way to shift is to rephrase government to democracy. The progressive seeks to increase the democratic rule over economic matters (at least up to some probably undefined limit that is well past where we in the US are). Now democracy in general leads to a technocratic solution, and increase in regulatory and policing powers, but it is democratic control that they seek not technocracy as such. (I think this is still not enough as I am sure they would not support the democratically spawned laws of the Jim Crow era... and it seems insufficient to have as a core that they want greater democracy but only for people that vote like them!)
About this idea that they seek in primary to help out the poor or downtrodden I am afraid I don't think this meets any kind or reality test. I believe in point of fact that christian conservatives give much greater of themselves to the works and money of charity than do progressives. More over when looking at the policies they want for its much more geared tword altering the life of the middle classes than the lower.
If the main goal of progressives was to help the poor, then they would do nothing but talk about transferring wealth to the bottom billion that live on a dollar a day or less. They would even think about something so silly as health care reform or cap an trade. So for instance their focus on a Single Payer system simply can't be understood with the poor as a premise. They could just expand Medicaid for that. Instead they seek to overall how all people, relate their care to the government.
Rob,
I am not describing progressives objectively. I am describing how they think, and what they care about.
It is interesting to note that NO ONE in this conversation has even attempted (sans Mark's parody) to address the position. There have been ~30 comments here. Not one of them has answered the question of how to address the progressive concern from a libertarian point of view.
Rather, there has been a pile of answers trying to suggest that they shouldn't really have that point of view, or that it is easier to portray them badly if you start believing that they hold Klingian position (which is unrecognizable to the progressives themselves).
My inclination is to believe that therefore, the libertarian commentariat has (a) no answer to that question, and (b) isn't really interested in communicating effectively with progressives (Mark admits this point blank). While this matches my prior experience (and my experience with folks of other political flavors), it is rather sad for the libertarians.
It means that in general those who I agree with politically will be simply incapable of convincing 99.?% of the world of our point of view, because they insist on caricaturing and demonizing the opposition.
STRONG CAVEAT: In general, the conservatives and progressives are no better than libertarians on this point. Point at police brutality and the conservatives argue that you're soft on crime. Point at perverse incentives in rent control and progressives argue that you're anti-poor.
I just had the (admittedly optimistic) hope that the libertarians might be interested in trying to communicate with the opposition and convince them of things, rather than trying to bludgeon them with arguments that carry emotional weight only for the libertarians.
Dave,
Thanks for the support here, with the support for the "why" of the progressive position.
I think that my next post starts down the path you embark on. I'll toss a couple more posts up over the next day or two elaborating on your direction here.
Todd,
To answer your question, I'm going to go with the most favorable interpretation you can get of Dave's comment: There is what you want, and what you need, and contra the libertarians(or economic purists), they are different.
Want: IPOD.
Need: Clean water.
If the poor do not have what they Need, and the rich are getting things that they only Want, this is a crappy state of affairs, which ought to be fixed. I think all y'all commenters still haven't parsed the issue at hand.
If the above, or ANY of the other examples I have posted results in (morally) bad outcomes, then it is incumbent upon the even moderately ethical progressive to try to fix it. If they can't fix it personally, then they MORALLY OUGHT to try to fix the system so it doesn't occur.
And the libertarians aren't even talking about the problem. Mostly, we're too busy explaining that over the course of 2 generations, the problem will fix itself: just look at singapore/hong kong/19th century US/etc. But since that is not addressing the moral issue that the progressive faces, we are not communicating at all.
Actually...I will post more in this direction soon.
Aretae, you claim that no one here has attempted to address the issue of how progressives think, yet there has been a lot of discussion regarding progressive motivations and outcomes as well as the mechanisms linking the two. What exactly constitutes an attempt to understand the progressive point of view? When I say that it appears that progressives do not appreciate the importance of subjective valuation, I am asserting that progressives assume that all those they wish to help share their opinion on what is important and what isn't. You draw a distinction of want vs. need by comparing ipods vs. clean water, yet clearly the policies advocated by progressives go far beyond such basic distinctions or fundamental domains. You say that libertarians aren't talking about how to fix the moral failures that progressives discuss, but I don't think that's accurate. I don't think libertarians ignore or are less disturbed emotionally by starving children. I think they do appreciate where progressives are coming from, they just think that the solutions progressives offer are ill-considered and likely to be unsuccessful.
