Aretae

The virtue of excellence

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Conflicts

My personal ethic -- substantially biologically determined, I suppose, but also moderately well researched --- suggests that the primary good worth pursuing is Individual Autonomy. It is undisputably a first-order good. People pursue autonomy, because autonomy is a high value to everyone, regardless any 2nd/3rd/10th order effects. Autonomy is, like happiness, a good that will be pursued for its own sake, and not as an instrumental goal. It is by no means the only goal, nor is it for most folks the highest goal...but it seems to be a superior good. As you get richer, you spend MORE of your income on autonomy.

Of course, as an economist, I have concluded that Wealth, and particularly economic growth rate is the god-metric...As folks get richer, they buy more of EVERYTHING they want.

As an economist I can't pretend that all actions which increase wealth increase autonomy, or that all actions which increase autonomy increase wealth. Pursuit of any one goal NECESSARILY conflicts from time to time with any other goal that isn't identical. Purchases are about opportunity cost. Tradeoffs are inevitable.

I furthermore have no patience for people who claim superior ethics and opinions about what people SHOULD find valuable. What people DO find valuable...what they pursue...that's the relevant metric. For instance, I find an awful lot of conservative ethical positions to be mostly crazy as presented. Basically: "You should want the same things I do, and if you don't, you are broken".

I consider the core position of conservatives, libertarians, and progressives all tremendously important:

1. Conservatives: Don't break the good things we already have.
2. Libertarians: More freedom is better.
3. Progressive: Protect of the poor/weak from the rich/powerful

On the other hand, I consider the core position of the elites to be evil:

4. More power to us, less autonomy to you.

I don't think you can necessarily pursue conservative, libertarian, and progressive goals all at the same time, even though they're all very important.
Posted by at

8 comments:

rightsaidfred said...

What people DO find valuable...what they pursue...that's the relevant metric.

I don't see autonomy as all that popular. People are happy to join a corporation, a church, a cult, an army, a political party, or a gang and give up autonomy for group protection.

I observe people pursuing Socialism, so they can do less and get more while someone else pays.

Parasitism in human affairs looks to me to be a winning strategy.

May 26, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Aretae said...

Autonomy is a higher order good. Let's instead of looking at people, look at people who can afford security without worrying too much. What then?

My line is that folks who cross (something like) the millionaire line (Deca-?, centi-?) are shockingly into autonomy. Leave me alone...I will do things my way is almost the rallying cry of the rich.

If that is so, then we can suggest that autonomy is a substnatial, costly good that most folks can't afford too much of right now...but which rich folks almost universally buy a lot of.

2. Socialism is a method not a goal.

May 26, 2011 at 1:33 PM
Joseph said...

Two things:
"For instance, I find an awful lot of conservative ethical positions to be mostly crazy as presented. Basically: "You should want the same things I do, and if you don't, you are broken"."

Not sure you can fully restrict this tendency to conservatives. From my experience, this is pretty broad-brush human nature. (Full disclosure: I am libertarian with conservative leanings)

And from your response to rightsaidfred: "Leave me alone...I will do things my way is almost the rallying cry of the rich."

Chicken vs. egg - I would say this attitude is how they got rich to begin with, though I freely admit that such an attitude doesn't guarantee anything. Still, if 95% of the rich think this way...

May 26, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Aretae said...

Joseph,

Well said...but the Progressives are at least embarrassed if you point out they're doing this. The conservative position holds this as good.

The chicken/egg problem could be checked against the lucky-rich.

How do folks who marry into money, or folks who win lotteries behave? I'd argue (without any evidence to speak of) that you see the same thing, giving a causality from wealth to freedom-seeking.

Test #2: Test US immigrants against the immigration pool from poor countries who were denied immigration status (close fails if you can)...check if the folks who immigrate (and are thus MUCH richer) have a higher freedom-pursuit preference than those who don't immigrate. I'd argue there's a pretty solid case here as well suggesting an arrow of causality.

May 26, 2011 at 3:38 PM
rightsaidfred said...

I don't see the rich/autonomous quest as good public policy if it amounts to rewarding lottery winners and those who organize insider trades, courtesy of central planners.

The modern immigrant may have more wealth, freedom, and autonomy relative to his "close fail" kinsman, but that does not, in general, make him one that will vote for that strategy. He's not that productive in total (why do have such a deep recession despite record immigration?), and modern immigration is a largely subsidized affair, with adherents pursuing largely non-autonomous strategies, such as living in own-ethnic neighborhoods and making more use of government services than native born.

May 26, 2011 at 10:17 PM
Aretae said...

RSF,

1. I'm a left-libertarian. I'm pretty massively against the government, whose primary purpose is to take money from the middle class, and distribute it to the plutocracy. No selling me there.

2. The modern immigrant pursues said methods because they're available, cheap, easy. I'm 100% for NO welfare to immigrants. Last generation of immigrants (Irish, Polish, etc.), talked about the same way, didn't pursue said strategy, because it wasn't available. If someone offers you free money...take it. If you build good enough incentives, you can take folks who would normally work, and teach them not to.

My (black) wife's grandmother suggested in the '60s that Welfare was a plot to destroy the black family and work ethic. So far, she at least predicted the consequences well.

3. The fact that rich people ALL seem to wish to be autonomous is a distinct question from how each got rich. If ALL the rich pay to be autonomous then it moderately invalidates Joseph's thesis that autonomy generates wealth, and points causality in the other direction.

May 26, 2011 at 10:26 PM
rightsaidfred said...

If a person becomes wealthy by non-autonomous means, are they really voting for autonomy?

A lottery is a non-autonomous event: a thousand people each give a thousand dollars to one randomly chosen person. This doesn't look the action of autonomous people.

May 27, 2011 at 5:41 AM
Aretae said...

RSF,

Seems like I'm not being clear. My claim: AFTER people become rich, they SEMI-universally and strongly pursue autonomy. This is because autonomy is a serious value to everyone. However, autonomy in our modern world is also expensive...I'm not arguing, for instance, that people choose autonomy over food...just that once basic needs are covered, folks will spend A LOT to buy autonomy.

May 27, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)