Todd,
I was a little irate in my discussion. For that, I probably should have slowed down my response.
At the same time...the comment-discussion is a criticism of their positions, not a ... "Do they actually seem to think that?"
I wasn't trying to address the correctness of their solutions. I was trying to address why they are getting to where they get to. And everyone else seems to be addressing correctness of solution, not what problem they're trying to solve.
More on this in another post.
" Not one of them has answered the question of how to address the progressive concern from a libertarian point of view. "
I had no idea that was the project.. i thought you were trying to construct a definition of a progressive. I apparently missed the transition...was there one?
"I am describing how they think, and what they care about. " ..."there has been a pile of answers trying to suggest that they shouldn't really have that point of view"
Except that there appear to be gaps between what you think they think and what they do think...an inaccurate model will not help you persuade them.. you will simply be arguing and not covering enough ground.
eg the progressive desire to increase democracy.
I think I am just trying to broaden the perspective of what their point of view really is, not suggest that they shouldn't have it.
Rob,
I was trying to provide 3 definitions of 3 political points of view that were all equivalently fair.
I think that the following 3 statements:
"Conservatives care about stability"
"Progressives care about the poor"
"Libertarians care about money"
Is the level of intellectual fairness that I'm getting for progressives. Heck, EVERY one of the commenters has come in suggesting that Kling is basically right, when Progressives tend to think that Kling's position is active trolling because it is so (a) negative, and (b) far from true.
I tried, with my example above to be as fair as Kling's original post (and most of the commenters here) was to the progressive point of view.
If one is going to present the libertarian point of view from a libertarian-friendly position...isn't it also incumbent on me in the interests of fairness to present the progressive point of view from a progressive-friendly position?
Furthermore...as far as I can tell (may be my error)... almost no one has taken my position, and looked to see that all the odious motivations being applied to progressives are unneccessary in explaining them.
If the progressive cares about helping the poor now, and doesn't have a libertarian hangup with property rights, all the results that you want to add permises in order to explain fall out of the equation.
It just seems as if the libertarian seem sufficiently committed to defending the position that they don't want to admit that the progressive position is a simple, coherent, consistent position (albeit wrong).
This is my claim (updated as per Rob's suggestion):
Progressivism fundamentally cares about (equality of results) fairness and human (specifically the poor's) welfare.
Can someone distinguish between this claim, and the reality of progressive ideals (distinguishing between politicians/political activists and idealogues, just as one would with conservatives) that doesn't rely on assuming that other (usually libertarian) ideals are more important? I haven't yet seen it.
Progressive desire to increase democracy: Poor have little power. If they vote, they have more power. That's good. QED.
Please check how much arcane economagic you have to know (and believe) in order to hold the position that you counter with.
Todd,
Thanks for the respectful answer after my little rant.
I'm re-answering your last comment.
Values are ordered.
Progressives seem (so strongly that I'll argue it's true) to be actively interested in improving the lives of the poor NOW.
Libertarians seem (so strongly that I'll argue it's true also) to be much more concerned by lots of other stuff (Taxes, guns) than how to improve the lives of the poor in the very near future.
Do libertarians care? I think so. As much as the arbitrary progressive? I think not. Poof! (ed: really really stale joke).
Listen to the topics that the libertarians talk about. It isn't about today's poor. It's about yesterday's poor (who are now better due to capitalism), or about tomorrow's no-longer-poor (who are no longer poor due to capitalism).
Today's poor, be them Chicagoans, Indians, or Hatians, get remarkably little love from US on the libertarian side of the aisle.
Do I think that's a good choice? Mostly yes. I admit to caring about "the children" more than about the present. Do I think it's a slam-dunk to feel/value that way? No way, no how. And do I think that there are real differences between libertarian care and progressive care? Still yes.
Post a Comment